Item 3 - Exhibit 13 - Part 2EXHIBIT 8
MITJGATED NEGA TIYE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
nearby residential development, and the site's steeply sloping topography . State farmland mapping shows
the project site as "Urban and Built-Up Land," indicating that this land has already been converted to non-
agricultural use. There are no existing agricultural or forestry uses/operations at or adjacent to the site.
3. Air Quality: The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (BAAQMD) as non-attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM10). To
address these exceedances, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG, prepared the Bay
Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAOS) in September 2005 and Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule
(PMIS) in November 2005 . The PMIS discusses how the BAAQMD implements the California Air
Resources Board's 103 particulate matter control measures. The BAAQMD recently adopted the 2010
Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which updates the BAOS. The consistency of the proposed project with the
most recently adopted regional air quality plan, the CAP, is determined by comparing the project's
consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the CAP is based on population projections of the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that are based on the Town's General Plan in effect at the
time the CAP was approved, consistency of the project with ·the General Plan would indicate consistency
with the CAP. The project would be consistent with the use and density allowed on the project site by the
Los Gatos General Plan, and therefore , the project would be consistent with the CAP.
In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted new CEQA
significance thresholds and updated their CEQA Guidelines, which include these adopted thresholds of
significance for criteria air pollutants for both construction and operation of proposed projects. The
proposed project's construction and operational emissions are expected to not exceed these thresholds
when compared to screening criteria identified in the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. For single-
family residential use, the screening criteria are 325 single-family units for operational emissions and 114
units for single-family residences for construction emissions. The proposed single-family residence would
remain below these criteria and therefore, a detailed air quality assessment would not be required and the
project's air quality impact is expected to be less than significant. However, 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines
also specify that the project must also meet two other criteria: (1) the BAAQMD's Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures must be implemented during construction; and (2) the project does not include
demolition, simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases, simultaneous construction of
more than one land use type; extensive site preparation; or extensive material transport (more than 10,000
cubic yards of soil). The project would meet the second criterion so that implementation of the following
measure is considered to reduce the project's construction-related criteria pollutants to a less-than-
significant level:
MITIGATION 1: To limit the project's construction-related dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor
emissions, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall
be implemented:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved
access roads) shall be watered two times per day .
b . All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
c. All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
1UNE,2011 3
MlTlGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE
e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are
used.
f . Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing
the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control
measure Title 13 , Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage
shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
h . A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency
regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
MITIGATION MONITORING: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Community
Development shall be responsible for ensuring that these measures are properly incorporated into project
plans and implemented during project construction.
4. Biological Resources: The project site consists of a steeply sloping hillside vegetated with coac;t live
oaks (Q uercus agrifolia) and an understory of vinca (Vinca major), an ornamental groundcover. A large
number of the trees present on the site are the result of regrowth from the stumps of trees previously cut
on the property .
Special-Status Species. Within the study area, oak woodland habitat also provides nesting habitat for
special-status bird species , as well as many other migratory bird species. Site clearing activities (e .g.,
grubbing, grading, trenching, and tree removal or pruning) could result in direct or indirect impacts to
nesting birds by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. Direct and indirect impacts
on special-status and migratory bird species would be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.
Implementation of the following measures will reduce significant impacts on special-status and migratory
bird species to a less-than-signi ficant level:
MITIGATION 2 : If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are necessary, such activities should be
conducted outside of the breeding season between September 1 and January 31 to avoid impacts
to nesting birds.
MITIGATION 3: If project construction begins during the breeding season (February I to August 31),
preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within the project footprint and a 300-foot buffer. by a
qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to equipment or material staging,
pruning/grubbing or surface-disturbing activities. If no active nests are found, no further
mitigation is necessary .
MITIGATION 4 : If active nests, i.e. nests with eggs or young birds present, are found, non-disturbance
buffers shall be established at a di stance sufficient to minimize disturbance based on the nest
location, topography, cover, the nesting pair's tolerance to disturbance and the type/duration of
potential disturbance. No work shall occur within the non-disturbance buffers until the young
have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. Buffer size should be determined in
JUNE, 2011 4
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE
cooperation with the CDFG and the USFWS. If buffers are established and it is detennined that
project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work should cease immediately and the CDFG
and the USFWS should be contacted for further guidance.
MITIGATION 5 : If active nests are found within 300 feet of the project area, a qualified biologist shall be
on site to monitor the nests for signs of nest disturbance. If it is detennined that construction
activity is resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFG and the
USFWS shall be contacted .
MITIGATION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public
Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in
final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction .
Construction activities in the vicinity of occupied bat roosts could result in the destruction of the occupied
roosts of special-status bat species. In addition, disturbance during the maternity roosting season could
result in potential roost abandonment and mortality of young. Direct and indirect impacts to special-
status bat species would be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Implementation of the
following measures will reduce significant impacts on special-status bat species to a less-than-significant
level:
MITIGATION 6: Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted to identify suitable bat roosting habitat
including rock outcroppings, snags, rotten stumps, decadent trees with broken limbs, exfoliating
bark, cavities, etc. Sensitive habitat areas and roost sites shall be avoided to the maximum extent
practicable. If no suitable roost sites or evidence of bat roosting are identified, no further
minimization measures are necessary .
MITIGATION 7: If suitable roosting habitat is identified, the following measures shall be conducted:
a. A qualified biologist shall survey suitable roost sites immediately prior to the removal or
grading of rock outcroppings, debri s piles, man-made structures, etc.
b . Removal of s uitable tree roost sites shall be conducted by first removing limbs smaller than 3
inches in diameter and peeling away loose bark. The tree should then be left overnight to
allow any bats using the tree/snag to find another roost during their nocturnal activity period.
c. A qualified biologist shall survey the trees/snags a second time the following morning prior
to felling and removal.
d. Trees should be removed during the non-breeding season between September 1 and February
I to avoid disturbance to maternal colonies or individuals.
MITlGA TION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public
Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in
final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction.
Tree Removal. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two
or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department.
Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance,
Tree CatWpy-Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24-
JUNE,2011 5
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE
inch box size trees or two 36-inch and/or 48-inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree
to be removed.
In order to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed project on site trees, the project applicant
retained Deborah Ellis, consulting arborist and horticulturalist, to complete an arborist report. The Town
retained Arbor Resources (AR) to conduct a peer review of Ellis' arborist report, and to update the peer
review for the current proposal. The Ellis and AR surveys were completed in February 2005 and January
2007 and February 2011. Copies of these reports are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development
Department. Report recommendations are included as Attachment 2 of the Initial Study.
The arborists' surveys of the project site indicate that there are 13 trees on the property. These include
coast live oak, valley oak, a pine, and two almonds. Of these trees, eight are regulated by Town code
(Nos. 3, 5-9, 19, and 21). The proposed new residence and its access driveway would require removal of
five regulated trees (Nos. 3, 5-7, and 21) and one non-regulated almond tree (No.4). With respect to the
footprint of the new residence on the site, AR identifies additional ordinance-size coast Jive oak trees
(Nos. 22, 23, and 24) to be retained in the vicinity of the new residence . AR indicates that the longevity
and stability of two oak trees on the site (Nos. 8 and 9) and one large oak tree on the adjacent property
(No. 2) would be adversely affected by the proposed project design and, makes the following
recommendations:
•
•
•
Tree No. 2: The large live oak located on the adjacent lot (341 Bella Vista) but very close to the
property boundary, would be adversely affected by implementation of the proposed design. To reduce
impacts and increase the opportunity for tree survival and longevity, AR recommends that any storm
drains and sub-drains located within 20 feet of the tree's trunk be established so that they are no
farther than 24 inches beyond the proposed retaining walls. The sections of the lines extending uphill
and downhill from the retaining walls should be realigned to be parallel to the homes' walls until they
are 20 to 30 feet from the tree's trunk (this may also require shifting the inlets and overflow pump
wells farther away).
Tree No. 8: Although proposed plans indicate this tree would be retained, it would be severely
affected by project construction and predisposed to premature decline and instability. This is a
relatively young oak that grows upslope, away from the proposed home at 339 Bella Vista. The
impact of primary concern is the proposed walkway that would be located at roughly three feet
downhill from this tree's trunk. When considering overexcavation needed to construct the walk, a cut
within one to two feet from the trunk would be expected. To minimize excavation and impacts, AR
recommends that the walkway be constructed on top of grade (including base materials, edging and
forms) with a maximum soil cut of four inches, and overexcavation limited to 12 inches beyond the
walkway edge. One potential option is for the walkway to be super-reinforced and base material
omitted from the design .
Tree No. 9 : Proposed plans indicate this tree would be retained, but it would be severely affected by
project construction and predisposed to premature decline and instability. This oak is situated at the
street and appears to be in reasonably good health . However, its structure is formed by four relatively
equally-sized trunks with very weak attachments. Removal of this tree is recommended in the
applicant's arborist report, and AR concurs regardless of the proposed project. Based on its structural
condition , AR indicates that no design revisions are warranted . However, if project-related impacts
are to be reduced , they should include omitting any grading beyond the proposed driveway and wall,
and restricting overexcavation beyond the driveway and wall to 12 inches. Removal of one of the four
trunks would be necessary due to its low clearance and orientation toward the drive.
JUNE,2011 6
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE
Development of this project in combination with the home proposed on the adjacent property at 341 Bella
Vista Avenue, would have potentially cumulative effects on Tree No . 2, which is located between these
two proposed homes. Implementation of tree protection measures specified b y the arborists (specifi ed
below) would reduce the project's impact on this tree to a less-than-significant level, and therefore, the
project's contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable.
To minimize potential damage to trees that are proposed to be retained (particularly those with significant
value identified above) as well as those potentially affected by the development of the proposed project
(339 Bella Vista) as well as development of the adjacent lot (341 Bella Vista), the following meas ure will
be required to reduce potential tree impacts to a less-than-significant level:
MITIGATION 8 : The project applicant shall be required to implement all Tree Protection Specifications
made by Deborah Ellis (February 8, 2005) and Arbor Resources (January 29, 2007 and February
24, 2011). These measures are included in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study .
MITIGATION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public
Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in final
project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction.
5. Cultural Resources: The project site is undeveloped and the potential for encountering cultural
resources during project construction would be low due to the site's relatively steep topography and the
site's elevated location away from creeks . There is typically a higher potential for encountering
archaeological resources in areas adjacent to or near a river or creek.
6 . Geology and Soils: The project site slopes downhill toward the north with slopes averaging 53
percent. The proposed plan estimates that approximately 24Tcubic yards (c.y.) would be cut and 96 c.y.
would be filled. Town requirements will include provision of a interim and final erosion control plans.
Such measures would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level.
A review of the Town's hazards maps indicates that the project site has no erosion potential, moderate
shrink-swell potential, low slope stabi1ity hazard (due to slope steepness), high potential for fault rupture,
and moderate potential for seismic shaking. Very low liquefaction and no debris flow hazards were
identified for the site. The Town's Fault Map indicates that the site is located approximately 500 feet
north of a concealed fault.
