341 Bella Vista Ave-- Addendum & Exhibit 18TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: May 25, 2016
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS:
Marni Moseley, AICP, Associate Planner
MMoseley@ losgato sca .gov
Architecture and Site Application S-12-103
Subdivision Application M-12-008
Negative Declaration ND-16-001
341 Bella Vista Avenue (west side of Bella Vista Avenue, north of
Charles Street)
Jake Peters and Dan Ross
Dan Ross
Requesting approval to merge two lots and to construct a new single
family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned
R-1 :8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified and
a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 529-23-015
and 016.
Previously received under separate cover March 4, 2016:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Previously received with April 13, 2016 Staff Report:
2 . Location map
3 . Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (six pages)
4. Response to comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration (48 pages)
5. Required findings (two pages)
6. Recommended Conditions of Approval (13 pages)
7. Project data sheet (two pages)
8. Consulting Architect's report (four pages), received November 13 ,
2013
9. Consulting Arborist report (35 pages), dated October 28, 2013
I 0. Consulting Arborist report ( 11 pages), dated September 24, 2014
11. Applicant 's letter (seven pages), received March 25 , 2016
12 . Town Council Resolution 2012-057 (three pages)
13 . Public Comments received by 11:00 a .m. on April 7, 2016 (158 pages)
14. Development Plans (26 sheets), received March 24, 2016
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
341 Bella Vista A venue/S-12-103 /M-12-008/ND-16-001
May 25 , 2016
REMARKS:
Previously received with April 13, 2016 Desk Item:
15. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on April 7, 2016 to 11 :00
a.m. on April 13 , 2016
Previously received with May 25, 2016 Staff Report :
16. Comments received from 11:01 a.m. on Thursday, April 13,
2016 to 11 :00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 19, 2016
17. Applicant's response letter and materials, received May 19 , 2016
(25 pages)
Received with this Addendum Report :
18. Comments received from 11 :01 a.m. on Wednesday May 19 ,
2016 to 11 :00 a.m. on Tuesday, May 24, 2016
The attached public comments (Exhibit 18) were received after distribution of the staff report.
Prepared by: a
Marni Moseley, AICP
Associate Planner
JP:MM:sr
,Approved by:
I Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
cc: Dan Ross, 188 Villa A venue, Los Gatos , CA 95030
Jake Peters, P.O. Box 3486 , Ketchum , ID 83340
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2016\Bella Vista-341-5-25-16-ADD.doc
Eleanor Leishman
332 Bella Vista Ave .
RECEIVED
MAY 2 0 2016
Los Gatos, CA 95032-5415 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
May 19, 2016
Lead agency:
Project Title and
Town of Los Gatos
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Location: 341 Bella Vista Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-12-103
Subdivision Application M-12-008
Negative Declaration ND-16-001
Regarding: Objections to proposed development at 341 Bella Vista Ave.
Dear Ms. Mosely and Planning Commissioners, Town of Los Gatos:
My husband and I live at 332 Bella Vista Ave, a few houses north and across
the street from the proposed development at 341 Bella Vista Ave . I'm writing to
express my and our concerns about, and objections to, the proposed development .
I've written two previous letters to you expressing concerns about the negative
impacts that this development would have on the environment and on the
neighborhood . I'm reiterating and expanding on my objections, concerns and
questions with this letter. These include:
* Questions about the slope stability of the site during and after construction;
* The loss of three protected Oaks and the potential effects this loss will have
on wildlife including Special-Status Birds (i .e., endangered) and Migratory Bird
species. I remain unconvinced by assertions in the Town's Initial report that these
impacts can and will be mitigated effectively. (See Initial Study, pages 3, and 33)
EXHIBIT 1 8
* The loss of trees will have a negative impact on views from Bella Vista. The
large Oak trees currently provide visual screening of the freeway, town homes and
commercial developments downhill. If the development goes forward as proposed,
that screening will be lost. New views will consist of the applicant's garage , the
freeway, and downhill developments. It will take a hundred years for replacement
24" box trees to grow to the mature height and canopy of the heritage Oak trees
slated to be removed from the site;
* The proposed development will add to traffic and congestion issues on Bella
Vista Ave., where significant traffic challenges already exist. (See Appendix A ,
Traffic). Yet in a response to my letter to the Town dated March 24, 2016, Ms.
