Loading...
19 Highland Ave - Staff Report Exh.8-14Februa..ry 24, 2016 Ms. Marui Moseley Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 9 5031 RE: 19 Highland Avenue DearMami: ARCHITECfURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the cbwings, and have previously visited the site for an application review in 2006 for a home on this parcel. My comments and recommendations are as follows: Neighborhood Context The site is located on a very narrow road serving this pan:e1 and one other nearby. The site slopes down away from the road and is heavily wooded. A photographs of the site taken at the west end of the site near the proposed new access driveway is shown on the fol- lowing page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE • SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 .EXHIBIT 8 TEL: 415.331.3795 CDGPLAN@PACBELL.NET /he :>t£e Concerns and Recommcndatiom 19 Highland Avenue Design ~cw Commcna Fehruaty24,2016 ~2 The shape; steep topography and existing heavy tree growth limits the buildable area of this site. There have been at least two previous proposals for new homes on this site with their proposed building footprints shown along with the current proposal on the illustration below. While the proposed new house would be !datively close to the road, its -would generally be similar to the earlier development proposals. CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 I have only two recommendation for this project 19 Highland Avenue Design Review Commenl5 Febnwy24,2016 Pagc3 1. Extend the proposed lmdscaping adjacent to the road mrt:her to the west to buffer the mller tower at the entry which is two stories tall and has limired architedulal detail at eye levcl from the road-see diagr.un ~ Extend edge of road Proposed landscaping at maturHy landscaping If possible (approximately 12-16 feet) ·----------··-·················H--:....:..:~--.:....--.....;~---+ 2. Pick one roofing marerial (standing seam metal OJ: composition shingles) and use it consistently aver the entire house to provide additional unity to what is a fairly busy design composition. I have no other recommendations for d>..anges. Marni, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP ~~ Larry L Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 This Page Intentionally Left Blank . ... ( ARBOR RESOURCES J'rofess•onal COI}5Uitml3 arl:1or1sts and tree care A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE AT 19 IDGHLM"'D A VENUE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNER: Dr. Angelo Orphan APPLICANT: John Lien Architect ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-03-49 NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-03-1 <. APN: 529.;.37-041 Submitted to: Heather Bradley Community Development Departm~nt Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-400JB February 15,2010 EXHIBIT 9 p.o. box 25295. san mateo. c:ahforma 94402 • ema1l: arborresources@lcomc·ast.net phone! G50.G54 .335 I • fax: G50.240.0777 • licensed contractor #79G7G3 • . ( David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15,2010 SECTION 1.0 1.1 1.2 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 EXIDBIT A B TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE IN'TR.ODUCTION ........................................................... 1 Assignillent ...................................................................... 1 Site Description ............................ :. . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION .................................. 2 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ....................... 3 REVIEW OF POTENTIAL TREE IMP ACTS ....................... 4 RECOMI.\mNDATIONS ...........•....................................... 6 Design Guidelines ..................................... :.. . . . . .. . . . . . .... . . . . .. 6 Protection Measures Before and During Development .................. 9 EXHIBITS TITLE TREE INVENTORY TABLE SITE MAPS (three sheets) ·. ( .-- David L Bah by, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Assignment I have been retained by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department to re\oiew the potential tree impacts as so ciated with constructing the proposed residence on a vacant lot at 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos (project titled "Orphan Residence"). This report presents my analysis and reCQmmendations. Trees inventoried for this report include those defined as being "protected.,1_ and located in proximity to the proposed development, to include trees situated on the subject site, as well as those overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. Plans reviewed for this report include the set of plans by John Lien Architect, stamp dated January 29, 2010 (to my understanding, the project design remains the same as presented in the set of plans reviewed for my previous report dated October 10/26/09). The trees' approximate locations and numbers are presented on Sheet T3~ as well as on three site maps in Exhibit B (the maps are copies of Sheet 1, dated 9/31/04, from an earlier design). l.l Site Description The subject site is an undeveloped lot on fairly steep terrain. It slopes sharply downhill from Highland A venue, and flattens near a creek that flows through nearly the entire length of the property. As of more recently, extensive grading or soil repair work was performed along the creek channel. The site is forested, and contains a relatively significant amount of large, evergreen trees that provide year-round shade over most of the property. The tree population is rather dense and dominated with native specimens, predominantly oaks and bays. There is a grove oflarge blue gum eucalyptus at the property 's w estern section. At the time the trees' conditions were evaluated, most of the site was blanketed with a dense and deep layer of ivy that covered the trees' lower trunks, a situation that inhibits viewing any potential structural defects or indicators within the obStructed areas . 1 Pursuant to Section 29.10.0960 of the Town's Municipal Code, "protected trees" have a trunk with a diameter of four inches and greater measured at three fe~ above grade. Fruit-or nut-bearing trees with trunlcs Jess than 18 inches. in diameter are exempt (Section 29.1 0 .0970). 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 1 of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department .. ( ~·· David L. Babby, Registered Consulting A.rborist Feb7"1!ary 15, 2010 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION Sixty-eight (68) trees of six various species were inventoried for this report. They are sequentially numbered as I thru 68, and th~ following table identifies their species, assigned numbers, counts and percentage·s: Blue Elderberry 1 1 1% Blue Gum Eucalyptus 3-7 ,44 6 9% Coast Live Oak 2 , 8, 10, 11, 14,_21, 22, 25, 28, 22 32% 29,36,40 ,48,50,53,56,59 , 60, 62, 64-66 California Buckeye 45,51 2 3% California Bay Tree 9, 12 , 13, 16-20 ,24,26,31,32, 29 43% 34, 35, 37-39, 41, 42, 46, 47, 54 55 ,57 ,58,61,63,67,68 Valley Oak 15 ,23,27,30,33,43,49,52 8 12% Total 68 100% Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the Tree Inventory Table in Exhibit A. The trees' locations are presented on Sheet T3, as well as the -maps in .Exhibit B . For identification purposes, metal tags with engraved corresponding numbers have been affixed to the trees' trunks. The trunks of trees #48, 49 and 5lw53 have trunks situated on neighboring properties, and hav e been inventoried for this report as their root zones and/or canopies are vulnerable to potential damage during development. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 2 ofl2 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department David L Babby, Registered Con,sulting Arborist I I February 15, 2010 3.0 SlJITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned a "high," ''moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation rating as a method for cumulatively measuring their physiolc~ical hea!th, structural integrity, location, size and specie type. These ratings and applicable 1ree numbers are presented below. Note that ihe "high" category comprises 10 trees (or 15%), the ''moderate" category 36 trees (or 53%), and the "low" categoiy 22 trees (or 32%). High: Applies to trees #8, 11, 21, 22, 25, 33, 36, 49 , 53 and 56. These trees appear in good health, have seemingly stable structures, and have the likely potential of providing long-term contribution to the site. They are typically the most suitable for retention .and prote.ction. M oderate: Applies to trees #1, 7, 9, 12-~5, 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 26, 27, 29-32, 34, 35, 37, 40, 45, 48, 50-52,57-63,67 and 68. These trees contribute to the site, but not at seemingly significant levels. Their longevity and contributioJ?. is less than those of high suitability, and more frequent care is needed during their remaining life span. Also, they are worthy of protection, however, not at the expense of major design revisions. Low: Applies to t r ees #1, 3-6, 10, 16, 19, 28·, 38, 39, 41-44, 46, 47, 54, 55 and 64-66. These trees provide mfuor contribution to the property, present a significant risk to the site, and/or are in poor, dead or dying condition. In many instances, the removal of these trees would improve site safety as they are predisposed to decline and/or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. 