Between 1998 and 2007, soil and foundation as well as geotechnical investigations were completed for
the project. Several peer reviews of these investigations were completed by the Town's geotechnical
consultant, Geomatrix, between December 2006 and November 2007 . Copies of these studies are on file
at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. These investigations involved review of available
geologic maps and aerial photographs , drilling four test borings, and laboratory soils testing. These
investigations concluded that the site has a low potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading. These
studies also indicate that the site does not present any signs of slope instability hazards such as colluvium-
fllled swales, undercut cliffs or banks, or areas with recent evidence of Jandsliding. These analyses
recommend that a soldier pile retaining/debris wall be constructed on the east side (upslope side) of the
building footprints to keep the Bella Vista right-of-way stable during excavation and construction.
The site lies within the seismically active Bay Area, but is not within any of the "Earthquake Fault Zones"
established by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972. The project would be subject to
strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake, with a low potential for ground rupture at the site .
Geomatrix indicates the closest know faults are traces of the potentially active Berrocal and Shannon fault
JUNE,2011 7
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE
zones located about l ,200 feet north-northeast and l ,000 feet south-southwest of the project site. The
active San Andreas fault zone is located about 2.5 miles southwest of the property. The potential for fault
gro und rupture on the project site is considered to be low because of the distance from the se faults.
However, the subject property will be subject to very strong to violent ground shaking during a future
large earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault zone, or on one of the other major active faults zones in
the region. It should be noted that most of the Bay Area as well as surrounding residences are subject to
groundshaking hazards. Compliance with seismic design parameters per the Uniform Building Code
would be adequate to address .regional seismic safety concerns such as groundshaking.
Given the extent of grading proposed and the extensive portion of the home that would be located below
grade, the following measure shall be required to reduce identified potentiaJiy significant geologic, soils,
and geotechnical constraints to less-than-significant level s:
MITIGATION 9: The project shall incorporate all recommendations in Ali M. Oskoorouchi's geological
and geotechnical investigation for the proposed project (included as Attachment 3 of the Initial
Study) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and
subsurface soil conditions on the site.
MIT1GA TION MONITORING: Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Directors of the Community
Development and Parks and Public Works Departments shall be responsible for ensuring that the
recommended measures are properly incorporated into the project design and implemented during
construction.
7. Greenhouse Gases: "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the
surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly
referred to as "global warming ." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of
the earth 's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing
terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation . The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the ttansportation sector (on-
road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG
emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globaiJy. Industrial and commercial
sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.
California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding
greenhouse gases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is in the process of developing
CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions but thresholds have yet to be established. GHG
statutes and executive orders (EO) include EO S-1 -07, EO S-3-05, EO S-13-08, EO S-14-08, EO S-20-04,
EO S-21 -09, AB 32, AB 1493, AB 3018, SB 97, SB375, SB 1078 and 107 , and SB 1368 . AB 32
establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to reduced statewide GHG emissions to 1990
levels by 2020 . Pursuant to this requirement, the California Air Resources Board (CARE) adopted its
Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies to achieve required reductions by 2020. However, on
March 18 , 2011, the San Francisco Superior Court issued a final ruling that effectively blocks the CARE
from implementing GHG reducing actions outlined in the Scoping Plan until CARB complies with
CEQA. If the decision is finalized, the CARE will have to reconsider the environmental impact of the
Scoping Plan and examine alternatives to the Scoping Plan's cap and trade policy.
Although implementation of certain elements of the Scoping Plan at the statewide level may be delayed,
local GHG reduction policies would still apply to this project. In April 2008, the Town adopted near-term
policy recommendations from the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative.
These policies require the submittal of a completed LEED or Build It Green 's GreenPoint Rated checklist
JUNE, 2011 8
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA A VENUE
as part of an planning applications and require all new public construction and renovation projects over
5,000 s.f. to achieve at least a LEED Silver certification. Requiring a checklist as part of a planning
application does not require that the proposal incorporate green building practices. However, it will
enable the Town to track the current use of green building practices and establish a baseline for future
green building practices and requirements . The checklist requirement will also draw the attention of
design and building professionals to the possibility of incorporating green building techniques into future
projects. In addition , requiring LEED certification for new public construction and renovations will set an
example and encourage sustainable practices for private developments .
Short-term GHG emissions would also be generated by project-related construction activities. The
BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for construction-related GHG emissions,
but the project's construction-related emissions are expected to have a less-than-significant impact on
global climate change based on GHG modeling results done for larger projects . However, the BAAQMD
encourages implementation of construction-related GHG reduction strategies where feasible, such as:
using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment, local building materials
(within 100 miles), and recycling of construction and demolition waste , to reduce construction-related
GHG emissions. The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of
the California Code of Regulations , Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor
vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissions associated with
project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required under Mitigation Measure #2 in
Section 3, Air Quality).
Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to long-term increases in greenhouse gases
(GHGs) from direct sources (traffic increases and minor secondary fuel combustion emissions from space
heating). Development occurring as a result of the proposed project would also result in other indirect
operational increases in GHG emissions as a result of electricity generation to meet project-related
increases in energy demand . Electricity generation in California is mainly from natural gas-fired power
plants. However, since California imports about 20 to 25 percent of its total electricity (mainly from the
northwestern and southwestern states), GHG emissions associated with electricity generation could also
occur outside of California. Space or water heating, water delivery, wastewater processing and solid
waste disposal also generate GHG emissions.
The adopted BAAQMD's operational GHG screening criterion for single-family residences is 56 units ,
and the proposed project would fall well below this criterion and therefore, the project's operational GHG
emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD GHG significance thresholds; consequently , a detailed,
quantitative assessment of the project's GHG emissions would not be required. Although GHG emissions
would be less than significant, the proposed project will be required to comply with energy efficiency
requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Administrative Code). In
addition , a GreenPoint checklist has been prepared for the project consistent with Town 's adopted GHG
policies and the project. The project is estimated to achieve a GreenPoint rating score of 105, which
would meet the minimum advisory GreenPoint rating score of 50 _points. The GreenPoint checklist
considers project design elements, but also considers recycling of construction waste.
8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and
Substances Sites List No significant public health risks are anticipated since the project site is
undeveloped . There are no known previou s uses on the site that would pose the potential for public
health risks or presence of contaminants at the site.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality: Storm Drainage. At present, the 0.11-acre project site is undeveloped.
The proposed residence would result in development of 2,063 s.f. of impervious surfaces (building ,
JUNE, 2011 9
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -339 BELLA VfSTA AVENUE
driveway, and porch), covering 42 percent of the site. Such a small increase in areal extent of impervious
surfaces would not be expected to result in a significant change in downstream peak surface flows or
runoff volumes from the project site.
Runoff from the roof of the proposed residence and garage would collect in gutters and discharge via
downspouts to splashblocks at the base of the residence. All surface flows would be directed away from
buildings into drainage swales, storm drain inlets, and drainage systems. Project drainage plans indicate
that overland flows would collect in three storm drain inlets on the south, east, and west sides of the
residence. Six-inch PVC drain pipe on the east and south sides of the site would convey accumulated
drainage flows westward to detention trench consisting of a shallow gravel basin on the lower hillside of
project site for on-site percolation. An overflow pumpwell would pump any excess accumulated runoff
flows to an energy reduction box on Bella Vista Avenue for discharge by overland flow on the street.
This storm drainage methodology is consistent with requirements on similar properties and proposes to
direct drainage to public facilities and limit impact on adjacent properties. Although runoff from the
proposed residence would be collected in a pipe system, storm flows would be discharged slowly into
subsoils through the use of on-site infiltration areas, protecting surface water quality. Design and sizing
of on-site percolation areas would be subject to review and approval by the Town, and such approval
would reduce the potential for downstream flooding and erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level.
Flood Hazards. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate
Maps for the project area, the project site is not within the 100-year floodplain. The Santa Clara Valley
Water District's Maps of flood control facilities and limits of one percent flooding as well as the Town of
Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Plain maps show the project site does not lie within a flood zone.
Therefore, no significant flood hazard impacts would be anticipated.
Water Quality. New, more stringent water quality regulations of the Clean Water Act have recently been
triggered because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program has
failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and the South San Francisco Bay.
Evidence includes violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances,
and fish consumption health advisories.
These new regulations require that all discharges shall comply with Provision C.3, New and
Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. R2-2009-0074 of the NPDES permit program.
However, single-family home projects that are not a part of a larger plan of development are not
considered Regulated Projects per the provisions of C.3. In addition, the total development area would be
less than one acre and, per the provisions of the State Construction General Permit, no Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for the project. The proposed project plans (Sheets
C-1 through C-7, dated July 22, 201 0) include extensive storm runoff collection and treatment facilities to
address the maintenance of water quality conditions for drainage flows from impervious surfaces. The
proposed project is a single family detached home and is therefore not a Regulated Project per Provision
C.3. Even if both 339 and 341 Bella Vista proposals were considered combined, their total impervious
area created and/or replaced would be approximately 5,050 s.f., which is below the Regulated Project
threshold of 10,000 s.f.
10. Land Use and Planning: The proposed project is consistent with the ex1stmg General Plan
designation of "Medium Density Residential, 5 -12 units per acre." This designation allows for
residential uses at densities of up to 12 units per acre. The proposed residence would be developed on a
0.11 -acre site, which would be within allowable densities . The minimum lot size in the R-1:8 zone is
8,000 square feet for each dwelling unit, and the proposed project would be located on a 4,915 square-
JUNE, 2011 10
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE
foot lot. Since the lot is smaUer than the required minimum lot size, it is considered a nonconforming lot.
Nonconfonning lots are considered a hardship for the owners and certain exceptions to the Town 's Code
(such as minimum building setbacks) may be allowed if compatible with established setbacks in the
neighborhood .
The project site is located adjacent to residential uses. Access is from Bella Vista Avenue and the project
parcel is a residential Jot that is undeveloped, located adjacent to developed residential properties to the
west and east. The proposed single-family residential use would be consistent with existing adjacent and
nearby single-family residential uses on Bella Vista Avenue.
11. Mineral Resources: The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally-
important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity.
12. Noise: The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00
a.m. to 8:00p.m. on weekdays and 9:00a.m. to 7 :00p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also
limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Project construction would
result in temporary short-tenn noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction
noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and
slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact
equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to
80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. With controls, construction noise levels
could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance.
Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. There are
single-family residences located east and west of the site. The residences to the east are located
approximately 75 feet from the proposed residence, while the townhomes to the west are located
approximately 40 feet from the residence . At 40 feet, the ordinance noise limit (85 dBA at 25 feet) would
result in maximum noise levels of 81 dBA, respectively at the closest residences to the west and east.
Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building
exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. To maintain such interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest
residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 70 to 80 dBA and this exterior noise level is used as
a significance threshold or criterion. Therefore, even with compliance with the Noise Ordinance limit of
85 dBA at 25 feet , construction noise levels could result in periodic speech interference effects when
heavy equipment is operated on the project site. However, such levels would only occur for a short
period, primarily when grading and drilling equipment are operating near the western project boundary,
not during the entire project construction period. Due to the small size of this project and short duration
of construction, such a temporary impact would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by
enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance.