Mosely stated:
According to the Town's traffic determination, traffic generated by the proposed project would represent
a minor impact on the circulation system and would not conflict with the Congestion Management
Program. No additional traffic studies are required by the Town. However, the project would be subject
to payment of a traffic mitigation fee in accordance with the Traffic Impact Policy. Potential impacts are
considered less than significant.
* The applicant's submittals to the Town include civil engineering drawings and
graphic representation and visualizations by Kimley Horn, a design consulting
firm . Who is the architect of record on this project and why were no architect's
drawings submitted with this application?
*With all the effort and expense invested in these graphic represe ntations , a study
of the driveway/street interface would not have been amiss. The driveway will
require vehicles entering the property to back downhill to the garage, or else back
uphill onto the street when exiting the property. Vehicles backing uphill will enter
the flow of southbound traffic on a blind curve and will not have an adequate line
of sight until they reach street level. (The Town's Driveway Ordinance states that
"an adequate line of sight must be maintained at all times.")
My overarching objection to this development is that it needs to be much smaller-
it is just too dense, too intense and too invasive for the site itself , and for the
neighborhoods on Bella Vista Ave., and below on Maggi Court. This proposed
construction would be three stories high including a cellar below and garage on
top , two large decks , a green roof, and outdoor stairwells and balconies which add
up to a very large overall fo otprint that exceeds the stated FAR of the house .
The applicant's asse rtion tha t thi s project conforms to all Town standards and
guidelines ignores the question of whether it fits with the overall intent of the
Town 's guidelines. It violates the letter and intent of the HDS&G because it has
three stories and because of its bulk and mass. (See HDG&S, Chapter 5, Sections
E, number 5 : "Three-story elevations are prohibited" and Section F, number 1:
"Buildings shall be designed to minimize bulk, mass and volume so as not to be
prominently visible from a distance or from surrounding properties.")
In terms of Town planning, the decision to allow one type of development to
be built (such as the planned town home development downhill from the site in
question) may preclude or severely limit certain future development, such as the
one proposed for 341 Bella Vista. All other houses on the hilly west edge of Bella
Vista have little or no development immediately below them .
It's also important to be clear that there is very little development at all on the west
side of Bella Vista Ave, compared to the development on the east side.
Were this application to be approved, it would set unfortunate precedents for
further development on the west side of Bella Vista, despite the staff's April l31h
statement to the effect that there are "probably" no other buildable lots therein .
This would seem to be, on its face, contradictory.
This is obviously a challenging destroy/construct project given the extreme slope
and proximity to the town home development directly below this site. The project
would require a great deal of mechanical equipment and personnel (including
worker's vehicles), which will overwhelm our narrow street and displace limited
on-street resident parking. The recent home constructions at 222 and 224 Bella
Vista Ave . regularly have been the site of nine and ten vehicles; those sites have
unaffiliated parking across the street from them, as Mr. Ross's does not, and have
impacted traffic for the majority of this time.
For all the above reasons, I respectfully urge you, the Planning Commissioners, to
consider the risks and possible downsides of this project development as you come
to your decision about whether or not to allow it to move forward.
Yours truly,
Eleanor Leishman
Apendix A-Traffic on Bella Vista Ave.
Increased traffic caused by the Blue Bird Lane development, and the ever-increasing amount of
"cut-through" traffic from Los Gatos Blvd. have contributed to ongoing traffic problems on Be lla
Vista Ave. High traffic volume is especially noticeable during the commutes to and from the
High School, but recent hou s ing construction on the street has also s ignificantly contributed to it.