19 Highland A venue, L os Gatos P age 3 ofl2 Tow rr of Los Gatos Commun ity Development Department ( David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15,2010 4.0 REVIEW O F POTENTIAL TREE IMP ACTS By implementation of the proposed design, the following 29 trees (or 43% of the total) would either be removed or considered a loss (regardless if retained or removed) due to being [1] in direct conflict, [2] indicated for removal on Sheet 2, and/or [3] subjected to such severe impacts that their loss is anticipated: #3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21 , 22, 24-28, 30, 37-40, 60-62, 64 and 68. Information regarding these 29 trees is as follows: 1. Those in direct conflict include the following 20 trees: #3, 4, 12, 13, 15-17, 19,24- 27, 37-40, 60, 61, 64 and 68. Of these, tree #25 is highly worthy of retention; however, its retention does not seem feasible as major design revisions would be necessary to achieve a minimum setback from its trunk of at least nine feet. 2. In addition to the 20 trees listed above, there are an additional five trees indicated on Sheet T3 to be removed; they include #5-7, 28 and 62. 3 .. There are an additional four trees planned for retention, but would ptherwise be subjected to such severe impacts that their premature decline and instability would result, and they would become a serious safety concern to persons and property below; they include #8, 21, 22 and 30. Information and recommendations regarding these trees are as follows: a. Tree #8 is a 14-inch diameter coast live oak that would be severely impacted during construction of the proposed driveway. The plans show its trunk to be within a few feet of the driveway's retaining wall. To facilitate construction of the wall, overcut is expected, and would result in root loss within inches from trunk. As roots anchoring this tree can be found within the depth requiring excavation, the tree's stability and longevity will be subjected to instability and premature decline. b. Trees #21 and 22 are sizeab_le oaks (19-and IS-inch trunk diameters, respectively) situated extremely close to the future staircase. When considering overcut, root loss is expected to occur within one to two feet from ' their trunks, and as such, they will be predisposed to uprooting and decline . c. Tree #30 will be adversely impacted by installing the proposed dissipater (labeled on Sheet T3 as "B"). To avoid significantly impacting this and other 19 Highla'fJd Avenue, Los Gatos Page 4 of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ,~ \ David L. Bobby, Registered Consulting Arbori.st February 15, 2010 trees to be retained, the dissipater and any drain lines should be established beyond the trees' canopies. I recommend trees #10 and 46 are also scheduled for removal. Tree #10 is a small, dying coast live oak with a trunk diameter of seven inches. Tree #46 is a moderately-sized bay tree (multiple trunks of 15 and 8 inches in diameter) with root rot and internal decay, a situation that· can result in the entire tree failing. Note that I did not detect the presence of Sudden Oak Death (Phytophthora ramorum) within or immediately surrounding the site. However, due to the site. being populated predominantly by California bays and coast live oaks, and to reduce the potential for infection, I recommend that the property owner considers developing· a comprehensive management strategy with a consulting arborist (either the Town's or one hired directly by the property owner). Facets of the strategy may include a combination of removing specific California bay trees in close proximity to valuable and more dominant coast live oaks, treating the bay stumps with an herbicide, and applying chemicals to the trunks of valuable oaks. Prior to implementing the removal of any bays regulated by Town Code, I recommend-the strategy (presented in a report) is reviewed and approved by the Town. Around the time of October and November 2009 (during the significant storm event), grading activity occurred along the section of creek at the east side of the property, seemingly for creekside repair apd/or flood damage con1rol. This type of work will have impacted the roots of surrounding trees, although my cursory evaluation did not reveal the impacts to be significant. The proposed underground atility trench (as shown on Sheet 1) will conflict with four large oaks located on the neighboring wesf:em property. To avoid jeopardizing those trees, the section of line beneath the canopies must be directionally bored by at least four feet below grade; additional recommendations are provided in Section 5.1 of this report. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 5 o/12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Departm ent David L . Babby, Registered Consultin~ Arborist February 15,2010 All other trees not mentioned in this section will potentially be adequately protected, provided the recommendations presented in the next section are carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans. Section 29.10.0985 of the Town Code provisions mitigation for the removal of trees unless "the tree is dead or a hazardous condition exists .... " Subsequently, mitigation is necessary to compensate for the loss of all removed trees except for #10 (nearly dead), 28 (dead) and 46 (extensive decay). I also recommend mitigation apply to trees that will be severely impacted and predisposed to premature decline and instability. Please refer to Section 5 .1, item 11 , for further details. 5.0 RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendations presented within this section are based . on plans reviewed, and serve as .guidelines for avoiding or mitigating impacts to the trees being retained and removed. They should be carefully followed throughout the development process, and are subje ct to revision upon reviewing any additional or revised plans. 5.1 Design Guidelines 1. This report should replace the report currently shown on Sheets T-1 and T-2 (the map section is the same and can remain). 2. The maps on Sheets T3 and 6 , and the graphic bars on Sheets 2A, 2B , 2D and 6 are not to scale and should be adjusted accordingly. 3 . At the bottom center of Sheet T3, the rectangular box should be modified to omit discus·s of the 55 trees mentioned for either removal or optional remov al. 4 . Recommendations presented in Section 4.0 of this report should also be followed. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 6 ojl2 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ~-. ( David L. Bewhy. Registered Consulting Arhorist February 15,2010 5. The proposed dissipater labeled as ''B" on Sheet T3 must be moved beyond canopies of retained trees (or omitted from the design). Additionally, the anticipated locat ions of drain lines connecting to the dissipaters should also be shown, and established outside from beneath the canopies of retained trees. 6 . Due to the amount of significant trees aiong the proposed route of the underground utility trench,' the applicable plans shall specify that the utilities will be directionally- bored by at least four feet below existing soil grade; the ground above any tunnel must remain undisturbed; and access pits and any above-ground infrastructure (e.g. splice boxes, meters and vaults) must be established beyond the trees' canopies , unless approved and pre-determined on-site with the Town's consulting and/or client's project arborist. 7. Underground utilities and services should be established beyond a TPZ. Where this is not feasible, the section of line(s) within the TPZ should be tunneled or directionally-bored by at least four feet below existing grade; 8. The home design must not require the.removal of sigirificant branches from trees that would otherwise be planned for retention and protection. 9. The drainage design for the project, in~luding downspouts, must not require water being discharged beneath or towards the canopies of retained trees. The exception to this is where water is discharged directly into the existing channel. 10. The construCtion of an approved retaining wall beneath a tree's canopy should adhere to the following-guidelines: a. If the wall is supporting fill, a post and above-grade beam design should be employed, in which no soil is excavated or trenched between the posts (i.e. a no-dig design except vertically for the posts). b . If the wall is supporting existing grade, overcut beyond the wall should not exceed 24 inches (shoring will be necessary to achieve this). I 9 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 7 o/12 Tawn of Los Gatos Community-Development Department ( David L . Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15,2010 11. Except for trees # 10 (if removed), 28 and 46, mitigation is necessary to compensate for the loss of trees removed, and should also apply to trees determined by the "project arborist" (s((e Section 5.2) to have been severely impacted and subject to premature decline and/or instability. Per Section 29.10.0985 ofthe Town Code, this shall be determined by the Parks and Public Works Department and all new trees shall be planted prior to final inspection. They must be double-staked with. rub~er tree ties and all forms of irrigation shall be of an automatic drip or soaker hose system placed on the soil surface and not in a sleeve. 