Long-term noise increases associated with the project would result from increased traffic along Bella
Vista Avenue and residential activities (i .e., operation of appliances and maintenance equipment such as
lawnmowers, blowers, etc.). Traffic increases associated with the project would be minor and would not
significantly or measurably increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity . Noise generated by
project residential activities would be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses and
would not conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood.
13. Population and Housing: The proposed project would . consist of one single-family residence on one
parcel, and would not result in intensification of residential uses or significantly increase local or regional
population. Since the project would not extend new roadways or utilities to any adjacent undeveloped
JUNE, 2011 11
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA V!STA AVENUE
lands, the project would not induce new growth . The project site is currently undeveloped and no existing
housing units would be displaced by the project.
14. Public Services: Services are currently provided to residential uses surrounding the project site. The
project would not significantly increase demand for public services since thi s is an in-fill development
and services are already provided to the surrounding area . The Santa Clara County Fire Department
provide s fire protection services to the project area. The Department bas rev iewed the proposed project
only with respect to site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations. The
required fire flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure is available from area water mains and fir e
hydrant(s) meet the required spacing. The proposed residence also would be subject to formal plan review
by the Department requirements and will be required to comply with adopted model codes.
15. Recreation: The proposed addition of one residential un it would incrementally add new population to
the area, and thereby increase the demand for recreational s ervices. This incremental increase would not
be significant given the small size of the project.
16. Transportation and Traffic: The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) specifies
that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hour trips could be approved
without a comprehensive traffic report if it is determined that the benefits of the project to the Town
would outweigh the impact of increased traffic. However, the project would be subject to payment of a
traffic mitigation fee. The project would result in a net increase of ten trips per day with one trip during
the AM peak hour and one trip during the PM peak hour. According to the Town's traffic determination ,
traffic generated by the propo sed project would represent a minor impact and no additional traffic studies
would be required.
The Town 's Zoning Ordinance would require provision of two parking spaces for the proposed single-
family residence. The project would meet the parking requirements by provision of a two-car garage and
two additional parking spaces in the proposed driveway.
Approximate grading quantities for the project are 247 c .y. of cut and 96 c.y . of fill, resulting in a net
export of 150 c.y. of fill . Export of 150 c.y. of material off-site could generate up to 13 truckloads or a
total of 26 one-way truck trips (assuming 12 c.y. per haul truck). If the adjacent home (341 Bella Vista)
is constructed at the same time, a total of 28 truckloads or 56 one-way truck trips could be generated on
Bella Vi s ta Avenue. Since the Town will prohibit hauJ tru c k operations on local roads between 7 a .m. and
9 a .m. as well as 4 p.m . and 6 p .m., trucks operations would occur 6.5 hours per day. As suming
approximately five to nine trucks could be filled per hour, the 28 truckloads or 56 truck trips would occur
over a one-to two-day period . Due to access limitations on Bella Vista Avenue, the Town will require the
applicant to work with the Town Parks and Public Works Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a
traffic control pJan to ensure safe a nd efficient traffic flow under periods when soil i s hauled on or off the
project site. This would include, but would not be limited to , provisions for the developer/owner to place
construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities , or
providing additional traffic control. All trucks hauling soil, s and, and other loose debris will be required
to follow a designated route between Los Gatos Boulevard and Bella Vista Avenue (as specified by the
inspector) and be covered (or at least two feet of freeboard must be maintained). These requirements will
reduce potentia! traffic safety hazards to a less-than-significant level.
17. Utilities and Service Systems: Utilities are currently provided to adjacent residential us es. While
some utility extensions may be required onto the site, no major off-site utility improvements would be
expected to be required for project development since this is an in-fill development and involves
development of one residen ce on one existing parcel.
JUNE, 2011 12
EXHIBIT 9
· PATRICKK. TILLMAN
Attorney at Law
July 1, 2011
Lead agency:
Project Title and
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
1 I 0 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Location: 339 & 34I Bella Vista Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-06-46 and S-06-64
Subdivision application(s) M-06-09
Negative Declaration ND-08-02 and ND-08-03
Regarding: Objections to MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TION[S]
To Whom it may concern:
I am an owner of I 50 Maggi Court, Los Gatos, California. I will be
seriously-negatively impacted if the above-referenced application(s) to build at
339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, California are granted.
I read the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION[S] pertaining to the
above. They are completely devoid of the "human" aspect to the proposed
projects and their technical information is evasive garbage.
In 2008, these same people submitted an application for the same project.
It, too , was chalked full of distortions, e.g. 1) discussions were had with the
affected neighbors and 2) pictures were submitted of the impacted residents
(looked like they were bui lding in the Yosemite National Park). When we were
drug into that process, we -10-15 families in our neighborhood -told Applicant
several times, we warned him in no uncertain terms, that any building on these lots
must be in strict compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines ("HDS&G").
2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 615-96 70 Fax: (408) 615-9 715 E-mail: pat@pktlawofftee.com
The primary applicant this year is again Dan Ross. Since his/this project
application was shot down in 2008, instead of heeding our warnings , Mr. Ross
made himself part of the Los Gatos General Plan Update Advisory Committee
(from 2008 until 2010), and then part of the North-40 Advisory Committee (since
2011 ). Mr. Ross has been providing his invaluable opinions regarding land use to
the Town of Los Gatos on a volunteer basis, actively ingratiating himself with the
powers that be.
Mr. Ross told us/me that he was getting the assistance of Los Gatos
Planning personnel in this re-submission. Most troubling of all his comments was
that he has no plans consistent with the FAR requirements because he was told by
a Town of Los Gatos official, someone in the Planning Department, not to even
bother submitting any. In essence: "don 't worry about it."
On an historical note, as to this same location and a similar project, the
Planning Department of Los Gatos stated:
COMMENTS/CONCERNS:
11. The Town sets a high priority in preserving its hillsides,
natural views, and the character if its neighborhoods. This site
is in a very visible location that has the potential to greatly
impact these views and the character of this neighborhood.
The Planning Department can not recommend approval of the
design as submitted because of its potential to greatly impact
these views, is not in keeping with the residenc es in the area,
and has potential privacy impacts with the residences of the
B ella Vista Development that is now under construction. The
applicant should consult with an architect to develop a design
that addresses the massiveness of the rear elevation ,
articulates the bulk of the second story from the lower story,
minimizes privacy and view impacts, minimizes grading and
retaining walls, and preserves the sites existing trees .
(Emphasis added)
Bella Vista Proj. App. PRJ-97-020
Rec: 02-1 2-97
2
: t
; I
Similar concerns were voiced by the MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL on
April 3, 2003 :
DISCUSSION:
The Planning Commission considered this matter on February
26, 2003 . The Planning Commission unanimously denied the
appeal due to lack of progress. The Commission further
directed 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)
Why is this Applicant being treated differently?
As to specific issues raised in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARA TION[S]:
Project Description.
a. Lot size. The lots are small -6,038 sq. ft . and 4 ,106 sq. ft.
Applicant proposes to reduce the size of the larger lot from 6 ,038 sq. ft . to 4 ,915
sq . ft. He disregards the law that says you can not make a non-conforming lot
more non-conforming. (Gov. Code §66412(d)) The adjacent lot would then
increase in size from 4,106 sq. ft. to 5,240 sq. ft . Both lots, before and after the
shift, are substantially below the 8,000 sq. ft. minimum for R-1 :8 zoned projects.
b. House Size. Applicant wants to construct two (2) 2.760 sq. D.
homes, one (1) on a 4,915 sq. ft. lot and the other on a 5,240 sq. ft. lot. Both Jots
sit on a +53° (average) slope within the purview of the HDS&G.
There is virtually no room in front of each house (to the road) and none
between their downhill face and multiple neighbors -us. Applicant represents that
there is forty feet (40 ') between the downhill face of the project and the neighbors
-us. Again, a lie. He also omits the fact that 25 feet of that distance consists of a
gravel walkway (....., 10 feet wide) and our 15 foot backyards. At the Northern end
of the project, these monstrosities will be built right up to the downhill lot-line.
3
c. Environmental Impact Report. He says one is not needed. Do
you need an EIR to build in someone's backyard?
1. Aesthetics.
a. Across the street. No problem for those living across the street
that may have enjoyed the trees and/or the view, he says, the roof of the proposed
homes will be lower than the canopy of the + 150 year old oak trees they are
killing/ removing. The Bella Vista residents will certainly be far happier looking
at the new roofs .
b. "Visual character along Bella Vista." Construction of these two
(2) homes will look like an overstuffed backpack on the West side of the street.
They detract from the serenity of that section of the street -they are out of place.
c. View analysis. Applicant's report properly defines the "view
analysis"1 issue, then goes on to prove/factually admit -contrary to his own
conclusions -that his project violates the HDS&G from all three (3) of the
locations to which he makes reference. At all three (3) locations -according to
this report-the project is visible based on the HDS&G standard. But instead we
get: "Hey! I You can't see the poles from here ... good thing these damn trees and
shrubs block the view, otherwise, we'd have failed the 'view analysis'."
Applicant also invokes the view blockage "by an approved new building on
the parcel located between the site and Alberto Way." First, view blockage by a
building more appropriately calls for moving the viewing platform. Second, for
how many years have we been threatened with more construction at The Los Gatos
Motor Lodge? 10 l! Third, when will this proposed project block the view? 5-10
years from now? Fourth, the view of the project is not blocked if you move 10
feet from either side of the viewing platform. And fifth , if built, you can probably
see the project from Cupertino. Who is he kidding?
1 Applicant identifies the issue in footnote #2:" 'Potential ' is defined as capable of being seen from a viewing
platform if trees or large shrobs are removed, signifLCantly proned, or impacted by construction ." (Emphasis added)
4
d. HDS&G Minimum Grading.
Grading Standards:
Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels are considered
excessive and contrary to the objectives of the Hillside Design
Standards and Guidelines. Grade to the minimum amount
necessary to accommodate buildings and to site structures
consistent with slope contours. These are maximum numbers
and may be reduced by the deciding bo<;Iy if the project does not
meet grading standards or is not consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Hillside Development Standard and Guidelines.
Maximum Grade Cuts-8' (From Chart)
The Applicant proposes two (2) grade cuts totaling 17 feet. The first is
4Y2'. Three (3) feet later, another 12Y2 foot cut is required. Because of their close
proximity, the two (2) "cuts" should be considered as one (1 ). To further
aggravate the problem, the last 4Y2 ' of the downhill edge of the house sticks up 3 '
above the natural slope, indicating the cuts should be even more drastic and
demonstrates just how steep this hillside is.
In the "6. Geology and Soils" section, Applicant asserts that
"approximately 247 cubic yards" of soil will be cut from each house location -
presumably to build the foundation of the house. The quantity of soil to be
removed does not sound massive because it's not -the angle of the hillside is so
steep, they need only shave off a little topsoil.
He goes on to state that 96 cubic yards of soil will be returned -"filled."
True (maybe), but again misleading. The 96 cubic yards is "filled" outside the
house-foundation footprint to build up a platform for the garage. Almost 50% of
the soil removed to build the whole house is needed to build up a 20' x 20' garage
pad. Again, reflecting just how steep this slope is.
e. "This screening would help to minimize loss of privacy at the
existing townhomes, immediately downhill of the site since the proposed
home[s] would directly overlook these townhomes."