Traffic calming procedures implemented on Bella Vista several years ago (the installation
of "speed humps") has done littl e to slow down the speed of traffic . Pedestrians (man y with
children , strollers and dog s); joggers; and cyclists favor our street, and th ey all have to be careful
about cars and trucks speeding a long the street. There is little or no po lice enforcement of the
posted speed limits. And there's very little on street parking available for those who need to park
on Bella Vi sta, especially during the day.
The street itself is narrow, with no sidewalks to speak of. There are two blind curves on Bella
Vista between Caldwell and Charles, and in some places there is no space for two cars to pass
each other if cars are parked on either side of the street. At night the street is poorly lit. All these
factors contribute to traffic safety challenges on Bella Vista.
7:30 am school traffic on Bella Vista at the north edge of the applicant's property.
Marni Moseley
From: Debra Chin <debrachin@aol.com >
Saturday, May 21, 2016 8:29 PM
Marni Moseley
Sent:
To:
Subject: Remarks re : 341 Bella Vista Avenue
Lead agency:
Application No:
Project Location :
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos , CA 95031
Architecture and Site Application S-12-103
Subdivision Application M-12-008
Negative Declaration ND-16-001
341 Bella Vista Avenue
Dear Vice Chair Kane and Planning Commissioners :
I am writing to respectfully request that the Architecture and Site application and the Subdivision application for 341 Bella
Vista Avenue be denied based on the lack of adherence with the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. Contrary to the
finding in the Planning Commission Staff Report of May 25, 2016 stating that the project is consistent with the Hillside
Standards and Guidelines, the proposal is not compliant for the following reasons:
I. The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Prohibit Three-story Elevations
On page 5 of his letter to the Planning Commission dated May 17, 2016, Mr. Ross acknowledges that three story
elevations are prohibited , yet Mr. Ross continues to assert that his current plans are fully compliant as "the house
itself is not three stories". As acknowledged by the Town in response to my letter of March 22,· 2016, the proposed
home is three stories . Three stories are three stories, no matter whether Mr. Ross chooses to use the main level as a
garage or a living area.
II. Exception for Rear Patio Retaining Wall
The applicant is asking for an exception to the Hillside Standards and Guidelines for a rear patio retaining wall in order
to provide egress to the patio from the bedrooms located in the cellar. If the bedrooms were designed to be on the
main or upper level , like all of the other homes in the neighborhood, there would be no need for this exception.
Ill. Buildings Should be Designed to Minimize Bulk, Mass and Volume
The Hillside Standards stipulate that "buildings shall be designed to m inimize bulk, mass , and volume as not to be
visible from a distance or surrounding properties". The current plan for a three-story elevation house totaling 3,319
square feet built on lots with an average slope of 50 degrees (per TS Civil, the civil engineer for the project)
maximizes visible bulk and mass to multiple neighbors .
Mr. Ross claims that he has created this new plan in direct response to the Planning Commission and specifically
Commissioner O'Donnell's remarks to reduce the square footage of the homes. However, the prior plan was for two
homes on two lots , one with 2 ,319 square feet and one with 2 ,202 square feet of living space . The current plan for a
single home with 2,638 square feet is an increase of 14% and 20 % respectively vs . each of the two prior homes
planned .
IV. Neighborhood Privacy and Compatibility
Hillside Standards require that the site and design for a new home ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors . The
proximity, mass and scale, and outdoor balconies that characterize the current design will result in extreme violation
to the privacy of the adjacent Bella Vista town home owners.
1
As Mr. Ross points out in his letter to the Planning Commissioners dated May 17, 2016 the neighborhood on Bella
Vista Avenue is made up of one and two story single family detached homes . There are NO comparable three story
homes on Bella Vista Avenue. The comparison he makes to the townhomes on Maggi Court is irrelevant, as the site
was not a designated as a Hillside.
V. Neighborhood Outreach
During the April 13th hearing, Commissioner Hanssen asked me if I would be willing to meet with the applicant. I
responded that I would be willing to meet, "given the applicant comes up with a design that mitigates the concerns
raised ". However, before the close of the hearing the applicant's attorney , Barton Hechtman, dismissed the concerns
raised by myself and other neighbors when he stated "the whole purpose of this process we 're engaged in is not to
protect the neighborhood".