12. The future landscape plans should be reviewed for tree impacts prior to approval. 13 . The landscape design should incorporate the following guidelin.es : a . Turf should be avoided beneath an oak tree's canopy; if necessary, it should be established a minimum distance from an oak's trunk of seven times its diamet~r. Any plant material installed beneath an oak's canopy should be highly drought-tolerant, limited in amount (such as no more than 2.()-percent of the canopy area), be at least five to ten feet from the trunk. b. Within the setback, I suggest a four-inch ~ayer of coarse wood chips or other high-quality mulch is used as ground cover (no gorilla hair, bark or rock/stone). Black plastic or other synthetic ground cover should be avoided. Mulch should be placed no closer than 12 inches from a tree's trunk. c . Irrigation can, .overtime, adversely impact the oaks and should be avoided . Irrigation for any new plant material beneath their canopies should be a ·]ow- volume, drip-type system that is applied irregularly (such as only once or twice per week), and temporary (such as no more than three years). Irrigation should not strike within 12 to 24 inches from the trunks of other trees . d. Trenching for irrigation or lighting should be established beyond the trees' canopies. If any are necessary, they should be in a radial direction to the trunks, and established no closer than three times the diameter of the nearest trunk; if this is not possible, the lines c;m be placed on top of existing soil grade and covered with wood chips or other mulch. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 8 of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ,.... ( ~· ; David L Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 e . Stones or mulch should not be plaped ag~st the trunks of retained or new trees. Plastic ground cover should be avoided beneath canopies. f. Tilling beneath the canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. g. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath th~ canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 5.2 Protection Measures before and during Development 14. Due to the close proximity of activities among trees, an individual certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) -to be named the ''project arborist" - should be retained by the applicant or owner to assist in implementing and achieving compliance with all tree protection measures , as well as prepare a comprehensive "final tree preservation report" following completion of the construction phase (per Sec. 29.10.10000 ofthe Town Code); a copy should be submitted to the Town. Any necessary follow-up visits suggested by the arborist should also occur. 15. At least two weeks prior to any grading or site clearing work, a pre-construction meetiilg shall be held on-site with the pr oject arborist and contractor to discuss work procedures, tree ~ovals, protection fencing locations, limits of grading, staging areas, routes of access, mulching, watering and other items regarding mitigation. Prior to this meeting; the approved limits of grading should be staked, and the approved removals marked. 16. Tree protective fencing shall be inStalled prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. Its precise location must be determined and its placement approved by the project arborist (in the form of a letter submitted to the Town) prior to the issuance of a grading or construction permit. It shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link moimted on eight-foot tall. two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout construction \.llltil final inspection. Pleas~ note fencing beneath a tree's canopy should be established no more than two feet from a retaining wall and driveway, and six feet from the home's foundatio'l. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 9 of 12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Departm ent / \ David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist ( February 15, 2010 17. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials, .and equipment/vehiCle oi>eration and parking. 18. The following shall be displayed on 8.5-by 11-irich signs (minimum) and attached to ·the fencing every 50 feet on the side facing construction activities: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone -this fence shall not be removed. Violators are subject to a penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." These signs shall be posted prior to grading cominencing (essentially, at the same time tree fencing is erected). 19 . Prior to commendng demolition, I recommend a five-inch lay~r of coarse wood chips from a tree service company is m.anually spread within the designated fenced ·areas. The wood chips must not be placed against the tr~es' trunks and shall remain throughout construction. 20. Prior to heavy equipment being used to excav ate soil for the home, Qriveway and retaining walls, a one-foot wide, three-foot deep trench (or to the required depth, whichever is less) shall be manually dug where beneath a tree's canopy. The trench should be dug where excavation would occur closest to the trunks, and exposed roots cleanly severed on the tree side of the soil cut. Roots encountered with diameters of two inches and greater should be treated according to the project arborist. 21. Except as described in the recommendation above, any approved digging or trenching beneath a canopy shall be manually performed. In the event roots of two inches and greater are encountered during the process, the project arborist shall be consulted for appropriate action (roots of this size should remain intact and not be damaged). 22. Soil approved for excavation beneath a canopy should be piled away from and beyond a canopy. Where this is not practical, the soil can be placed on a tarp, plywood or mulch. 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 10of12 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department ( t David L. Babby, Register ed Consulting Arborist February 15,2010 23. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. 24. Any approved activity required beneath a tree's canopy (within and beyond the designated fenced areas) must be performed under the direction of the project arborist. The project arborist should also be retained to perfom1 monthly slte visits for ensuring compliance to tree protection measures. 25. Any existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees should be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade. 26. Each recommendation presented within Section 5.1 of this report and applic~ble to the grading, construction and landscaping of the site shall .a~o be followed. 27. All ivy shall be cleared off and at least two feet from the trunks of retained trees. The removal of ivy, plants or shrubs beneath the canopy of a retained tree should be manually performed with great care taken to avoid excavating soil during the process. Large shrubs beneath the canopies of retained trees and beyond the proposed home footprint should be cut to grade. 28. Supplemental water shall be provided to the retained trees prior to construction or demolition; the project arborist ~ determine the specific trees, amounts of water and application metl;'-ods. 29 ~ All tree pruning shall be performed under the direction of the project arborist, in accordance with the_ most recent ANSI standards, and by a California state-licensed tree service company that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role. The company selected should also carry General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and shall abide by ANSI Z133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). All pruning _ should be limited to the removal of deadwood ~1 in diameter; heavy limb weight reduction; and clearance for the home, vehicles. and equipment. · 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Page 11 of12 Tawn of Los Gatos Community Development Department ,. ! '· David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15,2010 30. The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere o:n site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopi~s; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. Prepared By: !\ A \f t. ff . .. V'-·/~ .... ·. J;~l David L. Babby 1 Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board-Certified Master Arborist #WE-4001B 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Date: February 15, 2010 Page 12 of12 ( David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist February 15, 2010 EXHIBIT A: TREEENVENTORYTABLE 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Town of Los Gatos Community Development Depcutment .- ( ARBOR RESOURCES prof~!IIOnal consult.tng <lrbon&t~ .Jnc:l irel!!! care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ' ~ , l ·. ·. '::. '.' ', t ~ I .