5
You Asshole!! You lying sack. The lowest part of each proposed home -
the foundation -is level with the very top portion of our living room. They look
down on us and into our living room area (2nd floor) and bedroom area (3rd floor)
from their basement. They tower over our homes. Because of the steep slope,
they would have to have 60 foot trees to block their view; and then, where do they
plan on putting these trees -there is probably not 10 feet of room anywhere
between their foundation and the lot line ... then there is the gravel walkway, then
there is our 15 foot deep backyard.
f. Outdoor lighting. According to Applicant, they are 40 feet from
our homes ... and uphill. Both our living room (2nd floor) and bedroom (3rd floor)
have large sliding glass doors , easily 1 0 feet wide. Any lights on the downhill side
of these homes will light up our entire backyard, living room, and bedroom.
As to the "landscape screening" they claim will mitigate, see above.
In a Solar/lighting study submitted to the Town of Los Gatos in 2008 by
Applicant (Geier & Geier contractor), they recommended a "set-back" from the
downhill neighbors of75 feet-as opposed to their currently proposed 40 feet.
This report was removed from Town's file . (Also see "Solar Study," supra)
4. Biological Resources.
a. Tree removal. NO ARBORIST IS ADVOCATING REMOVAL
OF THE TREES. And, no arborist voices any serious concerns about the health of
these trees if no construction goes forward. All the reports are based on the
premise that these homes will be built. The closest an arborist came to making a
recommendation was:
There are already high density condominiums or apartments on
the east[ sic] (downslope) side of the parcel, and these trees in
their intact groves provide a good buffer and screening between
the condominiums and the single family residences on the
west[ sic] side of Bella Vista A venue. It is too bad that this
small parcel cannot be kept as an open space buffer, or a low-
maintenance park. If this were not possible, then the
construction of only one house on the lot would preserve more
of the trees and the general open space nature of the parcel.
(ARBORIST REPORT 09-20-01)
6
For the Town of Los Gatos
Community Development
Department
Unfortunately, now that this arborist is on Applicant's payroll , and not
consulting for the Town of Los Gatos, she seems less enthusiastic about allowing
these trees to survive and contribute to the community. Her opinion of the health
of the trees now seems a bit less hopeful, as well. Regardless, the opinions
regarding removal are only if the homes are constructed. And if so, the whole
damn lot of them can go.
Applicant wants to remove 12 "regulated trees" and jeopardize the health of
6 more-out of21 -leaving basically none. Completely omitted are the new
owners' plans for a lawn.
As to replacement trees, where are you going to put them, on top of the
homes? They're not going to fit between the downhill face of the home and the
property line.
Feigning environmental concerns is very telling about the nature of this
project.
9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Each of these homes will result in at
least 2 ,063 sq. ft. of "impervious surfaces" (building, driveway, and porch)-
between the two (2) of them, over 4,126 sq. ft. of impervious surface within a 100
foot distance, on a +53° (average) slope, leading down to a gravel pathway
(approximately 10 feet wide), leading down to our homes.
No problem. Applicant has a septic system to handle even the biggest
storm. And much like they do at the better trailer parks , any excess can be
pumped uphill right onto the street ... where it can accumulate ... or run downhill,
right back to the project from where it came -they are downhill of the stree t .
"And NO!!" this system is not consistent with requirements on similar
properties. There are no properties similarly situated to those being addressed.
7
10. Land Use and Planning.
a. "Medium Density Residential" apparently is 5-12 units per acre.
This entire plot of land is "0.11 acres." With two (2) homes on it, that would be
+ 18 units per acre ... on +53° (average) sloped land. Are we not going in the
wrong direction for density??
b. Consistent with existing adjacent and nearby residences .
Again: "NO, it's not." The only homes with any similarities, i.e. on downhill side
of Bella Vista, are at least a 'l.t mile down the street, on the other side of Highway
9. Downhill of these homes, and I believe there are four (4) of them, is the
parking lot to the Los Gatos Lodge and the Los Gatos High School Baseball field.
None of them have downhill residents.
12. Noise. Nobody cares about the noise level during construction.
Construction is noisy, but temporary. Noise that does concern the downhill
residents is, and will be, tolerating the ongoing noise of those living above us.
This noise will not "be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby
residential uses." Another outright lie.
Standing in our backyard, standing on our upstairs deck, without trying, I
can listen in on conversations taking place on Bella Vista Avenue. I bear the
words clearly. With that as my standard, I anticipate being privy to far too many
conversations to which I was not invited. There's also parties, kids, barbeques,
television to be concerned about. I do not want to be hollering "shut up" at my
neighbors. If I do, I expect to get an equally nasty response. Did I mention we are
downhill of them? That would put me/us at a disadvantage.
OTHER
Solar Study. Applicant is obligated to submit a Shade and Shadow Study,
setting forth potentially significant impacts on the project neighbors. Such study
was submitted to the Planning Department in 2008, commissioned by Applicant
and prepared by Geier & Geier. It was removed from the Town 'sfile. Therein,
Geier & Geier identified substantial impacts on the downhill neighbors. In
particular, in Winter months the project would block the sun from the downhill
neighbors from before 9 :00 a .m . until shortly after 12:00 p.m.
8
I find no reference to this mandate in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARA TION[S].
CONCLUSION
These Mitigated Negative Declarations are a fraud. Those submitting them
are shameless liars.
This is Los Gatos. Our homes boarder on $1.0 million in value. Having the
proposed projects built will certainly harm the value-estimated to exceed
$100,000 per household times at least eight (8) households; but more importantly,
our privacy is gone, our quality oflife is gone. We did not move into Los Gatos to
live like this.
The Town Council is charged with preserving its hillsides, natural views,
and the character if its neighborhoods. At the very least, I expect my Town not to
rubber-stamp a lifetime nuisance.2 Allowing this Applicant, this insider, a waiver
(aka ''variance") to virtually everything this community and the HDS&G stand for
is certainly not appropriate.
The projects proposed should be rejected based on the integrity of the
presentations, alone.
Respectfully,
Patrick K. Tillman
cc: Bella Vista Home Owners
Bella Vista .NegDec1070111
2 Acts Constituting Nuisance. "Anything that is ... indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the
free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, ... (CC §3479)
9
EXHIBIT 10
----Original Message--
From: Suzanne Davis <sdavi s@l osgato sca.gov>
To: debrachin <debrachin@ao l.co m>
Sent: Mon . Dec 19, 201 1 10 :54 am
Subject: 33 9-341 Bella Vista
Hi Debra,
Page 2 of2
1 am sorry for the delay i n response to your email last week. I was waiting for the full size sets of plans which
came in late Thursday . The house size for 339 Bella Vista has been reduced to 1,792 sq . ft. The garage si ze i s
unchanged at 441 sq . ft . and there is a small cellar (399 sq . ft .). The house reviewed by the Planning Commission
in October was 1,920 sq . ft .
The house at 441 Bella Vista i s 1, 780 sq . ft. with a 399 sq. ft . cellar and 441 sq. ft . garage. The p lan reviewed by
the Commission i n October was 1829 sq . ft. with a 481 sq . ft . cellar.
I advised the applicant that the Commission recommended a greater reduction. They have decided to move
forward with the plans as revised .
You are welcome to come in and look at the plans. The public counter is open from 8 am to 1 pm through
Th u rsday of this week. Town offices will be closed from December 23, 2011 through January 2, 2012.
Suzanne
12/20 /201 1
EXHIBIT 11
EXHIBIT 12
EXHIBIT 13
he Los Gatos CA Official Site !· Lot Line Adjustment Procedures http://www.losgatosca .gov/index .aspx?NJD = 1190
i>f3
• The existing houses do not become nonconforming as for Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
requ irements of the zone.
• The existing buildings meet the requ irement of the Uniform Building code for fire
separation or fire wall construction.
2. After final action by the Development Review Committee , the applicant will be notified by the
Planning Department that the appl ication is complete and any requirements that must be met
before the certificate or map can be recorded .
3. The Development Review Comm ittee has authority to approve this application . The
Development Review Committee may approve or deny the application but may not attach
conditions , except to meet the requirements of the Building or Zoning regu lat ions, per Section
66412(d) of the California Government Code. If the application is denied . the applicant may
appeal this decision to the Planning Commission.
Final Action
1. VI/hen the application has been approved by the Development Rev iew Committee , the
applicant shall submit the following items to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public
Works Department:
• Updated title reports, for all parcels , if the title reports are older than 90 days .
• Two copies of the legal descriptions of the new parcel configurations . labeled "Exhibit
A" and "Exhibit B'. These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor
or Civil Engineer.
• Two copies of a map , 8-112" x 11 ", suitable for reproducing and recording, showing the
original parcel configuration and the new parcel configurations. Label the map "Exhibit
C." These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor or Civil
Eng ineer.
• One copy of the closure calculations.
• Copies of any maps referenced in the title reports or legal descriptions.
• Engineering Division plan checking and processing fee .
2. The Engineering Division will review the legal descriptions . may and title reports , and prepare
a document entitled 'Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment•.
• Any corrections that must be made will be sent your Licensed Surveyor or Civil
Engineer, and corrected documents resubmitted .
3. The Director of Parks and Public Works will sign the Certificate of Lot Line Ad justment once
the legal descriptions and map documents have been reviewed and approved by the
Engineering Division staff.
4. The Town Clerk's Office will send the documents to your title company with instructions for
record ing .
Additional Information
1/li/?01 ? 1 ·4?PM
fle Los Gatos CA Official Site!-Lot Line Adjustment Procedures http://www.losgatosca.gov/index .aspx?NID=l190
of3
1. Legal descriptions and map of the new parcel configurations shall be prepared by a
Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, Per Sections 6731and 8726 of the
California Government Code, these are the only persons authorized to prepare such
documents.
2. Your title company should provide you with new Grant Deeds for the new parcel
configurations and arrange for the recording of these documents.
Coovriqht Notces 1 Powered by CivicPius
1/13/201 2 1 :4?. PM
This Page
lutentionally
Left Blank
Plann i ng
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
-----Original Message-----
Forres t Straight <fa stcbra @aol.com >
Thursday1 April 07, 2016 9:41 AM
Planning
Fwd : 341 Bella Vista
Osterlingl.JPG; Oste rling2.JPG
From: Forrest Straight <fastcbra@aol.com>
To : mmoseley <mmoseley@losgatosca .gov>
Cc: fastcbra <fastcbra@aol.com>
Sent: Thu , Apr 7 , 2016 9 :39am
Subject: 341 Bella Vista
Marni Moseley
Town of Los Gatos
RE: 341 Bella Vista
I am a resident of 146 Magg i Ct. My residence is directly below the property on Bella Vista. I have several
concerns about this project , and cannot see how it has got this far through the planning process with so many
variances allowed; and additionally, Los Gatos codes, standards and gu idlines dismissed.