Since the hearing, I acknowledge that I have received two letters from the applicant offering to review the current
plans . One was deposited under my door mat (without Mr. Ross taking the opportunity to knock on my door and
speak with me as invited during the hearing on April 13th) and another was sent via mail without a return
name/address . Both letters state that the current application is in complete compliance and "requires no variances".
Given Mr. Hechtman 's stated intention to provide direct rebuttal to the issues raised by neighbors when the hearing is
reconvened on May 25, 2016 and Mr. Ross' unwillingness or inability to produce a plan that acknowledges or
addresses the concerns I have expressed, I feel that there are no grounds for a meeting or discussion at the present
time .
I understand that the applicant has a right to build something on these lots , however the adjustments proposed to the plan
in response to the comments from the public and the Planning Commission are immaterial. Please deny the application
and continue to uphold the Hillside Standards and Guidelines which were enacted to preserve the character and beauty of
the Town of Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Debra Chin
154 Maggi Court
2
PATRICK K. TILLMAN
Attorney at Law
May 22, 2016
Sent via e-mail to: MMoselev@Josgatosca.gov
and planning@Josgatosca.gov
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos , CA 95030
Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications
Applicant: Dan Ross
Planning Commission Meeting-05-25-16
Supplement
Dear Commissioners:
At the 04-13-16 Planning Commission hearing, I was asked to address three
(3) of the following, I added# 1 & 2:
#1. Three (3) Stories.
#2. Exceeded height.
#3. Exceeded the FAR.
#4. Exceeded "Cut and fill."
#5. Exceeded driveway 15°/o slope.
#1. Three (3) Stories. 1 si, look at it -it's three (3) stories.
2nd, the definition of a "Story" is provided by the Town Code:
Story means that portion of a building including between the
upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next
above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a
building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor
and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly
above a basement or cellar is more than six ( 6) feet above grade,
such basement or cellar shall be considered a story. Three story
2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126
Phone: (408) 615-96 70 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 2 -
building elevations are prohibited in Hillside Residential and
Resource Conservation Zones.
"Cellar" is defined by the Town:
(Emphasis added)
(29.10.020)
"Cellar means an enclosed area that does not extend more than
four (4) feet above the existing or finished grade in any location
"
(29.10.020)
This is not a cellar.
Three (3) story elevations are also prohibited by the HDS&G. (@pg. 36)
#2. Exceeded height -twice (2x).
r' one: overall height.
"Height means the height of all structures ... [and} shall be
determined by the plumb vertical distance from the natural or
finished grade, whichever is lower and creates a lower profile, to
the uppermost point of the roof edge ... No point of the roof or
other structural element within the exterior perimeter of the
structure shall extend beyond the plane established by the
maximum height plane ... " (29.10.020)
The height limitation for homes extending above a ridgeline is 28'. (HDS&G,
pg. 35) For ridgeline and visible homes, the height limitation is 18'. (Ibid @pg. 36)
The "PROJECT DAT A" sheet provided by Staff indicates the maximum height is
25'.
This is a visible home ... even more so after Applicant cuts down all the trees.
The Staff Report indicates "the overall maximum height of [this project is}
33 feet." (04-13-16 Staff Report, pg. 7) Applicant's building diagram indicates
approximately 33'. (MND, Figure 9)
2
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 3 -
2nd one: Main floor.
"The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure,
excluding cellars, shall not be more than four feet above the
existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes."
(HDS&G, pg. 36, ifE(4))
Applicant diagramed the point in the lowest level where the natural slope cuts
through at 4' above the lowest floor. The distance from the lowest level floor to the
next level floor is 1 O', leaving 6' above the existing grade. Worse, he cantilevered
the Main level out beyond the lowest floor, creating a gap substantially more than 6'.
#3. Exceeded the FAR. The Staff Report incorrectly calculated the FAR.