· .. '· • \I ~ ~ I : •• ·: t ' ~~ :1-fq; 1 Blue Elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) Co~ents: 4,4,2.5, 2.5 30 50"/o 25% Comments: In grove with trees #4 thru 7. Comments: In grove with trees #3 and 5-7. Comments: In grove with #3, 4, 6 and 7. Comments: In grove with #3-5 and 7. Comments: California Bay Tree Umbellularia ca/ifornica ) Comments : Comments: Tree is dying. Site: 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Prepred for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Dwelop. Depart Prepared by: David L. Babby 1 of7 Fair ( I Low 2 X February 15, 2010 f ARBOR RESOURCES profe!>s1onal consulttn<;J arbonsts and tree C3re TREE INVENTORY TABLE 11 Coast Live Oak (Qwrcw agrifolia) ·Comments : Comments: Comments : Comments : California Bay Tree (Umbell11laria cali ornica) Comments: Comments: . Califumia Bay Tree Umbellularia cali omica Comments: Comments: California Bay Tree Umbelluloria califomica Comments: Site: 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos 9 20 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart Prep8Ted by: o.vid L. Sebby 1000/o I SO% Good 2of7 { High February 16, 2010 21 ( ARBOR RESOURCES profe.s~1onal con:~uitm'\1 arl:>orl5ts and tree c are TREE INVENTORY TABLE Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Comments: Comments : Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 19 50 . 75% 50"/o Fair High Comments: Multiple stems form top of canopy and should be pnmed. California Bay Tree (Umbellularia californica) Comments : Comments: California Bay Tree Umbellularia californica ) Comments: Valley Oak ercus lobata) Comments: Contains two leaders, the smallest one being dead. Comments : Comments: Large cavity on creekside, about rno feet tall by six inches wide. Site: 19 Highl•nd Avenue, Los Gatos P~&pared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop . Dep•rt Pl&paredby:D•wdL.B•bby 3 of7 Febru•ry 15, 2010 ARBOR RESOURCES ; profess:onal cono9ult.ong ar"oneot~ 11_n c:l tree cll!re TREE INVENTORY TABLE ' . :!··:~;·· ! '· 31 California Bay Tree (Umbellu/oria ca/ifornica) 10, 7 30 100% I 25% Comments: Small cavity on creek side. 33 Valley Oak (Qilercus /obata) Comments: California Bay Tree UmbeUularia coli arnica) Comments: California Bay Tree (Umbellularia californica Comments: Comments: California Bay Tree (Umhellularia cali arnica) ·comments: Comments: Comments: Comments: Site: 19 Highland Annue, Los Gatos 14 .35 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prep.,..d by: David L. Babby 4of 7 Fair Moderate Good High 3 3 February 15, 2010 . , t ' I '~ ' . ~' . . : ... ~ <. . .. 41 ( ARBOR RESOURCES TREE INVENTORY TABLE ... ·' ;· r· 1 ·• ' •• ; .1 .. California Bay Tree (Umbellularia californica) Comments: Comments: Valley Oak (Quercus lobata ) 20 40 500/o 50% Fair ( Low Comments: Has significantly declined and appears beyond recovery. Comments: Tree is a native species and slx>uld be retained and protected. California Bay Tree (Umbel/ularia californica) Comments: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia ) Comments: Comments : Comments: Site: 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart. Prepared by: David L. Babby 5of7 2 X Februery 15, 2010 { ARBOR RESOURCE.S profe~ston;al con~;ult l n'3 art:>or1st~ anc:l tree care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ( 51 California Buckeye (Ae.JCUlus californica ) 10 1000/o SOOAI Good Moderate Commcms: Comments: Conmu:nts: CoiillilCills: California Bay Tree (UmheUularia californica) Comm.entli: Comments: This tree has the best structural form. ..of oaks throughout the site. California Bay .Tree (Umbellularia californica Comments: Comments: Coast Live Oak (Quercus a ·olio) Commems: Comments: Site: 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart P,.P•red by: David L. Babby 8of7 X February 1 5, 2010 (~ ( ARBOR RESOURCES TREE INVENTORY TABLE 61 California Bay Tree (Umbe/lularia califomica) 12 30 100% 500AI Good Moderate Comments : Comments : Comments: ,Comments: Has a buried root collar. Comments: Tw o cavities att:nmk's base visible from road . California Bay Tree Umbellularia cali ornica) Comments: Site: 19 Highland Avenue. LO$ Gatos Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Comm. Develop. Depart Prep81Wd by: David L. Babby 7of7 X X February 15, 2010 / David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos EXHIBIT B: SITE MAPS (three sheets) Town of Los Gatos Communil)l Development Department February 15, 2010 DBRR.O.W.: roNEWOUTFALL =-===> '')~;~~:.;z_; All~ABOVB . ~ \\ .:s... /,7Jil Not to Scale rr N 19 HIGH.LAND AVENUE {trees #1 thru 14 ) -:-------.. .____ -----------.::__~------ -·~ .. ...._ '\ ·-----··----' . .~-------v""; r ' . . ,. · ·( ··-·10' PUBLIC UTI1 ', ... ·------.:;.__ EXISTINGDRI' \ n't' T ThJC::PF.CTFr .. \ \ ( \ \ \ ' ~I 'S-1 ·' I ! 1 I ( ( 1-9 HIGHLAND AVENUE (trees #42 thru s3 ) -------CURRENT APPLICATION v. PREVIOl DESIGN 'BY MAURICE C.AM.ARGOI. ARCHITECT: SETBACL< INCREASED fROM 21' TO ' .sa2 -------- Not to Scale 11 N '~ 19 Highland Av•nue-PROJECT DATA -- EXJSTlNG PROPOSED ftEQUIREOI CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITTED Zoning district HR-21/2 same - Land use vacant Single-family - General Plan Designation hillside residential same - Lot size $ Gross square feet 45,240 same 40,000 sq . ft . minimum $ Net square feet 19,779 same - Exterior materials: $ siding N/A Cedar siding and - smooth stucco $ trim N/A none - $ windows N/A Fiberglass clad wood - $ roofing N/A Standing Seam metal - Building floor area: $ first floor N/A 2,571 $ second floor N/A 1,786 4,700 sq. ft. maximum $ garage N/A 720 400 sq . ft. exemption $ cellar N/A N/A exempt I $ accessory structure(s) N/A N/A included in FAR $ total (excluding cellar) N/A 5,077 5,100 sq . ft . maximum Setbacks (ft.): $ front -190' 30 feet minimum $ rear -60' 25 feet minimum $ side -24' 20 feet minimum $ side -20' 20 feet minimum Average slope (%) 28.76 same - Maximum height (ft.) 25'/35 ' 25'/35' 25 feet maximum Building coverage {%) no maximum Parking garage spaces -3 four spaces minimum in uncovered spaces 3 addition to two in garage - Sewer or septic sewer - N :IDEV\Momi\A&S\19 HighiiUid \project data. wpd EXHIBIT 1 0 This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 22, 2016 Marni Moseley Associate Planner Town of los Gatos 110 East Main·Street los Gatos, California 95030 RE: 19 Highl~nd Avenue Dear Marni, {~.. . I '.nnthony J. Badame, M.J DISEASES AND SURGERY OF THE SKIN 2025 Forest Avenue, Suite 9 San Jose, CA 95128 (408)297-4200 FAX(408)297-2503 www.badame.com Please review our assessment of the proposed development on 19 Highland Avenue. RECEIVED MAR .2 4. 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS . PLANNING DIVISION · We will not be able to attend the March 29th meeting due to constraints beyond our control. However, we would like our concerns addressed, and we ar~ very much interested in your comments. If you have any questions or would like to speak with us for any reason, our contact information is shown below. Sincerely, ()6L\~· ~~#/.~ Anthony and Melissa Badame 1 Highland Avenue Melissa cell/email: (408)828-0284/m~lissa@badame.eom Anthony email: anthony@badame.com EXHIBIT 11 ( ( Site Plan Standards and Guidelines 1. Building sites should ~e located where they will have the least impact on adjacent properties and respect the privacy, natural ventilation and light, and views of neighboring homes. 2. Privacy impacts shall be addressed and resolved during the constraints analysis phase and initial design stage, not with mitigation measures imposed as an afterthought. Sight lines shall be studied so that windows and outdoor areas are placed to maintain privacy. 3. Relate building front and side setbacks to those on adjacent parcels 4. On adjoining properties, driveways should be spaced a minimum of 20 feet apart or located immediately adjacent to each other. 5. Shared driveways serving more than one lot are encouraged as a means of reducing grading and impervious surfaces. 6. . .. driveways... They should not greatly alter the physical and visual character of the hillside ... by defining wide straight alignments. 7. Driveways that serve more than one parcel are encouraged as a method of reducing unnecessary grading, paving, and site disturbance. B. Building sites shall be set back an appropriate distance from riparian corridors 1S ( Concerns 1 . Parcel is long and rectangular. Adjacent parcels on either are similar in shape. The long border (south) facing the street would appear to represent the front while the shorter borders (east/west) perpendicular to the street would represent the sides. However, plan documents depict the long boiders as the sides, and the shorter borders as the front and rear. By defining the borders as depleted in the plans, several concerns are raised: The building south face encroaches the street to -15 feet which is dramatically clos~r than the code allowed front setback of 30 feet. The .accompanying retaining wall is even closer. This magnifies the mass and scale of the house which is already large to begin with (5100 sf). A side yard facade with a side yard retaining wall becomes the focal side from the street and consequently lacks a strong street presence. By extrapolation, the parcel to the right would seem to inherit the same setbacks causing issues w.ith its neighboring parcels, especially 25 Highland. Further, would the parcel to the left have its setbacks redefined causing issues with remodelling or other development? The proposed house's great room with expansive glass accordion doors opens up to the plan's rear yard which directly faces the side yard of the adjacent parcel. This arrangement raises privacy Issues. The orderly harmony of house orientations as one travels down the street is compromised. In general, was the setback orientation manipulated to shoehorn this very large home into the parcel? 