Tree Repo rt attac hed as jpegs
Trees
My biggest concern is the "Ellis" A r borist report suggesting three huge Coastal Live Oaks be cut down . I've
attended planning meetings and seen some of the ugl iest trees in town be saved. Few plants figure more promently
in California history than oaks. How can we cut down three huge native ex amples ... just" for a Uust give me more
square footage) home. There is not a more beaut iful and majestic tree than a native California Oak. The Coastal
Live Oak has the abil ity to l ive centuries and commonly exceed 250 years of age.
So ,after read ing the "Ellis" report , I went to a "Tree Expert" and asked the quest ion .... are these
three (forgett ing the other 20 or so other Oak examples on the property) huge and beaut iful Oaks really dead or
in bad shape. The report is attached from John Thompson Tree Expert ..... suggesting the trees are in good shape
and might need some trimming or feeding . His company has three crews, that trims, removes and maintains trees
six days a week in Atherton, Woodside, and six major golf courses in the area. He says he's not an arborist.
However , much like a nurse or doctor, he works daily with the care and maintenance of oaks. For a formal written
arborist report, John gave me several names, but he sa id the best was Ralph Osterling.
I called Ralph Osterling and had conversations with both Ralph and his staff arborist Walter Fug ii. Their report is
also attached. Their conclusion is the same . Two of the three oaks are in good health. At this time, tree three is in
l ess than good health, so lets trim and feed the tree so it can be saved too.
1
I can go on with size of the home violating codes .... setbacks .... hills ide development guidelines ... privacy ... and erosion
drainage issues. But , you've heard them before.
I've dealt with planning and building departments i n Arizona; Nevada; California; and Los Gatos
Everywhere there are rules, regulations , and codes .... someti mes a variance or change to the rules makes
common sense
Never have I ever seen such a complete disregard of rules and regulations applied for the prosperity of this
applicant
Let me talk more about trees ...... .
In my experience I've found you pay people enough money they'll tell you what you want to hear
Let's be honest ... these Coastal Oaks despite what anyone will say to their health will live far longer than our
grandchildren.
Let's look at the two Ellis Arborists reports three years apart. One for the City and one for a property
owner.
For the city she suggests ... It's too bad this small parcel cannot be kept as an open space or low maintenance
park ..... or if not poss i ble that one home be buil t ...... and that the Coastal Live Oak is a very des i rable species
for the area and that the town of Los Gatos values highly. She's saying don't cut down the trees.
The second report makes no City suggestions other than the health of the oaks have dimin ished .
I have seen in town planning .... the insistence of keeping some of the ugliest trees preserved ..... to obtain a
building permit.
Let's not be fooled that the submitted reports, where the tree health is anything less than 10 of 10 mean
these trees should be mowed down
Of the two dozen trees on this property ... the plans call for removing all but three or four trees .... and the
proposed construction will kill the remaining ones in a few years anyway due to their proximity.
You've got to be kidding me this project has gotten this far along without someone in the town process just
say i ng NO.
So il Report
In the so i l report it talks about soil stability in section 7.2
What we have is several oaks with root structures stabil i zing the hillside. The roots are deep .... and with oaks
extend to the tree canopy . The canopy that is proposed to be removed is approx 10 ,OOOsf at the home site.
Hense a root structure of 10,000sf. Then proposed is a huge destabilzing cut into the hillside for the
proposed home ..... which adds weight to the so i l and stability.
2
During rains the root sructure stabilizes the hill and prevents erosion. Without this deep stability, there is
more of a chance of a slide. Already there is evidence of a small slide at the bottom of the h i ll near the edge
of the property li ne.
So the Soil Report states .... "Long term stability is hard to predict. Hillside will remain stable as long as the
equilibrium is not disturbed." Well that's what removing the oaks will do ... d isturb the equ i librium.
There's a section too on liqu ifaction and earthquake induced landslides . Well this property is in that hazard
zone . The zone indicates there's been previous occurances of landside movement and depending upon
subsurface water conditions there's a potential for permanent ground displacements ... meaning landsl i des.
Now if this was across the street on level ground ... probably not a problem .... but when you add heavy wi nter
rain storms plus an earthquake plus a 53 degree hillside and no tree root stability ..... I'm guessing the landslide
possibil ity is greater than the report suggests. I'm guess ing too the soil engineer wouldn't want to live in my
house.
Forrest Straight
146 Maggi Ct
Los Gatos, CA 95032
408 395 0302
3
146 Maggi Cou rt
15 October 2008
Page 2 of 2
Tree 3 , coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)
The sparse canopy and lack of growth of this oak is typical of a tree under stress
from disease or drc>ught At this time, overall health is poor to very poor.
Summation
Based on today's observations, tree 1 and tree 2 appear to be in good health and
should be considered suitable for preservation. Both oaks will require routine
tree maintenance in order to extend their safe and useful life. For reasons of
safety, preservation of tree 1 may require cabling and I or bracing that is often
performed on trees with multistem trunks .
The proper implementation of a qualified Tree Preservation Plan should be
expected to minimize construction impacts to the trees. A qualified Arborist i s
required to monitor the status of the trees and perform regular site vi s its to verify
that proper tree preservation measures have been implemented and are kept
current.
Tree 3 is in poor to very poor condition w ith the outward symptoms of a tree in
decline. Tree 3 should not be considered a suitable candidate for preservation.
Should you require additional information kindly contact our office at your earli est
convenience.
Respectfully, \
<~40~ 1 ~~
Walt er Fuj ii { ----·---, ........
Staff Arborist \ \
ASCA Reg istered Cons~·ng lA.rborist N o. 402
lSA Certified Amorist No. C 2257 A /
-_/
Ralph OslerlilfJ: Consultants. Inc.
Erin Johnson
150 Maggi Court
RECE,VE D
APR 7 :_ 2016
TOWN Of LOS GATOS
.PLANNING DIVISION
April 6, 2016
I live at 150 Maggi Court and am the granddaughter of a former Town of Los Gatos Chief of
Police. I grew up in Town with clear understanding of the importance of following direction
and understanding rules.
I cannot believe that after eight (8) years and four (4) public hearings, we are going through
the process again for a fifth time. What is there not to understand about building on a cliff
with us directly below? Looking up at the cliff, there will be a massive home towering over
and threatening our homes. The mass and scale is huge. The loss of privacy is huge. Rules
are rules whether a requirement, direction, regulation, standard, guideline, policy, or
ordinance. When I receive direction from higher authorities, I follow it.
Plenty of direction has been provided to the applicant who chooses not to take it. The latest
application has increased in mass and scale, with expanded interior and exterior living areas.
A change in direction for the worse! A protected Oak Tree, whi ch the applicant previously
expressed intent to save, is destined to be destroyed. It doesn't have to be.
The applicant tucked notes on neighbor's doorsteps on 03-22-16, two and a half years after
declaring to the Town h i s intentions to reach out to the neighbors for a "constructive
approach to working together''. The note delivers the message that his plans are in
compliance. Alas, they are not. I see a clear pattern regarding intentions.
Exceptions are needed-major exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines. Rules are rules and they exist for good reason. The process has allowed ample
opportunity for direction. Rules and direction are not being followed for the applicant's own
good reason.
Please deny the project and uphold the standards (rules) of our Town.
Respectfully,
Erin Johnson
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Ms Moseley,
Nick W <williamsonnick@aol.com >
Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:42 AM
Marni Moseley; Planning
Laura Williamson
341 Bella Vista Avenue -Objections (Planning Commission)
BV160407Will _1x.pdf; A TIOOOOl.htm; BV Slides x.pdf; A TI00002.htm
Attached please find a letter concerning the planned development to 339 and 341 Bella Vista A venue in Los
Gatos and containing some of my family's objections for the attention of the Planning Commission today, and
also for your review. I am also attaching a copy of the slides referenced in our letter. One of the slides contains
a photo, and I don't know if you are printing documents so I am crossing my fingers it will reproduce how it
appears on my screen. If any of the Commissioners would like to arrange a time to visit our home I can be
reached at 4086019284 and please feel free to pass this number onto the Commissioners. I know that they must
be very busy at present so I will do whatever I can to work around their schedules. Thank you for your kind
attention.
Your sincerely,
Nicholas Williamson
148 Maggi Court
Los Gatos
California 95032
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
April 7, 2016
Town of Los Gatos
Community Develo pment Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos
California 95031
Dear Madams and Sirs of the Planning Commission,
Re. Application to Develop 341 Bella Vista Avenue
148 Maggi Court
Los Gatos
California 95032
We are writing concerning the application for merging and developing lots 339 and 341
Bella Vista Avenue. Our family lives directly below the project site at 148 Maggi Court
and so we will be impacted, terribly, if this application is granted. We have already sent
two other letters to the Town responding to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
would like to make some further comments now.
This is a peaceful and beautiful hillside and we believe the fragile ecology will be
devastated by this development. The Town Arborist is estimating that 48% of the trees
on site (10 of 21) including seven protected trees two of which are magnificent native
oaks ove r 45ft high and in good health, will be lost and potentially more will be gone
once construction starts. She also estimates the total canopy that might be lost could be
in the region of 70%. This is a huge amount of change for any piece of land and
potentially catastrophic for this bit of land and the surrounding properties.
We all know the value that trees bring to our Town and community, many of them are
protected and the reason for that is perfectly captured in the Town Code, section
29.10 .0950, Intent. The importance of these trees to this hillside is everything which is
captured in the Code and more. The trees are integral to this a hillside and they are
integral to the character of Los Gatos.
It feels as if putting a building on a hillside slope as steep as this one (>50%) should
need ten times the land there is here in order to keep a balance between hillside and
development. The plot has an average slope of 53% whilst the Hillside Standards say
slopes above 30% are considered hazardous and shall be avoided, particularly if the hill
is noted at risk of landslide which this one is. This slope is near double what
is considered hazardous and it leads straight down and into the town homes of Maggi
Court. The proposed building would be less than 50 feet from our home, less than 40
feet from our yard, and its roof would tower more than 50 feet above the head of our
Page 1 of 2
daughter if she was playing outside on the deck. The risk of loss, injury or death
is present, and has been noted by Town Planners. The Applicant's own geo-technical
firm wrote that" a hillside will remain stable only as long as the existing slope
equilibrium is not disturbed ... a small but unknown level of risk is always present to
structures located in hilly terrain. Owners of property located in these areas must be
aware of, and willing to accept, this unknown level of risk". Whatever mitigation is
applied is it really fair to ask us to accept this risk?
Proximity and elevation then, are huge concerns and so is the massiveness of this
structure. It is noted throughout the documentation on record as a three story building
and of course three story buildings are prohibited. Separate from that point the
building is undeniably massive for a such a small space, sandwiched as it is between
existing properties. The applicant was advised to propose something small and he has
not done that. And the massiveness is not changed by merging the lots and making one
house, that seems to us to be just a tactic to design to FAR, but the Hillside Standards
say that applicants should not design to FAR and that far greater weight shall be given
to issues, including but not limited to, height, building mass and scale, visual impacts,
grading and compatibility.