The calculation should be:
10,155
x.4
4,062
x.345
1,401
sq. ft. lot
(60 % reduction)
sq. ft . applicable
FAR for under 11,000 s.f. lot (HDS&G 27-28)
FAR allowable
Staff also neglected to include the FAR total for the project. Not conceding
the cellar reduction of 1, 179 sq . ft. claim, but allowing it for argument sake, Staff's
figures total 1,564 ( 1,278 Main floor+ 185 Non-cellar+ 101 oversized garage).
Staff's "Neighborhood Analysis Table" uses 7 of 8 FAR comparisons that are
across the street on Bella Vista. Appropriate. These comps all have flat, useable
lots , unlike this property.
#4. Exceeded "Cut and fill." The Staff Report omits grading information -
specifics, and why the HDS&G should be disregarded.
The MND indicates+ 10' of vertical "cut" into the hillside that runs +60'
horizontally, parallel to the road. (MND Figure 9) This evacuation is to
accommodate the lowest floor, referred to as a "cellar;" A "cellar" with its own
patio.
3
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 4 -
Again, "Cellar" is defined by the Town:
"Cellar means an enclosed area that does not extend more than
four (4) feet above the existing or finished grade in any location
"
(29.10.020)
This is not a cellar.
Maximum grading cuts are not to exceed 8'. (HDS&G, pg. 17)
"Cuts and fills in excess of [8 '] are considered excessive and contrary to the
objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines." (Ibid)
Applicant requires another 5' of vertical cutting to install a retaining wall that
"wraps around the below grade patio and the main living floor level to the south of
the site." (Staff Report, pg. 6) Presumably, that retaining wall also runs for +60',
plus an area for a patio; the patio area of the retaining wall having no more than
another 5' of exposure. (Ibid)
We are talking about +15' of vertical "cut," running +60' horizontally,
through a 53% slope, parallel to the road just above it; which is not 25' from the
structure.
Another "retaining wall," referred to by Staff as simply "a wall," is poorly
disclosed/described as being " ... along the rear and side range from approximately
3 feet at the western edge to 10 feet along the eastern edge of the patio." (Staff
Report, pg. 6, ~) NOT POSSIBLE, and show it somewhere, e.g. diagram. "NOT
POSSIBLE" because the 53% slope is east-to-west, headed downward.
Consequently, any point west of another point requires a higher wall.
1 O' is higher/deeper than 8'.
//Ill
Ill/I
//Ill
4
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 5 -
#5. Exceeded driveway 15°/o slope. The Staff Report generally references
compliance in its Conclusion, under the sub-heading of "Pedestrian safety;" nothing
more . (Staff Report, pg. 8)
T he maximum grade for a driveway is 15%, with adequate line of sight.
(29.10.06708 ; HDS&G pgs . 22-23)
Applicant's diagrams are inconsistent and inaccurate. (MND , Figures 3 & 4;
05-17-16 Applicant Supplement (Exhibit 1 O); placement of Story Poles)
Applicant randomly picks a spot far left of the midpoint of the driveway
entrance off Bella Vista, and draws a line directly to the midpoint of the garage,
cutting across the actual slope of the driveway at an angle -assigning the distance as
44'. The garage floor is 6' below the street level. Using only these two (2) points,
the percentage drop appears to meet the standard (6 _,_ 44 = 11.1 %), but it simply
masks the slope of the primary area of ingress and egress, which is steeper.
Another problem with Applicant's driveway presentation is: his 05-17-16
Supplement matches the Story Pole depiction, placing the garage door almost
perpendicular to Bella Vista, with a flat area directly in front of the garage, thus
shortening the distance for the calculation. As a consequence, the driveway actually
has a more dramatic drop (West) immediately coming off Bella Vista and getting to
the flat area and their garage. The slope, as depicted by its supporting wall (another
retaining wall??; 05-17-16 Applicant Supplement, Exhibit 10), where the slope is the
least, exceeds 30% for the 1st 15-25 '.
No comment is made by Staff about visibility, e.g. at the south-easterly-most
comer of the lot, right next to the street, is a 33" Coastal Oak. It's not on
Applicant 's property. Or a comment that across Applicant's entire southerly
property line are 20-25 ' tall bush-trees, blocking an exiting driver's view. These
drivers will be backing out, onto Bella Vista, uphill, basically blind to Northbound
traffic . The exiting driver's view of Southbound traffic is blocked by quite a few
trees that line the property close to Bella Vista, which tracks around these trees in a
soft convex curve.
5
Los Gatos Planning Commission
May 22, 2016
Page - 6 -
CONCLUSION
The whole purpose of this process is to protect the neighborhood, not to assist
[a spec-home} develop er.
Thank you.
Respectful 1 y,
Isl
Patrick K. Tillman
cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail)
TownofLosGatos.Planning.0522 16
6
May 21, 2016
The Planning Commissioners
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
11 O East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Dear Commissioners,
Re: 341 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA Application
Vitaliy Stulski & Natallia Stulskaya
152 Maggi Ct.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
We are writing again to reinforce our extreme concern with the proposed residential development at
341 Bella Vista Avenue submitted by Mr. Dan Ross. We live at 152 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA in
"Bella Vista Village" and are the owners of this property.
Recently I had a chance to look at the revised plans that Mr. Dan Ross submitted for upcoming
Planning Commission hearing . Also I read the Staff report that concluded that the project has to be
approved , subject to conditions . I'd like to express my disagreement with this assessment.
The new proposal still fails to address many concerns that I personally and our community
expressed in many hearings and letters before.
1 . Significant privacy issues including visibility into neighbouring properties ;
2 . Bulk and mass: Guidelines are interpreted in favor of the developer. Proposed structure plan
suggests adding square footage every possible way. From downhill this structure will look exactly
like what it is: 2800 sq . feet house, no matter that 1200 sq . feet is counted as a cellar.
3 . Financial loss to all the residencies around the project and also in the close proximity to it;
4 . Environmental impact: cutting trees and transforming a lively green steep hill into a huge houses
that covers the most of the hillside and very visible from the properties down the hill ;
5 . Huge safetv problems including cutting huge chunks of the slope in a seismic unstable zone,
building enormous house right up the hill from the neighbour properties;
6 . Causing huge inconvenience to the neighbourhood during construction and after it (traffic,
parking , noise , light etc.)
7 . Painful process of going from plan to plan for many years. Splitting lots and proposing two large
houses, insignificantly decreasing their size, then merging lots, proposing even bigger house and
comparing it to two houses before.
When we were buying our house we knew that the land behind it is zoned as buildable (previous
owner informed us). We also knew that prior attempts to build on this land were shut down on the
grounds of not following the guidelines (FAR etc .). This fact gave us strong belief that the rules are
enforced in Los Gatos and our investment will be well protected against possible attempts to violate
them .
I would like to kindly ask the Planning Commission to deny this application .
Sincerely Yours,
Vitaliy Stulski and Natallia Stulskaya
Owners of 152 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA.
May 23, 2016
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
Timothy S. and Judith A. Coughlin
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-12-103
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-001
Subdivision Application M-12-008
Dear Commissioners:
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 that the removal of trees would be of minimal
impact.
• When trees are removed for the construction of this development the building with 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 .
• 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 placed on the site? No amount of money or the
planting of trees in some other location will mitigate t he 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 1 O or more trees on this site would d isrupt this corridor.
Ingress and Egress/Safety
• We are very concerned about the narrowness of the street and the abil ity of fire
equipment to navigate it with the increased parking and the presence of a new driveway.
Bella V ista Ave. is extremely narrow where it meets Simons Way and this is because
there are houses on both sides and cars parked on the right-of-way. We do not want to
see that happen here.
• 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?
Any construction on this site will seriously endanger these beautiful heritage oaks and should be
denied. Perhaps a small-footprint home on the north corner of the lot should be considered if
any building is to be done at all. Even then , the safety impacts and esthetics cannot be
mitigated satisfactorily.
We urge you to deny this application.
Thank you .
Sincerely,
Tim and Judy Coughlin