2S ( ( 2. Driveway and turnaround are substantial. The proposed driveway defines a long, wide straight alignment contrary to guideline recommendations. The proposed long driveway very closely parallels the adjacent driveway/street. Further compounding this crowding is the eventual recut of 1 Highland's driveway which is mandated by the fire marshall. As a result, three long driveways will parallel each other for a significant distance creating a highly undesirable look, i.e . a three lane highway cutting through the bucolic woods. The turnaround and driveway, which will be elevated with retaining walls on the north side, may appear to give the illusion of a helipad and long landing strip. Has a documented effort been made to share the driveway and turnaround of 25 Highland in order to m itigate the impact of grading and impervious surfaces? 3. House appears precariously close to the creek. What criteria were utilized to determine an appropriate setback for the riparian corridor and were these criteria applied uniformly throughout the entire length of the parcel? Was an environmental study performed? 4. Is the site specific constraints analysis available for review regard i ng the establishment of the LRDA? What deviations from the HDS&G were allowed to establish the LRDA? 3S ( Grading and Drainage Plan Standards and Guidelines 1. . .. elimination of retaining walls is a priority. 2. Retaining walls shall not be used to create large, flat yard areas. The limited use of retaining walls may be allowed when it can be demonstrated that their use will substantially reduce the amount of grading. 3. Retaining walls should blend with the natural topography, follow existing contours, and be curvilinear to the greatest extent possible. Retaining walls should not ron in a straight continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a break, offset, or planting pocket to break up the long flat horizontal surface. 4. . .. blend the wall with the natural hillside environment and to promote a rural character. 5. Retaining walls should not be higher than five feet. 6. Terraced retaining walls should be separated by at least three feet and include appropriate landscaping. 7. The building site should be located to minimize grading. 8. Buildings shall be designed to conform to the natural topography of the site 1GD ,.- 1 Concerns 1. Heavy use of retaining walls are employed to create a large flat building pad, driveway, turnaround, and yard area. Nearly the entire house, lengthy driveway, and turnaround are encircled with retaining walls. Such heavy use of retaining walls contradicts a building des ign which conforms to the natural topography of the site. 2. A 62.5 foot straight continuous retaining wall traverses nearly parallel to and close to the street. 3. Type of interlocking block is not specified. Thi s should be specified to ascertain if it will blend with the natural hillside environment and promote a rural character. 4. Retaining wall net height at area labelled "rear yard " is 6 feet. (Terraced flat portion of wall is a walkway, not landscape .) 5. House foundation/retaining wall, which is contiguous with aforementioned retaining wall, soars to 1 0 feet. 6. -18,000 cubic feet of dirt will be moved. 2GD { (,.. Tree Inventory Plan Standards and Guidelines 1. Existing natural features shall be retained to the greatest extent feasible and in tegrated into the development project 2. ...preservation oftrees ... is a priority. 3. Existing trees shall be preserved and protected in compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Regulations and any additional tree protection specifications adopted by the Town . 4. If a tree is proposed for removal, or if the Town determines that a tree may not survive construction, information on the visual impact of the removal as well as the Impact on adjoining trees shall be submitted with plans. Concerns 1. 16 mature trees are proposed to be removed. An additional16 trees have been removed already from the previous failed project. Consequently, a total of 32 trees will be destroyed to build this house. 2. What information was provided on the visual impact of the removal? 1TI - Architecture Standards and Guidelines 1. in harmony and visually blends with the natural environment 2. respectful of the rural character of the hillsides 3. compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors 4. Design to blend into the neighborhood rather than stand out 5. Traditional neighborhoods... Johnson Avenue; and near the southern end of Los Gatos Boulevard ... Traditional home designs of varying styles 6. Selected architectural styles shall be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood 7. Avoid selecting an architectural style which typically has roof pitches that are substantially different from others in the nearby neighborhood. 8. Utilize roofforms and pitches similarto those in the immediate neighborhood 9. Use materials that are consistent or compatible with the neighborhood 10. An all stucco house might seem out of character in an all wood neighborhood, but the predominant use of wood siding with some elements of stucco can often work · 11 . A variety of materials, textures, and architectural details ... should be used to add interest and to mitigate the visual impact of large wall areas. Natural materials such as wood and stone will help soften the appearance of stucco and blend it with the natural setting 12. Homes will maintain a friendly presence to the street 13. Mitigate the impact of driveways on the streetscape 14. House entries shall be similar in orientation and scale to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. 1A 15. Relate building front and side setbacks to those on adjacent parcels 16. The maximum allowed height for homes in hillside areas shall be 25 feet 17. Avoid two story wall planes 18. Second stories should be stepped back so the difference in wall planes is visible from a distance 19. Massive, tall elements, such as ... turrets ... should be avoided 20. Avoid garages and carports that dominate a home's street frontage 21. Garages sha/J be subservient to entries 22. Umit the garage width to a maximum of 50 percent of the total facade width. 23. Set garages back from the front facade . 24. Recess garage doors as much as possible from the garage facade 25. Integrate the garage into the house forms in a manner that de-emphasizes the garage doors. 26. Wood (garage) doors are encouraged. 27. If detached garages exist in the neighborhood, consider a detached garage at the rear of the lot to reduce the mass and scale of the house 28. Buildings sha/J be designed to minimize bulk, mass and volume 29. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure ... shall not be more than four feet above the existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes. 30. Three-story elevations are prohibited. 2A Concerns 1. Read Your Neighborhood Test: House to the left: Historic home built of wood and stone House to the right: Historic home built of wood and brick House to the front: Near-historic home built of wood and brick Proposed house: Contemporary architecture built predominantly of stucco with a _paucity of natural materials. As designed, the proposed house does not appear to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, nor is it respectful of the rural character of the hillsides. 2. East Elevation labeled "front yard": Garage is set forward from front facade Garage door is all glass with mullions. not wood, and can be construed as having the appearance of a commercial firehouse door Garage width makes up -70% of front facade width. Garage doors are emphasized, not de-emphasized. Garage does not appear to be subservient to the entry. Was a detached garage considered given the fact that the neighborhood is replete with detached garages? House entry is not in similar orientation to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. Entry is a massive, tall, square turret meagerly mitigated by a small, low-sloped porch roof. Turret may appear to have the visual effect of a lighthouse with a small ground floor door and overpowering top windows which will cast a substantial amount of light at night. 3A Front facade soars to 35 feet violating the 25 foot limit. 3. West Elevation labeled "rear yard": Great room and integrated patio open up Into the "rear yard" which faces the side property line of the adjacent property. This orientation not only generates a privacy concern with the adjacent neighbor, but also appears awkward from street view in that the "rear ya~" also faces the street. 