There are many more issues to list including the safety on Bella Vista Avenue. One of
the neighbors has already pointed out how difficult it will be to reverse a car up a 15%
ramp at a controlled speed onto a blind bend and be able to see clearly oncoming traffic
and kids on bikes going to school. The loss of privacy or the ability for us to move
around our home without feeling like we might be being watched is also significant and
should be apparent to anyone. And then there are less obvious things like nighttime
light pollution from the many windows and glazed doors, because as things are today
the hillside is completely dark at night.
In summary this house is simply too big and too close to other homes to be appropriate
and development of it will devastate and drastically alter the character of the hillside
and this bit of land. We can see in the records that development of this land has been
tried many times before and each time rejected and always for good reason, and we are
most grateful to the Town for its thoughtful and considerate stewardship. This land is
what it is and what is has been noted to be, virtually unbuildable.
We would be most grateful if you could visit our home to see this project from our
perspective. In the meantime we've included a few charts as attachments to this letter
which we hope will provide you some insight. Thank you for listening to our concerns.
Yours faithfully,
The Williamson Family (Nick and Laura, James and Amy)
Page 2 of 2
341 Bella Vista Avenue
Preparation for Planning Commission
Hearing
April, 2016
Visual character will be devastated
View from bedroom balcony of town home (148 Maggi Court) also
showing filtered sunlight
Trees to be removed
Summary of Town Arborist Report
• 21 trees on lot (3 more on neighbor's lot possibly impacted)
·10 trees to be removed (48o/o of lot trees)
• 7 protected trees including two 45ft and SOft oaks in good condition
·Total number of trees to be removed is higher than shown on Applicant's plans
·Estimated 70% loss of canopy
·Possibly more trees lost with construction damage
Trees to be removed
Location of additional trees needing to be removed but not on plans
.. ... "; -
_..--·
-•-.wr•· ----:.
~.:~ ....
/ ---__ /
Trees to be removed
View from below with trees to be removed in red (148 Maggi Court)
Environmental Impact of Tree
Removal
"This division is adopted because the Town of Los Gatos is forested by
many native and non-native trees, and contains individual trees of great
beauty. The health and welfare of the citizens of the Town require that
these trees be saved in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the Town,
prevent erosion of topsoil, provide protection against flood hazards and
risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain climatic
balance and decrease wind velocities. Trees contribute significantly to the
value of land in the Town. Special provisions regarding hillsides are
included in recognition of the unique biological and environmental
differences between the hillside and non-hillside areas of the Town"
Sec. 29.10.0950. Intent, Town Code
Significant environmental impact
Glossed over in documentation
·Health and welfare of citizens
·Scenic beauty
·Prevent erosion of topsoil
·Provide protection against risk of landslides
·Counteract pollutants in the air
·Maintain climatic balance
·Alter drainage and run off from hillside
·Contribute significantly to the value of land in the Town
·Canopies provide sanctuary for wildlife-many birds including owls
·Canopies also help shade ground, retaining moisture and helping plant survival
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PATRICKK. TILLMAN
A u orn ey at Law
April 7 , 2016
RECEIVED
APR 7-2016
TOWN OF LO S GATOS
PLANN ING DIVI SI ON
Sent via e-mail to: MMoselev(iiJlosgatosca.gov
and pia nning@Josgatosca.gov
Mami Moseley
Los Gatos Planning Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos , CA 95030
Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications
Applicant: Dan Ross
Dear Ms. Moseley:
Planning Commission Meeting-04-13-16
Objections to Proposed Construction
I live at 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos , with Planning Commission Chairperson,
Mary Badame.
An application is pending for construction of one (1) single-family home to be
built at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, directly above us. The Planning
Commission Meeting is set for 04-13-16 . Please include this letter in the materials
to the Commissioners.
On 04-06-16 , I e-mailed a letter dated 01-17-12. That letter itemized my prior
objections to a similar project at this site. Almost all of tho se objections apply to the
most recent proposal of Dan Ross. Herein, I update, restricting my comment to Mr.
Ross ' 09-16-15 letter of Justification. In sum, his ''justification" is inaccurate and,
more often than not, nonsense .
The information provided by Mr. Ross was difficult to decipher. Many details
were omitted. I still resent looking at diagrams that depict a 30° slope, when the
slope "averages" 53 °. Visually, it makes a world of difference .
2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9 715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com
Dan Ross and his cousin have been warned for +5 years about "Bulk and
Mass." Still, he persists. Still he injects himself into Town politics to ingratiate
himself, hoping personal relationships will trump the General Plan and the Hillside
Standards and Guidelines.
One ( 1) Planning Commissioner said:
"I personally think that in a way I wish this lot had not been
z oned for building. I think it is that bad of a lot. But it is zoned
for building and therefore I think what the law would normally
allow without any exceptions. "
I agree.
This Commission should not combine the lots. They are not buildable -
separately or together. Combining them fuels the fire for Spec-home builders, like
Dan. Each should be designated unbuildable.
Keep in mind, it was Dan and his cousin who deliberately separated the lots in
the first place-part of their speculative adventure.
To organize your thoughts on this wordy letter, the next seven (7) pages are
the multiple warnings Dan received directly from the Planning Commission, the
Study Session, and Town Council. Pages 10 to 13 address Dan's Letter of
Justification.
This house will take away all privacy to the back end of +4 homes. For us, the
proposed project is no different than the previous proposals.
2
HISTORY OF WARNINGS
10-12-11 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript:
Proposal: two (2) homes-2,769 & 2 ,6 78 square feet.
Dan Ross highlights:
"After 2008 , when we met with the neighbors and we met with Staff, we
reali z ed that the 145 Bella Vista plan [NOT THIS PROJECT] was probably
too big, because it does not have neighbors below, and we realized we should
reduce the size of these plans".
"The main issue with the property is privacy".
"Our goal is to completely block the view. We do not want to have any eye
to eye contact between the townhomes and us."
"Back then what we heard a lot was mass and scale".
"The process that we were going through was to understand this mass and
scale".
Commission comments:
Commissioner #1
"It 's a very difficult lot". Had you not known the history of the lot you would
know it 's a very, very , difficult lot. Ifyou knew the history of the lot you'd
know it was a really difficult lot."
"Access is very, very difficult. That street, somewhat because of the high
school kids, can be problematic, and therefore, a driveway that is not well
considered could cause you problems and there is a curve. That causes me a
great deal of trouble".
"I personally think that in a way I wish this lot had not been zoned for
building. I think it is that bad of a lot. But it is zoned for building and
therefore 1 think what the law would normally allow without any exceptions".
"I'm having trouble with the cut and fill ".
3
"The idea of having a basement and therefore affecting the mass and scale
doesn't seem to be discussed much here, and I agree with the speaker who
said that's kind of why we have it, encourage basements to reduce mass and
scale. I haven't seen that being effected here".
"This is going to be a very difficult construction site to stage and which will
cause real problems for the neighbors so the construction plan would have to
be very, very well thought out".
"We have to be very careful in comparing what the neighborhood is, because
this west side of the street is so different than the east side of the street, so in
comparing the size of the lots and the size of the homes, I for one, would
discount, if not throw out, the east side and look only to the west side.
"These are two very , very bad lots and that is crystal clear to everybody. I
would want a dramatic reduction".
"I personally think because the lot is so bad, that I would want a dramatic
reduction in size".
"I'm troubled by all those things .... dramatic reduction in the size and bulk
and mass. I am concerned with the cut and fill. I am concerned for safety
purposes and so it's therefore perhaps more significant, although they 're all
significant, with the driveway."
Commissioner #2
(To Dan Ross) So the shadow study isn 't correct?
Dan Ross -"You are right, that is incorrect".
"I haven 't seen a privacy concern and issue from neighbors that is this
extreme".
"And so that addresses for me this issue of bulk and mass, because in hillside
buildings, we have to be very careful. One of the guidelines is that we have
to watch out for the surrounding properties".
"Issues with the tree removals and trees impacted by development".
Commissioner #3
"I am very concerned about the children and the use of the street itself'.
4
My second concern is the impact that the mass of the homes will have on the
neighbors below .... the homes are too massive. The homes as they are
constructed are larger than they need to be and the impact on the neighbors
below as well as the hillside is something that I could not support".
"A car backing into Bella Vista or having to park across the street because
it 's unusable , I'm not sure where they would park across the street, but that 's
a main issue for me.".
"My main issues are the size of any proposed home and how you have the
ingress/egress out of those homes .".
Commis sioner #4
"The size of the home doesn't seem appropriate for the neighbors and the
particular site".
"The size of the homes ............... needs to be significantly reduced."
Co m missi oner #5
"These lots are terrible lots".
"A 60 foot wall plane on adjacent neighbors ............... isn't a liveable
situation."
More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 1.
02-08-12 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript:
Proposal: two (2) homes-2,643 & 2,760 square feet (reduction of 126'
coupled with 82' increase).
Dan Ross highlights:
"We had a sense that the homes were too big considering we had townhomes
below us and 145 Bella Vista Avenue [Again, NOT THIS PROJECT] did not
5
have townhomes below them. So we took that upon ourselves to make that
reduction.
"We're having a hard time defining "significant" [As in "significant reduction"]
to still end up with a home that is livable".
Commission comments:
Commis sione r #1
"Regarding the architecture and site applications, I move to deny ....... bulk
and mass".
Commissio n e r #2
"You have a very difficult lot"
Commiss ioner #3
"My position has not changed. I would not approve the bulk and mass for
this property".
"It is massive when you look up at it".
"It's just too massive".
Commissioner #4
"My concerns are the same as the last time".
Number one, it was the mass of the buildings.
Second was the safety issue and I'm very concerned about that street
period.
More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 2 .
6
04-02-12 Town Council Appeal Transcript:
Proposal: two (2) homes -2,643 & 2,760 square feet.
Dan Ross highlights:
"I did not get clear information from the Planning Commission what a
significant reduction was "
"I did not get clear direction from the Planning Commission"
"Application allows us to save primary tree "
Council comments:
Councilperson #1
Traffic-"Very concerned about traffic"
"Great potential for accidents"
"It 's clear there are traffic issues"
"Do not want to replicate the south side of Bella Vista"
'7he Hillside Standards and Guidelines provide for protection of neighbor
and there is a pre-existing condition -Maggi Court and we have to protect
those indivi duals on Maggi Court"
"Need to reduce mass significantly." "Is sues at the site are not exclusive of
FAR -mass ofhouse, siting, tree removal, houses on West side".
Councilperson #2
"Townhome view to hillside view is very powerful"
Staff person #1
"Council decides applicable standards as to what can be built"
Staff p e rson #2
"Financial viability is beyond Town 's ability to regulate or control " (When
asked by XXXXX about build-ability oflot)
7
More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 3.
02-13-13 Study Session Transcript:
Proposal: two (2) homes-1,736 & 1,885 square feet.
Dan Ross highlights:
"mass and scale -not unusual plans in relation to mass and scale of
neighbors"
"preserving the Oak tree "
"reduced deck areas"
"less cut and fill "
"always had concern for Maggi Court neighbors"
"mixed signals from Town"
Commission comments :
Study Session Commission e r #1
"Two almost unbuildable lots "
"Almost unbuildable"
"Virtually not a buildable lot"
"You are on a steep building area"
"You have a problem I can't solve" "Merging the lot and have one (1) big
building not going to happen"
"Comply with the requirements"
"Have a fundamental problem"
8
Study Sessi on Comm issione r #2
"Have you been down to the townhomes and looked up "?