4. North Elevation labeled "left side yard": Center portion of house gives off the appearance, mass, and scale of a 3--story building. This contradicts the proscription of a 3-story elevation while also contradicting a building design which minimizes mass, bulk, and volume. Further, the height of this portion's finished floor appears more than four feet above the existing grade. 35 foot height 5. South Elevation labeled "right side yardu: Appearance is that of a side yard, but squarely faces the street and thus does not maintain a friendly presence to the street as would a typical front yard. -24 foot vertical stucco wall plates within 15 feet of street No appreciable setback of second story Certain windows appear haphazardly placed beyond the understood asymmetric placement seen in contemporary homes. Five diminutive windows, four of which are bathroom windows and one which is a closet window, face the street. Window styles and proportions vary widely thus effecting an overall lack of cohesiveness. 4A Varying directions of roof pitches appear confusing. Low-slope roof pitch of 2112 Is dramatically lower than that seen in the nearby neighborhood. 5A References 1. Single and Two Family Residential Guidelines, Town of Los Gatos. Adopted by the Los Gatos Town Council, October 6, 2008. 2. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, Town of Los Gatos. Adopted by Council, January, 2004. 1R This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS- II 0 East Main Street, LQi Gatos~ CA 9.5030 (408) 354-6874 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING Of THE DEVELOPMENT :QEVIEW COMMITTEE OF TilE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR -MARCH 29, l016 HELD -IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CQM..IDERS; CIVIC C:::ENTBR. 110 EA$X MAIN S~'T. LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 10:05 am. by Chair Moseley. ATTENDANCE Member.; Present: Marni Moseley. Assocza.re Planner Noal c;,-alt~r. Building Inspector Ryan DQ, h8i$tanl Engineer Trqcy Stqtger; Ftre Depti~nt PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM t : J 9 Highland Avenue Arohite~~ m,d S1te Appli~ticm S.-15:.077 Requesting ~ppro\rat to coU$flUCt a n_ew s\ngl~family resldence a:nd remove large protect~-on property Z()QeQ HR-Z'Yl APN' 52-9..,37 .. {)3.3. PROPERTY OWNElU .bJ>PUCAl'lT: Ed Pean;Ort PR,OJECT :PLANNER~ Mt¢ni Mos~ley 1. ChairMar.hado optmed. ·the public hearing. 2 , Staff gay.e .r~ on proposed project. 3 , Applicant w~s mtrod11~ed_. 4. Members of the public. were present: • Teresa S~ding • Lisa R-oberts D Greg GolilQP • Dorothea Smullen ~ Deric Durand • Cratg Sawyer The public raised-ooncetns regarding the siZe {)fthe ~denoe. the: ~lope of the stte. the .setback fi om the: creek, tree removals, and construction related concerns. 5. Public beating closed. Staffprmrtded responses in tegatds to the project's compliance w1t.h Town standatds and gm4ehnes, and the required mitigation measures from the adopted Mttigated Negative Declaration. 6. Ryan Po moved to apprpy~ tb.e apphcation SUbject to the draft condttions with the following findings and consideration$: EXHIIUT 1 2 DRCMinutes M!ICCh 29, iOI6 Page2 Required fmdings for CEQA: FINDINGS: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared fot the ;site in 2009 and adopted by the Planmng Commission in 2010. The proposed modifications to the previous project are in compliance with . the environmental anal )'Sis in 2009 and no additional environmental review is required. The project will be condition~ to comply with the adopted mitigation monitottng and reporting plan from th¢ :adopted MND. · · Compliance with l:lillside Development Standards & Guideline$: • Exceptions to the LRDA are requited, to located the residence away from the creek, This exception was supported by the Planning Commission in 2010. The project is otherwise in compliance with appltcable Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a siqgle' family residence being developed on an existin8 parcel. The prop~sed development is 'Cons{$t~t with the development criteria included in the sp.ecific plan. CONSIDERATIONS: Copsiderations in review of Arthitecture & Site applitat,ions: • As ~11ir~ by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture and site application were all m.ade iJJ reviewing this project: The house is an appropriate size for the property, the proposed project is consistent with development on surrounding residential properties, and exterior colors and materials will help blend the new building into the site. There is limited visibility into the site from surroUnding hOmes and existing and proposed vegetation will aid in screening the new reSidence, and outdoor spaees. 7. Tracy Staiger seconded, motion passed 3-0-1, with Noal Grover absent. 8. Appeal rights were cited . OTHER BUSINESS NONE DRC Minutes March 29,2016 Page3 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Committee is the following Tuesday. Marni Moseley, Associate Pia , ner l) N:\DEV J>RC\Min 2016\3-29-16 Mins.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank ( TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA· 95030 i ; AfPEAL OF THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVEL OR . -DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMI '' ' PLEASE TypE or PRINT NEATLY: ' · I. the undersigned, do hereby appeal a ~ision of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DBPARTMENT/DIRECTOR OF CO~MUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITIEE as follows : i DATEOFDECJSION: i March 29,2016 PROJECT/APPLICATION: jArchit~cture and Site Application 8~15-077 I· i. LOCATION: ; 19 Highland Ave. Los Gatos CA LIST REASONS WHY THE MPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED: Please see atmched jystification at the appeal. r: COMMISSION ACfJON: 1. ---i--------- 2. DATE: ________________ _ DATE: _______________ _ 3. PJ..t.PPEAL Pt.;.\PPEAL PLA.PPEAL ' DATE: _______________ _ $ 181.00 Residential $ 725.00 Commercial $ 74.00 Tree Appeals N:\DEVII'ORMS\I'Iannioa\;!01 5-16 Ponns\Appcll CDD-DJIC.d""" i · 710!1201S EXHIBIT 1 3 Appeal of 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos CA; AprilS, 2016 Justification of APPEAL of 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-0n by the Badame, Roberts, Smullen , and Spalding families 418/16 1. The project has received Inadequate environmental review. The project does not qualify for an exemption under CEQA because there are unusual circumstances applying to the project site, in that a) it Is almost entirely within the floodplain of a seasonal creek, and b) significant modifications have been made to the location of the creek without benefit of permitS. The los Gatos Planning staff has determined that all previous proposals for development on the site have not qualified for an exemption . Mitigations have been proposed as conditions of approval of this project. Projects that require mitigations do not qualify for an exemption from review under CECA. • The appellants request that an lnttial Study be prepared and circulated prior to consideration by the Planning Commission. 2. There are differing professional opinions regarding location of the strea~bed and top of bank, the value of the creek and adjacent vegetation, and the appropriate setbacks from the top. of bank. Significant grading has been done on the site to move the location on the creek. The riparian vegetation along the creek has been cleared frequently since the original development proposal. Planning Staff has stated that the minimal setback to the top of bank was appropriate given the compromised nature of the creek and the lack of riparian understory vegetation. • The appellants would like to have the opportunity to prepare an independent professional evaluation of the location and value of the creek and appropriate setbacks to the top of bank. • The appellants request the Planning Commission to require a robust mitigation planting plan to return the creek and the riparian buffer to its natural state. 3.1nput has not been received from any responsible (permitting) agencies. Planning Staff has indicated that notice of the project had been sent to ACOE, CA Fish and Wildlife, The Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Santa Clara Valley Water District but no response was received. An Initial Study must be prepared and circulated to these agencies. • The appellants would like to contact the responsible agencies to gain their input on the project prior to consideration by the Planning Commission . 4. The location of the development on the site maximizes perceived bulk and visual Impacts and 18 Inconsistent with the neighborhood. The required setbacks on the site have been determined by Planning Staff based on the creek location and the shape of the lot. This determination Is inconsistent with setbacks on neighboring properties and brings the project very close to the private road. • The appellants request a re-evaluation of the yard determination by the Planning Commission. 5. The location of the development on the aile is the result of the Improper re-location of the creek. Illegal grading was done to move the creek away from Alpine Ad and included signifiCant grading to buttress one of the homes along Alpine Rd. The relocation of the creek appears to be the justification for the selection of the current building site as opposed to the original building site presented to the Town before the creek re-location . The original building site would have avoided at least two issues of serious concern: the removal of even more trees than was necessary for building at the original site and the excessive height of the home given the terrain and constraints of the new location. ' • The appellants request that any environmental review investigate the feasibility of reversing the illegal grading and returning the creek to its originaf location and condition, which would allow the house to be built on a flatter portion of the lot. Paae 1 of3 Appeal of 19 Highland Avenue, Los Gatos CA; AprilS, 2016 6. The proposed project will result In the loss of approximately 50% of the trees on site, which Is inconsiStent with the hillside guide1t11es. 16 mature trees have already been removed to accommodate a previous proposal and an additional 16-17 mature trees are proposed to be removed for this proposal. The loss of the first 16 trees has already resulted in the loss of sfgnlftcant screening between neighbors of the development. Removing additional mature trees will further reduce habitat and make the project that much more visible. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission require that the project be re-designed to prohibit the removal of any more mature healthy trees and that buffer zones are maintained around these trees to Insure ~lr viability. 7. The development should not have been approved without resolution of discrepancies between the submitted tree removal plan and the actual tree removal plan. Prior to the public hearing, appellant Roberts discussed with the applicant her concerns that the tree removal plan included, among other concerns, removal of Tree 30, a large, double-trunked oak at the property line between 78 Alpine and the site. The applicant (who had red-tied the trees at the site to show which ones would be removed but had not red-tied Tree 30) stated that the plan was mistaken and ttlat Tree 30 would not be removed. After consultation with his civil engineer, he provided appellant Roberts with a new plan, which, according to his explanation, would take Tree 30 off the tree removal list but would also add two new trees, Trees 8 and 27, to the removal list. The Development Review Committee was made aware Of the foregoing and should have delayed further proceedings untit review, re-notification of neighbors, and approval of the new and conected tree removal plan by the Town Staff had been completed. • The 8ppellants request the re-evaluation of the tree removal plan, oorreclion of errors, and submission and review of an accurate final plan incJuding for the retention and protection of Tree 30 (f,IS well as other mature healthy trees on the site as set forth In point 6). 8. Significant limitations on the site make the maximum size of the home Inappropriate for the site. The property has more limitations {slope, creek, and mature tree coverage) than nearby homes, yet it is proposed to be significantly larger than any in the vicinity. The appetrant recognizes the right of the developer m build a house on this site but the house should be appropriately sized for the site. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to significantly reduce the size of the proposed house to fit the site limitations. 9. Th• project reads as a three-story structure on Its approach from Highland Ave and from the creek aide hOmes along Alpine Road. The location close to the rOIId further maxlmlzee the bulk or the building from th18 angle. AD homes In the area read as one or two story Sln.lctures and are visually unobtrusiw from the front. The height of this proposed house creates an overbearing presence along the road and isincompatible with the neighborhood and the site. The topographic map and the elevation drawings of the site have been modified from the original submittal to the Planning Department In response to Planning Staff review. lt is not clear if the site was re-surveyed to justify the changes to the topographical map and this brings the accuracy of the existing stofy-poles and the actual finished height Into question. This also brings Into question the accuracy of the proposed grading quantities. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to redesign 'the home reduce the structure next to the street to one story and step the rest of the structure down the stope. similar to construction at 25 Highland Ave. • H the Planning Commission does not request that the project is redesigned, the appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to: 1) Provide the Planning Staff with the most recent site survey 2) Provide Planning Staff with an updated grading plan that Is reflective of the revised topographic map p~r to consideration by the Planning Commission. Paoe 2of3 Appeal of 19 Higtlland Avenue, Los Gatos CA ; AprilS, 2016 • If the Planni ng Commission does not request that the project is redesigned, the appellants request that the story-poles be recertified to confirm that they accurately reflect the location and revised finished height of the proposed structure. 10. The architecture of the proposal Is neither compatibl.e with the surrounding neighborhood nor respectful of the rural character of the hillsides • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to choose an architecture more in keeping with the historic homes in the neighborhood and more respectful of tbe rural character of the hillsides 11 . The design of the proposed project results In excessi ve grading on t h e site, which Is I nconsistent whh the hills ide guidelines and will result I n significant visual i mpacts. The fire turnaround, the long driveway and extensive retaining walls will require a d ra matic mutatio n o f the s ite from its natural state. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to confer with neighbors and the Town Are Marshal to reduce visual and grading Impacts of the fire turnaround. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to eliminate the long driveway and consider a detached garage or other method of access to the property. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to re-design the project to keep grading to a minimum, and respect all significant natural features so that the development blends visually with adjacent natural areas. • The appellants request that the Planning Commission direct the applicant to re-design the project to minimize the use of retaining waUs. 12. The project Ia Inconsistent with the Town of Los Gatos General Plan. The project is in conflict with several policies outlined in the Environmental and Sustainability Element regarding the value and desire to protect urban streams and wildlife corridors. • The appellants are requesting the Planning Commission re·evaluate the project for consistency wfth the Town General Plan. Paae3of 3 .. ( MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MAY11, 2016 The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, May 11 , 2016, at. 7:00 pm . MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chair Badame called the meeting to order at 7:00pm. ROLLCALL Present: Chair Mary Badame, Vice Chair D . Michael Kane, Commissioner Charles Erekson, Commissioner Melanie Hanssen, Commissioner Matthew Hudes Absent: Commissioner Kendra Burch, Commissioner Tom O'Donnell P~EDGE OF ALLEGIANCE · Commissioner Erekson led. the Pledge of Allegiance. The audience was invited to participate. WRITTEN COMMU.NICATIONS Desk Item for Items 2 and 3 . REQ~ESTED CONTINUANCES ~ ITEM 2 Chair Badame indicated that she would recuse herself front participating In tbe public hearing for Item 2 due to a perceived conflict of interest with one of the four appellants. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. tl Highland Averwa Architecture arid Site Application S-15-077 APN 529-37-Q33 Property Owner/Applicant: Ed Pearson Appellants: Badame, Roberts, Smullen, and Spalding Families Project Planner: Mami Moseley Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee. approving an Architecture and Site Application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR ... zth. Vice Chair Kane opened the public hearing. Commission members asked questions of staff. Dede Smullen Commented that she represents the appellants. They were not consulte~ about the hearing date of May 25, and three of the four appellants are not available on that day. They would like to continue the hearing to June or later, but May 25 will not work. They want to speak to this application in a public hearing with all the appellants present. Commission m~bers asked questions of Ms. Smullen. Bess Wiersema Commented that she is Ed Pearson's architect. May 25 is an important date for them, as they have several professional consultants scheduled for that date: arbotist, geotechnical expert, ecological consultant, land use attorney, and architect. A time delay would not be in the best EXHIBIT 1 4 interest of her client, because as more time goes by it will be more difficult to begin construction as they enter the future potential rainy season. Vice Chair Kane closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. · Commission members asked questions of staff. Commission memberS discussed the matter. Vice Chair Kane reopened the public input portion of the hearing. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Smullen. Cindy McCormick Commented that she is the applicanfs fiancee. She pointed out the third page of the desk item indicates that the planner had spoken with Ms. Smullen two weeks e.artier regarding a hearing date and that the appellants knew about the May 25 hearing date. Commission members asked questions of Ms. McCormick. Bess Wiersema Commented that they have gone multiple rounds on the· project. The· project has ·been properly noticed . They have six professional people that they were able to organize for the May 25 date and hope the appellant goup can do the S.ame. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Wiersema. Ed Pearson Commented that they could make a June 8 meeting, but they could not guarantee if any of the professional consultants could be available, so he would have to take his chances on that date. Commission members asked questions of Ms. Smullen. Vice Chair Kane closed the public h1put portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. MOTION.: MQtlon by Commlssion~r Erekso~ tq continu~ the public hearing for 19 Highland Avenue to the meeting of June 8, 2016. Seconded by Commissioner Hanssen. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0. Chair Badame returned to the hearing. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS . Historic PreserVation ·committee Vice Chair Kane ~The 5/11/16 CDAC ll'leeting considered four matters: 135 Johnson Avenue 1692 Kennedy Road 112 Los Gatos Boulevard 125 Wheeler Avenue VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE) None. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of6 May 11 ,2016 .. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approval of Minutes...,. Aprfl27. 2016 MOTION: Moti on by Commissioner Erekson to approve adoption of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by COmmissi oner Hanssen. VOTE: Motion passed !-4. PUBUC HEARINGS (CONTINUED) 3. 22 S. Santa Cruz Avenue Conditional Use Permit Application U-16-003 APN.51045-014 Property Owner: Ronald M. Tate Applicant: Ballard Schools, Inc. Project Planner, Jocelyn Pugs Requesting approval for a Conditional Use Permit to ·operate group cooking classes (Cucina Bambini) with beer and wine service and alternative use of parking on property zoned C-2. Chair Bedame opened the public hearing. Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked quest~ns of staff. Rick Ballard Commented .that Cucina Bambini has been open at their current location for eight years and offers cooking classes for all ages. Over half Of their business Is. private parties and _events. They_ excited about this location b,c&use of the parking, and because It is across the street from a fanners market. They have served beer and wine at their current location for three years and have had no incidents; -Beer and wine is essential to their business and · 811oYis them to do eorporate events, adult dinner parties, etcetera. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Sallard. John MIK'.hado Commented that he and the property owner are very l)appy with Cuc\na Bambini. He visited the current location and received positive feedback from · neighboring retailers. They like the idea that the restaurant's program caters to children and are educational classes. They feel this is a proper fit for Los Gatos · as ·It is not a formula retail. They believe this use will be there long term and serve the community. Ron Tate Commented that he has owned the pmperty for 18 years.·He Said his building needs destination businesses such as Cucina Bambini to bring in foot traffic, because the area does not get very much. Eight retail tenants in his building have failed due to lack of traffic. He and his employees park in the Toll House parking lot where he leases parking spaces; they do not park on the site or impact its parking at aU. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Tate. Page 3 of6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11,201s Lee Quintana Commented that there are growing trends, emerging spaces, changing spaces from retail uses to less intensive retail with just a little bit of retail, and alcohol with practically everything; the Planning Commission needs to consider these issues. Rick Ballard . Commented that his use complies with the calculations and allocations within the parking district for businesses. Four to one is what restaurants use, that is more appropriate for them, that is why he is comfortable with their parking calculations, because most people come to his venue in groups, just like going to a restaurant. Drastic changes to the parking or refusal of alcohol would change their business model and likely make it untenable for them . Commission members asked questions of Mr. Ballard. Chair Badame closed the public Input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commissi on for deliberation. Commission members asked questions of staff. Commission members di$CUSsed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissi oner Hanssen to approve Conditional Use Permit Application U-16o.003 subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated May 11, 2016, with the added conditions that the applicant shall inform customers of alternate parking options in town; staff shall be present when there is a non-employee instructor leading a cooking class ; alcohol shall not be served at events that include children; 19/1 and the 34/2 shall be eliminated from the chart in Exhibit 5. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated May 1 1, 2016. The motion failed due to lack of a second. MOTION: M.otlon by Commissioner Hudes to inc orwrate the elements from Commissioner Hanssen's motion and add the following conditions: There shall be a three-month, six-month and annual review; the numbers mentioned in the table shall be . maximum numbers in the Conditional Use Permit; the maximums shall be 16 students and 2 instructors for daytime use , and 31 sttidEmlS and ·3 instructors for the eVening and weeke~~J and a referen~ to the. ratio ch~rt; lar~guage Shall be added to use the tenn "instructors and staff," or, "instructors/staff: and "students and customers," or, "students/customers"; and Cucina Bambini staff shall be present when a guest chef is teaching a class. Commission members asked questions of staff. VIce Chair Kane requested the motion be amended to include as a co.,dition that no alcohol service sh~ll be permitted In the drop-in space. The maker of the motic~n did not accept the amendment to the motion. Seconded by Vice Chair Kane. Commission members discussed the matter. Page 4 of6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2016 ( Commission members asked questions of staff. 4. VOTE: Motion passed 4-1 with Commissioner Erekson opposing. 101. 111. and 121 Albright Way Architecture and Site Application S-16-013 APNs 424-31-{)68, 424-32-079 and 424-32-082 Property Owner: LG Business Park Building 3 LLC, LG Business Park Building 4 LLC, and Wealthcap Los Gatos 131 Albright · Applicant: James Abeyta, Form 4 Architecture Project Planner: Jocelyn Puga -.. ·. · ... ... Requesting approval to construct two elevated pedestrian bridges connecting the third ·levels of Buildings 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 on property zoned Albright Specific Plan. , Chair Badame opened the public hearing. Jocelyn Puga , Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Commission members asked questions of staff. James Abeyta Commented that the purpose for the walkways .is to improve site c i rculation and connectivity between the buildings. The proposed bridges are very simnar ·to the existing bridge, although site constraints necessitated a change In some materials and proportions. Lee Quintana Commented that on sheet A-4.3, photO 2 she didn't understand what all of this is, because you can see all the parking spaces. Commission members asked questions of Mr. Abeyta . Chair Badame closed the public Input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberation. MOTION: VOTE: NEW OTHER BUSINESS Motion by Commissioner Erekson to recommend approval of Architecture and Site Appilcation S-16-013 to Town Council, subject to the conditions of approval as noted in Exhibit 3 of the staff report dated May 11, 2016 and the development plans In Exhibit 7. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of the staff report dated May 11,2016. Seconded by Commissioner Hudes. Motion passed-~. 5 . Report from Community Development Director, Joel Paulson • Town Council met 5/3/16; denied the appeal for 360 Bella Vista and remanded the applications back to the Planning Commission; granted an appeal for Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road project. 6. Commission Matters • None. Page 5 of6 Planning Commission Minutes May 11,2016 ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjoumed at 10:10 pm. TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION Wednesday, May 11,2016 APPROVED AS TO FORM ANb ATTEST:- Page6 of6 Planning Commission Minutes May 1L 2016