"Problem lies below with your neighbors"
Study Sessio n Commissioner #3
"Difficult lots -Guidance written in the HDSG"
"Mass from below due to site "
"Bring something meeting all guidelines in place"
Study Session Commissioner #4
"Ample feedback given from Staff, Planning Commission, Council to
determine workability.
"Fundamental underlying issues -the same"
More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 4 .
WARNINGS HEEDED??
Date Square footage
10-12-11 2,769 & 2 ,678 square feet
02-08-12 2,643 & 2,760 square feet
04-02-12 2,643 & 2,760 square feet
02-13-13 1,736 & 1,885 square feet
04-13-16 2,739 square feet-Proposed
9
04-13-16 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING
Proposal : one (1) home-2,739 square feet.
I. Dan Ross: 09-16-15 Letter of Justification:
A. Reasons fo r prior rejection. Compare Mr. Ross' 5-point explanation
with the comments/warnings, above. He was told, in no uncertain terms , that these
lot(s) are unbuildable. So he adds another 1,000 sq . ft. to one (1) of them, putting it
basically in the same spot as before ... a little to the left.
B. CURRENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION.
Mr. Ross alleges :
1) "[M]eets FAR." Can't be true. That house is on a +53 ° slope and
he eliminated all but 204 feet of the 1,360 sq . ft. bottom floor (~60' x 22' = 1,320),
calling it a cellar (a "cellar" with a sliding glass door leading to a patio). The bottom
floor is 60' long. That means he eliminated all but the last 3.4' of the 22 ' wide,
3 -bedroon floor with a view ... and a patio (3.4' x 60 ' = 204 ').
IT'S ON A 53 ° SLOPE. Using a 45° slope (one for one), eliminates +660 '
from his reduction calculation.
1) "[M]eets ... height." Not according to the MND (figure 9). He
exceeds it by +6 '.
1) "[M ]eets ... f ron t set back." No, he does not. His entire front yard,
and most of his driveway, is on a Los Gatos easement. This Town cannot give away
community easement rights to a spec-home builder, gifting him a 20 ' front yard so he
can push his abomination down hill into our back yard. This Town has never given
away these easement rights, contrary to Dan's representations . All those Bella Vista
homes South of this project were built before the road was dedicated to the Town.
2) "[L]essens the impact on multiple adjacent townhouses." Less
than what? +4 homes completely lose their backyard privacy and must shutter their
sliding glass doors to keep Dan from looking into our 3rd floor bedrooms -from his
cellar.
10
2) "[He will use the] existing mature trees to screen the one
townhouse immediately to the west." (Emphasis added) He can 't use the mature
trees , he's cutting them down. And there are no mature trees between this project
and that particular townhome ... or between any of our homes, for that matter. [Note:
We call them "Townhomes." It makes sense that Dan calls them "townhouses."]
And what of the others ? There can be no screening of this project-physically
impossible. Period.
2) "[We] locate[d] the driveway in a safer location ." No he didn't.
Not unless he is knocking down another + 300 year old tree and wiping out the 20'
tall tree-bushes owned by the Hotel, all of which block the view of North-bound
Bella Vista traffic. South-bound traffic is no better with that blind curve, and those
High School kids have a good head of steam by the time they reach this area of Bella
Vista. AND HE IS BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY GOING UPHILL. He
can 't see.
3) "The Town consulting arborist has identified trees 10, 11, 16 and
2 1 to be removed." Again, no they didn't. Dan did, trying to neutralize his carnage,
blame someone else. And his patronizing comments about saving the other trees
should be put in perspective: Dan is not cutting down any tree he is not allowed to
cut down. He'd cut them all down if he could. Take a look at his prior proposals.
Even the big tree he claimed to be saving was doomed because he was building both
homes too close to the root base.
4) " ... minimalist design is common for hillside sites ... " Again, no
tt ts not. And it's ugly ; at the very least: awkward-looking. It looks like two (2)
Eichlers, o ffset, the top one having a bad back. We are supposed to look at this
monstrosity every day! Even when we don't look at it, we'll feel it back there ; like a
bad dog in someone else's yard.
C . HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES:
1) "House is not visible from Viewing Platforms." That ship sailed .
The Town said it's visible . And that it's on a ridge .
5) "Existing mature trees w ill screen impact to adjacent townhome
ne ighbo r. Additiona l trees/shrubs to be added, as appropriate." Previously
addressed. And might I add: credibility is always an issue.
11
7) "Window type and location sensitive to privacy." Exactly what
does that mean? This is a three (3) story house/home, pushed down an embankment.
The inhabitants have no way of looking East-they are looking into the hillside, a
wall. The street is above them. The house/home is built to focus West to take
advantage of the view ... and Dan is going to fog up the windows so they cannot see
out?
The whole point of building in this location is to take advantage of the view,
the elevation above the County flatland. To look out and down on people and the
activities going on. It is the only thing that gives these lots any value what-so-ever.
I mention that when Dan looks through those fuzzy windows he proposes, any
of them -top floor or the "cellar," or opens them up for some fresh air, he will be
looking into our 3 rd floor bedroom, and that of at least one ( 1) other neighbor. He
gets to look into the kitchen of the Townhome furthest South. Backyards are gone.
If Dan was referencing his own privacy, I am not interested in hearing it. He
certainly said nothing credible about ours.
12) "No perimeter fencing proposed, unless needed for privacy."
Even an effective fence, which would have to be +50' tall, would not be a good idea.
13) "House bas been moved furthest from adjacent properties." I
am trying to think of any comment Dan has made in this Letter of Justification that
is, or could possibly be more inaccurate. He moved the house/home down the hill,
closer to the only "adjacent" homes there are. The Bella Vista homes are across the
street.
14) "Natural features will be preserved on 86°/o of the lot. (13.4°/o
lot coverage)." Not for the Townhome owners . All we get to see is that house.
D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY:
The Townhomes below. Dan compares his project with a Townhouse
complex, arguing that his large single family home on a 53° slope should be treated
as an extension of the Townhome complex. Just the opposite. We have limited
space, small back yards , and we value each square foot more so than most.
12
Privacy. It is seriously unbelievable what Dan has said in this section
about privacy. And consider this, too: those whose privacy is being invaded/taken
look at the deprivation differently than those invading it. The same concept/attitude
gap exists for trespassers versus property owners.
Construction Management. Based on the misrepresentations, the
callous disregard for the neighbors, and based on my limited experience with spec-
home builders, developers, and contractors, some of whom I have seen in action
before assorted Town Councils/Commissions -one ( 1) was just a couple of weeks
ago . The owner said he couldn't remember the name of the contractor he used to do
all that un-permitted work - I would not trust Mr. Ross to build this project in
accordance with ... Period. Wouldn't trust him to build it, PERIOD. I can see the
setting changing immediately after any approval is given . Once anything is
approved , the trees will be cut, the lot gutted . This Commission will then be asked
to change some of the requirements -after the damage is done . More likely, he will
just build it any way he likes. Good luck forcing compliance after the fact. The
legal term is "waste." He will be happy to just pay the fine .
CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBORS:
I will have nothing to do with Mr. Ross or helping him with his project. He
speculated on a hefty profit and has shown absolutely no regard for us .
Thank you.
Respectfully,
/s/
Patrick K. Tillman
cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail)
TownofLosGatos.Pia nni ng .0 406 16
13
EXHIBIT 1
10-12-11 Planning Commission
Dan Ross
"After 2008, when we met with the neighbors and we met with Staff, we realized that the 145 Bella
Vista plan was probably too big, because it does not have neighbors below, and we realized we
should reduce the size of these plans".
"The main issue with the property is privacy".
"Our goal is to completely block the view. We do not want to have any eye to eye contact between
the townhomes and us."
"We removed a deck when we front the house and we removed some windows".
"No matter where you stand on the lot, you're going to look right into the Townhomes, whether it's
one level or two levels ."
"Our slope averages 30%. The reason we're skewed to 53% partially is the drop-off at the road ."
"We spent a lot of time during the escrow period coming in and talking to staff. We weren 't going
in this willy-nilly. We did take some risk, that is true."
"We did spend a lot of time on Code and Guidelines and Variances to educate ourselves, because I
don't do this for a living".
"Back then what we heard a lot was mass and scale".
"The process that we were going through was to understand this mass and scale".
"We met with an architect and with an engineer during the escrow period. We reviewed the slope.
We spent a lot of time on this in the initial 60 days before we even took ownership of the lots to
understand what these challenges might b e".
Commissioner #1
"It's a very difficult lot". Had you not known the history of the lot you would know it's a very,
very, difficult lot. If you knew the history of the lot you'd know it was a really difficult lot.
"A couple of house s on the West side clearly have garages in trouble."
14
"Access is very , very difficult. That street, somewhat because of the high school kids , can be
problematic, and therefore, a driveway that is not well considered could cause you problems and
there is a curve. That causes me a great deal of trouble".
"I personally think that in a way I wish this lot had not been zoned for building. I think it is that bad
of a lot. But it is zoned for building and therefore I think what the law would normally allow
without any exceptions".
"I'm having trouble with the cut and fill".
"The basis seems to be gosh, ifl build a small house there , what , I'm not going to make as much
money or it won't sell? It isn't crystal clear to me what it is , but normally we know that you can sell
a small house but you get a smaller price ."
"The idea of having a basement and therefore affecting the mass and scale doesn't seem to be
discussed much here , and I agree with the speaker who said that's kind of why we have it,
encourage basements to reduce mass and scale . I haven't seen that being effected here".
"This is going to be a very difficult construction site to stage and which will cause real problems for
the neighbors so the construction plan would have to be very, very well thought out".
"We have to be very careful in comparing what the neighborhood is, because this west side of the
street is so different than the east side of the street, so in comparing the size of the lots and the size
of the homes, I for one, would discount, if not throw out, the east side and look only to the west
side.
"These are two very, very bad lots and that is crystal clear to everybody. I would want a dramatic
reduction".
"I personally think because the lot is so bad, that I would want a dramatic reduction in size".
"I'm troubled by all those things .... dramatic reduction in the size and bulk and mass. I am
concerned with the cut and fill. I am concerned for safety purposes and so it's therefore perhaps
more significant, although they're all significant, with the driveway.
Commiss io ner #2
(To Dan Ross) So the shadow study isn't correct? Dan Ross -"You are right, that is incorrect".
"I haven't seen a privacy concern and issue from neighbors that is this extreme".
"And so that addresses for me this issue of bulk and mass , because in hillside buildings, we have to
be very careful. One of the guidelines is that we have to watch out for the surrounding properties".
"Issues with the tree removals and trees impacted by development".
15
Co mmissio n e r #3
"I am very concerned about the children and the use of the street itself'.
"Cars backing into that street while people are going up and down at the rate of speed that they
do .......... .Ijust want to state straight out that this is one of my concerns.
My second concern is the impact that the mass of the homes will have on the neighbors below .... the
homes are too massive. The homes as they are constructed are larger than they need to be and the
impact on the neighbors below as well as the hillside is something that I could not support".
"A car backing into Bella Vista or having to park across the street because it's unusable, I 'm not
sure where they would park across the street, but that's a main issue for me.".
"My main issues are the size of any proposed home and how you have the ingress/egress out of
those homes.".
Com missioner #4
"The size of the home doesn't seem appropriate for the neighbors and the particular site".
"With the topographical restraints and the proximity to the existing residences below, it does create
a significant visual and privacy impacts on the resident's below and to the extent that one could
both reduce the size and reduce the impact, that 's desirable."
"The size of the homes ............... needs to be significantly reduced."
Commissioner #5
"These lots are terrible lots".
"When you purchase a property you at least know the parameters you are expected to follow".
''A 60 foot wall plane on adjacent neighbors ............... isn't a liveable situation."
"I think you did a great job in terms of bl ending the architectural style".
16
EXHIBIT 2
02-08-12 CONTfNUED HEARING FROM 10-12-11
Dan Ross-
"We would like input from neighbors and Commi ss ion ".
"We had a sense that the homes were too big considering we had townhomes below us and 145
Bella Vista A venue did not have townhomes below them. So we took that upon ourselves to make
that reduction.
"We're having a hard time defining significant to still end up with a home that is liveable".
(When asked by [Commissioner] if he s tudied the previous owner's application that was denied)
"Yes, we studie d tho se minutes".
Commissioner #1
"Three story elevations are prohibited"
"Regarding the architecture and site applications, I move to deny ....... bulk and mass".
Commissioner #2
"You have a very difficult lot"
Commissioner #3
"My position has not changed. I would not approve the bulk and mass for this property".
"It is mas sive when you look up at it".
"It 's just too massive".
Commissioner #4
"My concerns are the same as the last time".
Number one, it was the mass of the buildings .
Second was the safety issue and I'm very concerned about that street period.
17
EXHIBIT 3
April 2, 2012 TOWN COUNCIL APPEAL
Dan Ross
"I got approval from Town Staff'
"I did not get clear information from the Planning Commission what a significant reduction
was"
"I did not get clear direction from the Planning Commission"
"Application allows us to save primary tree"
"want to meet with neighbors to solve challenges"
"I'm not an experienced developer" "I don 't have a development record"
"I can now make improvements to the floor plan"
Councilpers on #1
Traffic -"Very concerned about traffic "
"Great potential for accidents "
"It's clear there are traffic issues"
"Do not want to replicate the south side of Bella Vista"
"The Hillside Standards and Guidelines provide for protection of neighbor and there is a pre-
existing condition -Maggi Court and we have to protect those individuals on Maggi Court"
Bulk and Mass -"Need to reduce mass significantly" "Issues at the site are not
exclusive ofF AR -mass of house, setting, tree removal , houses on West side ".
Councilperson #2
"Townhome view to hillside view is very powerful "
Staff person # 1
"Council decides applicable standards as to what can be built"
Staff person #2
"Financial viability is beyond Town 's ability to regulate or control " (When asked by
XXXXXX about build-ability of lot)
18
EXHIBIT4
02-13-13-Study Session
Dan Ross
"mass and scale -not unusual plans in relation to mass and scale of neighbors"
"need guidance if new plans satisfy guidance of prior Planning Commission hearings"
"preserving the Oak tree"
"reduced deck areas "
"less cut and fill "
"less impervious coverage"
"always had concern for Maggi Court neighbors"
"mixed signals from Town"
"removed half of the rear facing windows"
"complicated site"
"Disagree that the house is massive "
Study sessio n person #1
"Very bad lots"
"Two almost unbuildable lots"
"Almost unbuildable"
"Virtually not a buildable lot"
"Very, very difficult lots"
"You are on a steep building area"
19
"Lot of look to this thing-especially from downhill"
"Don't know how to solve your problem"
"You have a problem I can't solve" "Merging the lot and have one (1) big building not
going to happen"
"Does not need tweaking from a study session
"Buildings are big -they are on a side of a hill" "Three stories"
"Not our job to solve design issues -applicants problem"
"You are on a steep building area"
"Comply with the requirements"
"Have a fundamental problem"
Study session person #2
"Have you been down to the townhomes and looked up"?
"Problem lies below with your neighbors"
Study s ession person #3
"Difficult lots -Guidance written in the HDSG"
"Mass from below due to site"
"Bring something meeting all guidelines in place"
"Views to block Maggi -what have you done"
Study se s sio n person #4
"Ample feedback given from Staff, Planning Commission, Town Council to determine
workability.
"Fundamental underlying issues -the same"
"Concern with safety -driveway, curb "
20
April 6 , 2016
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
Timothy S. and Judith A. Coughl in
320 Bella Vista Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408} 356-8092
LGVision@Comcast.Net
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
mmoseley@losgatosca.gov
RE: 341 Bella Vista Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-12-1 03
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-001
Subdivision Application M-12-008
Dear Commissioners :
RECE\VED
APR 7-2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIV IS ION
We are writing in response to the above application . Many of the same issues we faced in 2011
when this project was last denied , have not changed substantially .
Trees
This current application includes plans to remove many trees including some of the biggest and
healthiest on the property . The arborist's report states that the two biggest trees, the Coast Live
Oaks that are directly across the street from our home, are slated for removal. They are among
the healthiest on the property. A mitigated negative declaration has been filed .
• We disagree with the report's assessment tha't the removal of trees would be of minimal
impact.
• When trees are removed for the construction of this development, the building w ith all of
its vents and chimneys will be plainly visible from viewing platforms .
• The view of all the power lines, now obscured by the tree-backdrop, will be stark and
constitute a degradation of the "vista " from our street.
• The trees now shield us from the light pollution from nearby sources below. They also
shield us from the noise coming from Highway 17 . Their removal will substantially
increase the freeway noise.
Large oaks to be removed across from 320 Bella Vista Ave.
• The report states "no significant impact, with mitigation". What are the mitigations for
cutting down two or more ancient oak trees? Are replacement trees to be planted?
• Where will these replacement trees be p laced on the site? No amount of money or the
planting of trees in some other location will mitigate the loss of these trees.
• These trees along the west side of Bella Vista Avenue constitute a significant green belt
which birds use to migrate from south to north with relative protection from human
activity. Removal of 10 or more trees on this site would disrupt this corridor.
Ingress and Egress/Safety
• We are very concerned about the narrowness of the street and the ability of fire
equipment to navigate it with the increased parking and the presence of a new driveway.
Bella Vista Ave . is extremely narrow where it meets Simons Way because there are
houses on both sides and cars parked on the right-of-way. We do not want to see that
happen at our end of Bella Vista .
• Bella Vista Avenue is a bike route . Residents paid for surfacing the street with the help
of federal dollars for the bike-route designation. The additional driveway, parking and
ingress/egress would add to the danger of riding on the street.
• The proposed driveway configuration would necessitate that the driver back out uphill
onto Bella Vista , a dangerous move, especially during high-school commute times. This
is a significant hazard as the driveway is steep.
• How will increased traffic be mitigated? How will the safety for bicyclists be ensured?
How will fire-engine access be assured?
We urge you to deny the application.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Tim and Judy Coughlin
The Town 's Tree Protection Ordinance states:
Sec. 29 .10.0950. Intent.
This division is adopted because the Town of Los Gatos is forested by many native and non-
native trees , and contains individual trees of great beauty. The health and welfare of the citizens
of the Town require that these trees be saved in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the
Town, prevent erosion of topsoil, provide protection against flood hazards and risk of landslides,
counteract pollutants in the air, maintain climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. Trees
contribute significantly to the value of land in the Town . It is the intent of this division to regulate
the removal of trees within the Town in order to retain as many trees as poss ible consistent with
the purpose of this section and the reasonable use of private property. It is the in te nt of th is
division to preserve as many protected trees a s possible throughout the Town through staff
review and the development review process. Special provisions regarding hillsides are included
in Section 29.10 .0987 of this division in recognition of the unique biological and environmental
differences between the hillside and non-hillside areas of the Town. This section does not
supersede the provisions of Chapter 26 of this Code.
(Ord. No . 2114, §§ I, II , 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.0987 . Special Provisions-Hillsides
The Town of Los Gatos recognizes its hillsides as an important natural resource and sensitive
habitat which is also a key component of the Town's identity, character and charm . In order to
maintain and encourage restoration of the hillside environment to its natural state, the Town has
established the following special provisions for tree removal and replacement in the hillsides :
( 1) All protected trees located 30 or more feet from the primary residence that are removed shall
be replaced with native trees listed in Appendix A Recommended Native Trees for Hillside
Areas of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G).
(2) All protected trees located within 30 feet of the primary residence that are removed shall be
replaced as follows:
(a) If the removed tree is a native tree listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G, it shall only be
replaced with a native tree listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G .
(b) If the removed tree is not listed in Appendix A, it may be replaced with a tree listed in
Appendix A, or replaced with another species of tree as approved by the Director.
(c) Replacement trees listed in Appendix A may be planted anywhere on the property.
(d) Replacement trees not listed in Appendix A may only be planted within 30 feet of the primary
residence.
(3) Replacement requirements shall comply with the requirements in Table 3-1 Tree Canopy
Replacement Standard of this Code.
( 4) Property owners should be encouraged to retain dead or declining trees where they do not
pose a safety or fire hazard, in order to foster wildlife habitat and the natural renewal of the
hillside environment.
Sec. 29.10.0960. Scope of protected trees .
This division shall apply to every property owner and to every person, corporation, partnership,
sole proprietorship or other entity responsible for removing, maintaining or protecting a tree . The
trees protected by this division are :
(1) All trees which have a twelve -inch or greater diameter (thirty-seven and one-half-inch
circumference) of any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eighteen inches or
greater diameter (fifty-six and one-half inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such
trees are located on developed residential property.
(2) All trees which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five-inch circumference) of
. any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eight inches or greater diameter (twenty-
five-inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed
Hillside residential property.
(3) All trees of the following species which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five-
inch circumference) located on developed residential property:
a. Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii)
b. Black Oak (Quercus kellogii)
c. California Buckeye (Aesculus californica)
d . Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii)
(4) All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference)
of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision
approval is required .
Page 5
(5) Any tree that existed at the time of a zoning approval or subdivision approval and was a
specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (6) of this section (e.g .,
landscape or site plans).
(6) Any tree that was required by the Town to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions
of a development application , building permit or subdivision approval in all zoning districts, tree
removal permit or code enforcement action .
(7) All trees, which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch
circumference) of any trunk and are located on property other than developed residential
property.
(8) All publicly owned trees growing on Town lands, public places or in a public right-of-way
easement, which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference)
of any trunk.
(9) A protected tree shall also include a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each
dependent upon the other for the survival of the stand.
(1 0) The following trees shall also be considered protected trees and shall be subject to the
pruning permit requirements set forth in Section 29.10.0982 and the public noticing procedures
set forth in Section 20.10.0994:
a . Heritage trees
b. Large protected trees
(Ord . No . 2114, §§I, II , 8-4-03)
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank