Loading...
Attachment 1 - April 13, 2016 PC Staff Report and Exhibits 2-13Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 341 Bella Vista A venue/S-12-103 /M-12-008/ND-l 6-00 I April 13 , 2016 CEQA: It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Decl aration is recommended. FINDINGS: • That the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended . • That the project is consistent with the Hillside Devel o pment Standards and Guidelines . • As required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act if the Planning Commission denies the subdivision application. CONSCDERATIONS: • As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ACTCON: Approve the applications, subject to the attached conditions. EXHIBITS: Received under separate cover March 4, 2016: 1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Received with thi s 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 10. 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 3 341 Bella Vista Avenue/S-12-103/M-12-008/ND-l 6-001 April 13 , 2016 BACKGROUND: The site currently contains two legal non-conforming parcels. A previous proposal for development of the site included two new residences (339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue). Those applications were reviewed by staff and forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. The Planning Commission denied the applications which included a lot line adjustment, two Architecture and Site applications, two M itigated Negative Declarations, and a variance application for a red uction in the required driveway length. The proposed application included two residences as follows: Parce l Size Proposed Floor Are a (sq. ft.) FAR Before LLA After LLA house garage Lot-2 339 6,049 4 ,915 1,920 441 0.39 Lot 1 341 4,106 5,240 1,838 441 0 .35 The applications were appealed to the Town Council who considered the appeal on April 2, 2012 . The Council denied the appeal and the proposed applications (Exhibit 11) with the finding that the applications did not address the concerns of the Commission as it related to FAR, house size, and massing from the rear. The applicant submitted new applications to merge the lots and construct one new residence in December of 2012. The new applications have been reviewed by staff and a new Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) have been prepared. The applicant's letter of justification (Exhibit 11) discusses how the feedback from the Planning Commission and Town Council has been incorporated into the new applications . PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Subdivision Application The applicant is proposing to merge the two existing lots into one lot. The new lot would conform to the minimum lot size of 8 ,000 square feet for the R-1 :8 zone, but would continue to be non-conforming because it does not meet the minimum lot depth requirement of 90 feet. B. Architecture and Site Application The applicant is proposing a new single-family residence with 1,463 square feet of living floor area, l, 179 square feet of cellar, and a 501-square foot attached garage. The Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 341 Bella Vista Avenue/S-12-103/M-12-008/ND-16-001 April 13 ,2016 res idence is proposed to have na tural cedar siding and trim , a mixture of co mp sh in g le roofing and green roof, and non-reflective aluminum windows. A color and material board will be avai lable at the Planning Commission meeting, and Exhibit 7 includes general project data for the property. C. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located along a wooded stretch of Bella Vista A ven ue approximately 50 feet north of Lo s Gato s-S aratoga Road. Immediately below the s it e (west) are townhomes on Maggi Court. Properties ac ross Bell a Vista (east) are developed with s in gle-family homes. Although there are ex istin g si ngle-famil y residences along t he west si d e of Bella Vista, there is a gap in the vicinity of the project site, and there ar e no abutti ng homes on the e ither side of the two exi stin g parcel s. D . Zoning Co mpliance The proposed residence would comply with the required setbacks, maximum permitted height, FAR, and structure coverage limitations for the R-1 :8 zo ne. The R-1 :8 zon e permits sing le-family residences . ANALYSIS: A. Neighborhoo d Compatibility Based on Town and County records, the r esi dences in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 884 square feet to 3,500 square feet. The floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0 .10 FAR to 0.57 FAR. The p ro p osed resid ence would be 1,463 square fee t with a 0.15 FAR. Pursuant to Town Co de, the maxi mum square footage for th e property with the required s lope reduction would be 1,4 90 square feet. The following Neighborho od Analys is tabl e (on the next page) refl ects c urrent conditions of the immediate neighb orh oo d. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 341 Bella Vista A venue/S-12-103 /M-12-008/N D-16-00 I April 13, 2016 Address House sf Garage sf 312 Bella Vi sta 884 324 316 Bella Vista 1,344 520 320 Bella Vista 2 ,407 224 322 Bella Vista 3,500 504 326 Bell a Vista 1,591 360 332 Bella Vi sta 1,571 520 333 Bella Vista* 1,392 - 338 Bella Vista* 1,15 7 252 341 Bella Vista 1,463 501 * Site contains more than one residential unit. Lot Size Stories FAR 10 ,050 l 0.09 9,420 2 0 .14 9,744 2 0 .25 9,231 2 0.3 8 11 ,024 2 0 .14 15 ,246 2 0.10 4,900 2 0.28 2,035 l 0 .57 10,155 2 0.14 The finished floor eleva tion of the top level of the residence, which is the garage, is lower than the grade of the street. From Bella Vista Avenue, very little of the residence will be visible. The applicant has reduced the height of the garage walls along the rear of the re sidence to reduce the height and the appearance of a thre e story e levation from the rear along Maggi Court. The proposed residence has a main living floor area of 1,278 square feet , and lower level of bedrooms with an additional 1,364 square feet , of which I , 179 qualifie s as cellar. The proposed residence would have a si mil ar floor area and FAR to those in the immediate area. B. Tree Impacts The project site and surrounding area currently contains 21 protected trees. The applicatio n was r eviewed by the Town 's Consulting Arborist on two occasions (Exhibits 9 and 10). The proposed application requires the removal of three protected oak trees. One 48-inch (tree 2), and two multi-trunk (trees 1 and 15), all qualify as large protected trees pursuant to the Town 's Tree Protection Ordinance. All three trees are in direct conflict with the proposed building location . The canopy spread for trees I and 2 cover the majority of the building envelope (Shee t Al .0 of Exhibit 14); any potential building location on the site would confli ct with one or both of these trees due to their canopy and root spread. The Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 341 Bella Vista Avenue/S-12-103/M-12-008/ND-16-001 April 13, 2016 applicant will be required to implement the required tree protection measures included in the latest arborist report (Exhibit 10) and referenced in the MND (Exhibit 1 ). If the project is approved, tree protection measures would be implemented prior to and during construction. Replacement trees would be required to be planted pursuant to Town Code. Tree protection measures are incorporated as conditions of approval (Exhibit 6) to protect the trees that will remain on the subject property and within the development area. C. Architectural Considerations Staff requested that the Town 's Architectural Consultant review the project (Exhibit 8). The Consultant's conclusions were that while the modem architecture is a departure from that of the immediate neighborhood , the design and proposed materials lend it to blending with the hillside due to the roof slope and proposed natural materials. The Consultant recommended that the proposed material for the roof of the first floor of living area be decorative rather than gravel. The applicant has included this change in the final development plans (Exhibit 14). D. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines The proposed development has been re-designed to comply with all possible and relevant Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). Retaining walls: The applicant 's geotechnical report requires a support wall between the street and the residence which wraps around the below grade patio at the main living floor level to the south of the site, at no point around this patio is more than five feet of retaining wall exposed . The lowest level of the residence includes a small , approximately 150-square foot, below grade patio. This patio provides the required egress for the master bedroom as well as a minimal amount of usable outdoor space. The wall along the rear and side range from approximately 3 feet at the western edge to 10 feet along the eastern edge of the patio. This retaining wall is only exposed to the patio and would have limited visibility from outside the project site. L east Restrictive D evelopment Area (LRDA): The project site has an average slope of 47.2 percent, and contains slopes from 40 percent to 56 percent. As a result , the site does not contain any area that complies with the LRDA requirements in the HDS&G. The applicant has proposed the home in the area ofleast impact given the site constraints. The applicant has provided justification regarding the location of the proposed residence on the site given the site 's slope, tree canopy, and privacy concerns of neighbors (Exhibit 11 ). Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 341 Bella Vista A venue/S-12-103/M-12-008/ND-l 6-00 l April 13 , 2016 Height: The proposed residence steps with the natural grade of the site. The maximum height is proposed to be 22 feet, nine inches, with an overall maximum height of 33 feet from the highest point to the lowest point. Tree Removals: While the application includes removal of three large protected trees on the site, given the location of the trees, their diameter, and canopy, there is not an alternative location on the site for development that would significantly reduce the impact on the trees and facilitate their retention . The applicant will be required to provide canopy replacement pursuant Town Code requirements. Privacy: Throughout the previous public h earing process for the site, neighbors along Maggi Court have expressed concerns regarding privacy. The applicant has proposed several pri vacy measures to further reduce the privacy impacts that are inherent with the site. These measures include: • Privacy screens placed along the west side of the lot between the existing trees; • Planting add itional landscape screening along the west property line; and • Providing privacy fins to the right and left of the kitchen window to limit the view from that window to the area between the Maggi Court units . E. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were prepared for the project by the Town's Environmental Consultant, Kimley-Hom . The 20-day public review period began on March 4, 2016 and ended on March 24, 2016. Mitigation measures are required for Air Quality, Biological, Geology and Soils, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Transportation and Traffic. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is provided in Exhibit 3. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 6). PUBLIC COMMENTS: Staff received public comments from neighbors on Bella Vista A venue and Maggi Court expressing concerns regarding privacy, grading, size of the residence, and tree removals (Exhibit 13). Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8 341 Bella Vista Avenue/S-12-103/M-12-008/ND-l 6-001 April 13 , 2016 COORDINATION: Planning staff coordinated with the Building Department, the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A . Conclusion The proposed application would merge two existing legal non-conforming parcel s, and constructs one single-family residence with conforming parking and access. The proposed application addresses the direction provided previously by the Planning Commission and confirmed by the Town Council (Exhibit 12) regarding the following issues : • FAR exception: the applicant is proposing a single residence that conforms to the maximum FAR pursuant to Town Code. • House size: the single residence is similar in size to those in its immediate neighborhood as to both size and floor area . • Bulk and Mass at the rear: The proposal has reduced the resulting mass along the rear of the property by removing one of the proposed residences. Additionally, the applicant has reduced the overall maximum height from 34 feet six inches to 33 feet. • Reduced Setbacks: No setback reductions are requested for the proposed applications. • Pedestrian Safety: The proposed driveway complies with Town Code requirements and would provide a conforming means of access to and from the residence. The previous concern regarding pedestrian safety was in relation to the requested variance for the driveway depths. The proposed residence is similar in si ze and FAR to those in the immediate area , and the applicant has pursued additional measures to reduce privacy impacts for the neighbors to the rear along Maggi Court. The requested exceptions to the HDS&G required as part of the application are for development on slopes greater than 30 percent, which applies to the entire property, and a retaining wall along the rear and side of the lower level patio. While the existing site does not have an LRDA that conforms to all the requirements specified in the HDS&G, the applicant has pursued development in what the applicant believes to be the least impactful location given the constraints of the site. The proposed retaining wall along the rear and side of the lowest patio is necessary to facilitate some usable outdoor area where impact to adjacent residences would be minimized. The measures taken to reduce privacy impacts while providing limited useable outdoor area and the necessary egress for the bedrooms on the lower level are appropriate given the existing site. This Page Intentionally Left Blank 341 Bella Vista Avenue EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGARDING DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-12-103 Subdivision Application M-12-008 Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-001 PREPARED FOR TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 110 E. MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CA 95030 APRIL 2016 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS – 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE APRIL 2016 i Written Comments and Responses Index to Response to Comments All letters received during the public review period for the Notice of Intent to adopt the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are listed in the table, Index of Comments Received, below. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety with the issues of concern numbered in the left margin. Correspondingly numbered responses to the comments follow each letter. Index of Comments Received Letter Commenter A Nicholas Williamson B Laura Williamson C Eleanor Leishman D Debra Chin E Patrick Tillman F Erin Johnson G Janet Carmona H Ken Lown March 23, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos California 95031 Dear Madams and Sirs, 148 Maggi Court Los Gatos California 95032 Re. Objections to Negative Mitigated Declarations (341 Bella Vista Avenue, Negative Declaration ND-16-001) I am writing in relation to the proposed development located at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos. As residents of 148 Maggi Court, in Bella Vista Village, this project will be directly behind my home. Needless to say, I believe the development will significantly negatively impact me. I also believe strongly that it will significantly negatively impact my neighbors, and in the bigger scheme of things, the people of the town of Los Gatos. I have read the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study and Environmental Checklist (ISEC) and I disagree with its conclusions and believe this project should be denied. I believe that anyone being re asonable, taking profit out of their minds and giving this a little more consideration will see the same as me. I am not an exp ert on everything in the ISEC and I haven't had a lot of time to consider it so I cannot comment fully on all points, never-the-less I would like to comment on a few specific points. I will use/ refer to the numbering used in the ISEC and refer to the Town as the author even though it may be based mostly on submissions from the Applicant Project Description I will not comment on the Project itself in this le tte r, I will write separately about that, however I note the size of the project and certain points about its design which I will mention later. 1. Aesthetics This project will have a significant negative impact on the aesthetics of the hillside in particular it will: Page 1of8 a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The report does not consider the impact on people looking at the hillside which will be significant and negative certainly in the case of me and my neighbors. I believe anyone visiting my house would, like me, prefer to see the natural woodland and native oaks on the hillside rather than a multi-story building towering above them; we all would put a far greater value, financial and emotional, on the woodland view. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. It is not possible to replace trees which are more than 100 years old and which support a range of life with something which is man made and unavoidable and unmissable and frankly intimidating to me and my neighbors because it will be intimidating, and say the existing visual character is not substantially degraded. I am confident that any reasonable person standing in my bedroom or in my living room or in my backyard would agree with me. The Applicant's drawings are misleading showing the house from mostly side and obscure angles. There are now story poles and netting and I would encourage the Town to visit the site and see the hillside from the perspective of the town home owners. I am also including a couple of drawings I could find of the project from an angle approaching my perspective (see Attachment 1). I strongly believe the loss to the visual character of this hillside cannot be mitigated. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. At present the hillside is completely black at night so this is will certainly present a new source of light and you only have to look at the number of planned windows and patios and roof decks along the back of the house to see that this would also be a substantial source. And again the proximity of the house means its impact would be substantial and negative toward me and my neighbors in Maggi Court. Effective mitigation cannot be guaranteed: the height and size of the building is too big and the slope too steep to be screened effectively and we simply cannot rely on the occupants to dim their lights or tum them off when they leave a room. I'm also concerned about day time glare from afternoon sunlight, which is intense during summer months, being reflected off the walls and windows of the project. 3. Biological Resource This project will have a significant negative impact on the biological resources of the hillside in particular it will: d) Interfere substantially with the movement of native resident species and with established native resident wildlife corridors. This cannot be 'no impact'. There is clear e vidence of many native resident species including skunks, raccoons, and owls, and I've even noted coyote skat at the end of the well trod' game trail' that cuts through the land. Maybe not all the species are significant in their own right but they are part of an ecosystem and to me the hoot of the resident screech owl and signs of the coyote are reassuring signs that the local rodent population is being kept under control. What are the m easures for that in the future I wonder, because there will likely need to be some. Until recently there were even peacocks resident here but sadly they were killed by traffic on Bella Vista Avenue. e) Conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The removal of the two large native oaks contravenes the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance both in intent, which is perfectly captured in these two trees (see Attachment 2), and implementation. It is not possible to mitigate for removal of something Page 2 of 8 that s ha ll not be removed . 6. Geology and Soils This project will have a significant negative impact on the geology and soils of the hillside in particular it will: a) Expose people or structures to p otential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: ii) Strong seismic gro und shaking iii) Seismic-relat ed ground failure, including liquefaction iv) Landslides. b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefac tion or collapse. d) Be located on expansive soil, as d efined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), crea ting s ubstantial risks to life or property. The Town's comments cannot be right, surely. First of all I d on't know why the Town says there will be n o impact from seismic related ground failure. If the ground the town h omes are standing on liquifies which it might because the land is showing on or very close to an area of potential liquefaction on the Santa Clara County Geologic Hazards Map (see A ttachme nt 3), then it seems fair to me that an event could have a knock-on impact to the stability of the adjacent hillside, or that the hillside itself is also a t risk of liquefactio n . But I'm not an ex p ert, I'm just asking the Town t o consider this is possible, or otherwise I'll consider it the Town's guarantee that it won't happen. What worries me right n ow though is that the Town acknowledges there is a potential impact for (a)(ii), (iv), (b), (c) and (d). Let's take a m om ent here: the Town acknowledges that this project creates a potential exposure of people to l oss, injury or DEATH and in the case of strong seismic ground shaking and landslides the impact is less than significant ONLY AFTER e ffective mitigation . Maybe the Applicant is happy taking this risk for himse lf and maybe that is how the To wn has considered this , but this h o use is built on a slo p e direc tly above my house and m y neighbor's h ouse so actually the impact if there i s to be a landslide is just as much to m e and m y family and my friends and neighbors as it is to the p eople who will occupy this house. Which m eans tha t there are risks to m y property and m ore importantly to my family dying including risks which the Town believes are serious in a couple of cas es, and I should somehow trust the Town and the Applicant to do the right thing. And the Town and the Applicant b o th felt able to m ake this d ec ision about my family's life without even cons ulting m e? Maybe in some other project where the h o use falls down on to p of itself and so it's m ostly up t o the owner t o take his or h er chances yo u can do this sort o f thing, but this isn't an ordinary project. It's far from an ordinary project. It is a project to build a very large house on a very steep slo p e which i s at risk of landslide even before the very large oak trees helping to anch or it a re removed , and it's RIGHT ABOVE m e and my nei ghbors liter a ll y yard s away. THE Page 3 of 8 IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT IS TO ME, and we are talking about a life or death impact and I don't believe anyone has the right to make decisions here without consulting me and then without seeking my agreement as to the acceptability of those risks. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality This project will have a significant negative impact on the hydrology and water quality of the hillside in particular it will: c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on-or off-site Again I cannot understand how the Town can say categorically there will be no impact here. The two great oak trees that are marked for removal have canopies that span more than half the entire lot and cover an area much bigger than the proposed property. The role these canopies will play in dissipating the force and impact of heavy rainfall will undoubtedly be very significant (rain hits the canopy first which slows it down, then rain falls to the next level of vegetation and same again, and then finally to the ground with greatly reduced force giving best possible opportunity to be absorbed into the ground. It is well documented this is how trees help prevent erosion) so it must be reasonable to suggest that removing them would have a significant negative impact. The Town indicates they feel the trees play no role whatsoever which just doesn't make sense, even the Town's own Tree Protection Ordinance recognizes the role that trees play in protecting against erosion. As for drainage I don't know but I would think that the vegetation again plays a role in locking and absorbing some of the water that runs down this hillside. I honestly can't see that removing very large trees that must have very large and established root systems which must grow right across the slope and the plane of the slope, that must have taken years to grow, can have no impact whatsoever. Rather I think removing them should have a significant negative impact. This would certainly be worth more investigation in an Environmental Impact Report. Page 4 of 8 There are other areas of this report I haven't had time to look into in detail (e.g. impact on land use and planning) but I would like the Town to consider that noise levels will be increased 'above levels without the project'. It is noted today that the hillside is quiet and rural. The project house will be near double the size of one of the town homes, will have multiple outdoor areas and parking for at least four cars, and then will be raised up above the town homes so that any noise coming from it will carry further and louder. I believe there is a potential significant negative impact from new noise which should be investigated further. I reserve my rights. Yours faithfully, Nicholas P. Williamson Page 5 of 8 Attachment 2 -Tree Protection Ordinance, Town Code, Chapter 29, Intent Sec. 29.10.0950. Intent. This division is adopted because the Town of Los Gatos is forested by many native and non-native trees , and contains individual trees of great beauty. The health and welfare of the citizens of the Town require that these trees be saved in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the Town , prevent erosion of topsoil , provide protection against flood hazards and risk of landslides , counteract pollutants in the air, maintain climatic balance and decrease wind velocities . Trees contribute significantly to the value of land in the Town. It is the intent of this division to regulate the removal of trees within the Town in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the purpose of this section and the reasonable use of private property. It is the intent of this division to preserve as many protected trees as possible throughout the Town through staff review and the development review process. Special provisions regarding hillsides are included in Section 29 .10.0987 of this division in recognition of the unique biological and environmental differences between the hillside and non-hillside areas of the Town . This section does not supersede the provisions of Chapter 26 of this Code. Page 7 of 8 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter A – Nicholas Williamson A-1 Responses to the comments raised in regards to Initial Study/Environmental Checklist are provided in the responses below. A-2 The Town does not concur with this comment. The Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2020 Community Design Element (CD-I) generally defines the scenic resources within the town to be the views of the hillside areas of Santa Cruz Mountains, particularly the Sierra Azul ridge, rather than individual slopes interspersed within the Town. Scenic resources are generally designated as those places or areas that can be view by many residents or visitors throughout the town rather than more isolated areas. Furthermore, in the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), it is important to distinguish between public and private views. Private views are those views seen from privately-owned land, including views from private residences, and are typically enjoyed by individuals. Public views are experienced by the collective public. These include views of significant landscape features such as the Santa Cruz Mountains, as seen from public viewing spaces, not privately-owned properties. CEQA (Pub. Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) case law has established that only public views, not private views, need be analyzed under CEQA. For example, in Association for Protection etc. Values v. City of Ukiah (1991) 2 Cal. App. 4th 720 [3 Cal. Rptr.2d 488] the court determined that “we must differentiate between adverse impacts upon particular persons and adverse impacts upon the environment of persons in general. As recognized by the court in Topanga Beach Renters Assn. v. Department of General Services (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 188 [129 Cal.Rptr. 739]: ‘[A]ll government activity has some direct or indirect adverse effect on some persons. The issue is not whether [the project] will adversely affect particular persons but whether [the project] will adversely affect the environment of persons in general’” (California Environmental Quality Act, 2011). Therefore, for this analysis, only public views will be considered when analyzing the visual impacts of implementing the proposed project. While the project would result in the removal of three mature oak trees, it would not significantly alter or change a designated scenic vista or scenic hillsides identified in the Town’s General Plan. As such, potential impacts are less than significant. A-3 The Town does not concur with this comment. The proposed project is one single-family residence in a residential neighborhood surrounded on two sides by single-family and multi-family residences. An existing house on the same side of the street is located just north of the project site at 331 Bella Vista Drive. The proposed project does not substantially change the make-up or the character of the surrounding area. As shown in Figure 3 of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, the project site has 24 trees on site. The project proposes to remove three oak trees from the project site. These three trees are located within the interior of the site and away from the project property line. All of the trees located closest to the western property line (closest to the Maggi Court residences) would remain in place. It should be noted that the trees left in place are mature trees of substantial height and with large canopies. Table 1, below, provides a summary of the canopy height and width of the trees that are the closest to the western property line. 341 Bella Vista Avenue 2 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Table 1: Summary of Existing Trees Tree Number Tree Type Tree Height x Canopy Width (In Feet) 16 Olive 25 x 20 17 Coast Live Oak 50 x 30 18 Coast Live Oak 20 x 20 19 Canary Island Pine 60 x 18 20 Almond 28 x 15 21 Coast Live Oak 18 x 16 22 Coast Live Oak 20 x 12 23 Coast Live Oak 18 x 15 24 Coast Live Oak 18 x 16 Source: Arborist Report, 2014 As such, the proposed project would leave many of the existing mature trees onsite that would provide some screening of the proposed house. Figure 9, of the Initial Study shows a cross-section of the proposed house with the existing tree canopy. In addition to the tree canopy, the landscape screening plan shows that the project would plant screening vegetation along the western the property line to provide a visual screening barrier between the existing homes on Maggi Court and the project site. The landscape plan shows that the project would plant 8 Western Redbud trees, 14 Toyon shrubs, and 26 California Coffee Berry plants. This screening vegetation would provide a visual screen of the house at lower heights than the existing mature trees onsite. Therefore, potential visual impacts are considered less than significant. A-3 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Response A-2 regarding visual impacts. The project would remove 3 of the existing 24 trees on site and would replace the trees with 8 trees. The proposed development would construct one new single-family residential house on a street with single-family residential homes and adjacent to multi-family homes on Maggi Court. The development of the site is generally limited to the footprint of the house, and does not include other additional grading for yard space, detached garages, or other ancillary development. The Town does not concur that the building elevations are misleading. The building elevations are provided to illustrate how the house would be designed to fit into the existing hillside. Comments on the attachment are provided in Response A-13. A-4 The Town does not concur with this comment. The Town does not concur that the house is too big and the property too steep to be screened effectively. The Town does not have any design or architectural requirements that new homes must not be visible to existing homes. While the house may be visible at night, all lighting on the exterior of the house must comply with the Town’s buildings codes which prohibit light trespass over the property line. Exterior lights must be shielded to reflect the light downward and not outward. Light fixtures are reviewed by Town staff during the review of the building plans prior to the issuance of a building permit stage. The existing tree vegetation would block much of the direct sunlight on the proposed house during the day. To meet current Cal-Green building code requirements, the house must include energy efficient window glazing which include anti-reflective coatings to minimize the glare off of the glass surface. As shown in Figure 10 of the Initial Study, the house would be constructed of a 341 Bella Vista Avenue 3 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments mostly wood facade which is not considered a highly reflective surface capable of creating substantial light and glare impacts on neighboring properties. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. A-5 The Town does not concur with this comment. The project site is an isolated patch of vegetation surrounded by development and existing roadways. The project site does not provide connectivity between other known larger habitat areas that would provide for the long-term viability of native plant or animal species. As such, the project site is not considered a wildlife movement corridor. The project would remove three of the existing 24 trees onsite and replace those trees with native trees and shrubs in accordance with the Town’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. Additionally, the project would include Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 to ensure that bird nests (including owls) and bat roosts are protected during construction activities. Skunks and raccoons are considered non-native species and are not considered a protected species with regards to native wildlife corridors. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. A-6 The Town does not concur with this comment. The Tree Preservation Ordinance does not prohibit the removal of trees, but that the intent of the ordinance is to, “regulate the removal of trees within the Town in order to retain as many trees as possible consistent with the purpose of this section and the reasonable use of private property.” Of the 24 trees on the property, 21 trees are of a protected size, and the project would remove a total of three protected trees. As noted in Section 4e of the Initial Study, the project proposes mitigation for the removal or protected trees in accordance with the Tree Protection Ordinance. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. A-7 The Town does not concur that the project site would result in significant impacts to ground failure. A site specific geotechnical report (Upp Geotechnology, June 2015) was prepared for the project site by the applicant, and the report was peer-reviewed by the Town’s geotechnical consultant AMEC Foster Wheeler. The geotechnical report included a review of 12 previous geotechnical studies prepared for the property between 1997 and 2014. No significant geologic hazards were identified in those reports. The geotechnical report provides this summary of the overall seismic risk to the property: “In addition, the site is partially mapped within a State Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake-induced landsliding. In summary, we conclude that, from a geologic and geotechnical engineering perspective, the site is suitable for the proposed residential development. We judge that there is a low potential for surface fault rupture to manifest on the site from an earthquake or co-seismic event, or for slope instability to affect the proposed improvements.” Because the a portion of the project site is within a State Seismic Hazard Zone, the geotechnical report prepared a Landslide Screening Evaluation to assess the risk of landslides on the project site. The screening analysis is provided below for convenience. LANDSLIDE SCREENING EVALUATION The northwestern edge of the subject site is mapped within the State Seismic Hazard zone for earthquake-induced landsliding. The purpose of this qualitative screening evaluation is to 341 Bella Vista Avenue 4 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments evaluate the severity of the potential for earthquake-induced landsliding to occur on the subject site and to determine if further analysis is warranted (CDMG, 1996). In accordance with Special Publication 117A by the California Geological Survey (2008), our screening analysis includes an evaluation of the following questions: o Are existing landslides, active or inactive, present on, or adjacent (either uphill or downhill) to the project site? No. Our study and the prior studies for the subject site revealed no mapped landslides within the site or immediate vicinity and we observed no evidence of landslides on the subject property during our site reconnaissance. o Are there geologic formations or other earth materials located on or adjacent to the site that are known to be susceptible to landslides? No. According to the geologic map, Pleistocene age alluvial fan deposits underlie the subject site and immediate site vicinity. These materials are not known to be susceptible to landsliding in the general site area. o Do slope areas show surface manifestations of the presence of subsurface water (springs and seeps), or can potential pathways or sources of concentrated water infiltration be identified on or upslope of the site? No. Slope areas on the site are generally uniform. We did not observe any evidence of springs or seeps in areas that could affect the proposed building site. o Are susceptible landforms and vulnerable locations present? These include steep slopes, colluvium-filled swales, cliffs or banks being undercut by stream or wave action, areas that have recently slid. No. The site slopes are generally uniform and moderately steep, with general slope gradients of about 2:1 that are comprised of a thin veneer of fill and colluvium over alluvial fan deposits. In our opinion, these slopes and underlying materials do not represent susceptible landforms. o Given the proposed development, could anticipated changes in the surface and subsurface hydrology (due to watering of lawns, on-site sewage disposal, concentrated runoff from impervious surfaces, etc.) increase the potential for future landsliding in some areas? No. In our opinion, the current development concept will not increase the potential for landsliding on the subject site. The geotechnical report also specifically reviewed the project site for the potential for liquefaction and made the following conclusion: “The subject site is not mapped within a State Seismic Hazard Zone for earthquake-induced liquefaction, and in our opinion the potential for liquefaction to affect the proposed development is negligible.” As such, potential impacts from seismic events including unstable soils landslides and liquefaction are considered less than significant. A-8 The Town does not concur that there is significant risk associated to any neighboring properties. As noted on Response A-7, the project specific geotechnical report prepared for the project did not identify and seismic hazards or unstable soils that would adversely affect development on the project site. The mitigation related to geology and soils for this project is a mechanism to ensure recommendations from the geotechnical report are incorporated into final the grading and building plans for the project. No evidence has been provided or observed that this project would result in a significant risk to loss, injury or death as a result of seismic activity or unstable soils. 341 Bella Vista Avenue 5 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments A-9 The Town does not concur that this project presents a substantial risk from landslides. Please see Response A-7. A-10 The Town does not concur with this comment. The project would not result in increased impacts to the existing drainage patterns onsite. As shown in Figure 7 of the Initial Study, the project includes a grading and drainage plan that demonstrates how the project would collect storm water runoff from impervious surfaces and then release the water in a bio-retention trench that would allow the water to infiltrate into the ground. Currently there is no water collection or treatment system in place to collect water running off of Bella Vista Avenue onto the hillside. As noted in Section 9 of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would also implement at least one of six stormwater control measures such as Low Impact Development (LID) and Best Management Practices (BMP’s) per the Town’s Municipal Regional Permit (MRP) Section C.3.iii. As a requirement of the stromwater control measures, the applicant must demonstrate that the project would not increase the flow rate of surface water flowing off the project site compared to the existing condition. Additionally, the applicant must demonstrate that the surface water collection and treatment systems are sized adequately to accommodate the surface water collected onsite. The project would not significantly alter existing drainage patterns on or off site that would result in erosion or flooding onsite or offsite. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Please see Response A-3 regarding the preservation and replacement of trees on the project site. A-11 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Reponses A-10 and A-3 above. A-12 The Town does not concur that the project would result in potential noise impacts. Noise impacts are evaluated in Section 12 of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist. The proposed single family house is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and the existing zoning designation of R-1-8 permitting single-family residential development. The project is not requesting any amendments or variances to the Town Code and would comply with all standard setback requirements. Noise generated by project residential activities from the project site would be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residences and would not conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood. The project would not generate a substantial amount of traffic that would result in a significant increase in traffic noise. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. A-13 Attachment 1. Please see response A-3 regarding the preservation and replacement of trees on the project site. The project would comply with the Town Code for required setbacks on all sides of the property. The building is setback 22 feet and 3 inches from the edge of the western property line. The nearest building on Maggi Court is 48 feet from the nearest edge of the proposed house. It should be noted that 48 feet is approximately double the distance of separation of any of the adjacent homes on Maggi Court or Bella Vista Avenue. A-14 Attachment 2. Please see Response A-6 regarding the Tree Preservation Ordinance. A-15 Attachment 3. Please see Responses A-7 and A-8. March 24, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 11 0 East Main Street Los Gatos California 95031 Dear Madams and Sirs, 148 Maggi Court Los Gatos Californi a 95032 Re. Objections to Negative Mitigated Declarations (341 Bella Vista Avenue, Negative Declaration ND-16-001) I am a n own er of 148 Maggi Court, Los Gatos, California, and m y home is within 45 feet of this project. I and m y young family will b e seriously negatively impac ted if the above-referenced application is granted. I read the Miti gated Negative Declaration pertaining to the above and respectfully disagree with the findings, in particular: Aesthetics la Scenic Vistas The project site includes a road easem ent, d esignate d bicycle route, and thoroughfare to the public high school. At a public v antage point, the s cenic view includes protected trees and s teep slopes. Replacing protected oak tree s with a garage and replacing topography with building mass will impact the site significantly by blocking and removing v iews. The General Plan and governing Town documents place great significance and value in o ur hillsides, views and rural character it is inconsistent to state that there w ill be less than significant impact. Th e impact will be great. Mitigating the loss of 150 year old trees and topography of a d esignated hillside is not feasible . le Visual Character The massiveness of the rear elevation fr om 45 feet away, rising some 30 to 35 feet in the air from an elevat ed position o f around 20 feet, significantly impacts the views and char acter of the Maggi Court town h om e neighborhood. And yet the S tudy total omits to mention the impact on the town homes. This is simply n ot credible. Furthermore its not credible to say that the design and screening will mean that the impact of loss of privacy will be less than significant. The loss of privacy will be very significant The picture below is taken from my bedr oom looking at a Page 1of 3 gentleman marking out the project site on the hillside. Even with trees that have been growing for ears, he had a full view in throu h eve window of m house. ld Light and Glare There will be significant negative impact on the town homes from night time lighting from all the windows, patios and roof decks. This amount of potential lighting cannot be properly mitigated by the type of screening that is feasible here. Figure 11 (provided by the applicant) is misleading in scale and depiction. Tree canopies allow for filtered sunlight whereas building mass blocks sunlights. Building mass shadows are in excess of three hours on residences that are already shadowed from the north and south due to the design of planned developments sharing common walls. Loss of solar access in excess of three hours is significant. 6 Geology and Soils Slopes in excess of 30 percent are considered "hazardous". This project is on a hillside with slopes averaging 53%, near double what is considered hazardous and intends to place a large building directly above existing home owners and no more than 50 feet away. This project is very different to other projects and the Town and the Applicant must consider the impacts to the town home owners for possible loss of property, injury and death. No amount of mitigation Page 2 of 3 can ensure protection for human life in the event of a catastrophic or man-made event in such a hazardous setting and the Applicant and the Town have acknowledged that there is potential significan t impact. The Town really needs to consider its moral responsibility to the town home owners in not considering them part of this application. 10 Land Use and Planning a) -c) By omission of the Maggi Court neighborhood the study is implicit that the project is inconsistent with the existing planned development town homes and would physically divide an existing community. In addition the project conflicts with the General Plan, Tree Protection Ordinance, Cellar Policy, Infill Policy, Residential Guidelines, and Hillside Standards and Guidelines. The Town's vision for protecting the natural environment of its hillsides is significantly impacted (e .g. topography removed and replaced with building mass). By its omission, the study concedes that the project is n o t consistent with the Hillside Standards and Guidelines, for example completely ignoring sections I -III -Constraints Analysi s and Site Selection -most importantly: "AVOID HAZARDOUS BUILDING SITES WITH SLOPES IN EXCESS OF 30 PERCENT." 12 Noise a) Noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance are significant in exposure to residents. The study cannot guarantee that leve ls would be reduced to meet the levels of the ordinance due to heavy earthmoving and impact equipment and close proximity to Maggi Court. The US Dep artment of Health and Human Services National Institute on Deafness reports repeated exposure, even for a brief time, to sounds at or above 85 decibels can cause hearing loss. For prevention it advises moving away from it something which is not possible for people living in the town homes. The Town has to see that the proximity of the project to other houses and its elevated position must create a substantial level of noise which will have a significant negative impact and risk to injury. It is unreasonable for people not living in the area to say otherwise. 18 Significant Impacts on t he Natural and Man-Made Environments a) -c) The study concludes that there is no impact (direct or indirect) to human beings and yet several significant impacts have been identified to the contrary. It is not believable that there can be no impacts. Conclusion The Mitigated Negative Declarations should be rejected a long with the project application. All my rights are reserved. Yours faithfully, Laura A. Williamson Page 3 of 3 (ft""~~ . .... ~ $.Int• Cl•r• County ~..'.! Geologic Hu•rd Zon .. Q Parcels 0 City Liln lts ~ Feuh Rupture Hazard Zones Landslide H•z•rd Z ones M Liquefaction Hazard Z ones 0 1,000 L...J.......J Feel 1 Inch• 2 ,000 feet 1:24,000 "",." ... z-·0..21,2012 41 '·--2 l ~I ThH• maps •• slA:>jed to revt.ion. zon• shown on mep ~ .,.., w.Heh the County Geotogiitt maiy requke • tpedk geologic reportl prior to llPPf0¥iM of dwelopment efoM. ocel delermln8'1on tervlcH co,...,MH thoued be contacted to rnofwe the ttMut of perc• that appeef 3 5 to be k>cated at or nHr zont boundwlff. In order to nwim..n tht tc:aitl of 1 :24,000. thtt map shoutd be prlnt*<I on 11117 paper. otherwise. the Vfaphk; seat. ehould bt used. NOTE: AMho1.9h nw~ countywfde, these Geok>gic Hazard Zon11 ere not eppMellble within the city lrritl ot any city or other counties. 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter B – Laura Williamson B-1 The Town does not concur with this comment. Figure 10 of the Initial Study provided a visual simulation of the proposed project prepared using software specifically created for developing realistic simulations of proposed development. The visual simulations take into account the existing topography of the project site and the surrounding area, the proposed grading and architectural plans, and the existing and proposed landscaping. The visual simulations show the proposed project from several different vantage points along Bella Vista Avenue, the nearest public thoroughfare to the project site. Although the project proposes to remove 3 of the 24 trees onsite, a significant tree canopy still remains. The proposed project would be developed into the hillside, and as such, the height of the building would not exceed the height of any of the existing trees. As a result, the proposed house would not block any existing views of the nearby mountains or ridgelines designed as scenic resources in the Town’s General Plan. Potential visual impacts are considered less than significant. B-2 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Response A-2 regarding the evaluation of private views. Potential visual impacts are considered less than significant. B-3 The Town does not concur with this comment. The project would comply with the towns required setbacks on all sides of the property. The building is setback 22 feet and 3 inches from the edge of the western property line. The nearest building on Maggi Court is 48 feet from the nearest edge of the proposed house. It should be noted that 48 feet is approximately double the distance of separation of any of the adjacent homes on Maggi Court or Bella Vista Avenue. B-4 The Town does concur with this comment. Please see Response A-4 regarding potential impacts from light and glare. B-5 The Town does not concur with this comment. As noted in Response B-1, the majority of the existing tree canopy onsite would remain onsite. Please see Response A-3 for a summary of the height and width of the existing tree canopies for existing trees located closest to the Maggi Court residences. As shown in Figure 10, the existing tree heights would remain much higher than the height of the proposed house, which would be approximately 5 feet higher than the existing elevation of Bella Vista Avenue. Additionally, Figure 11 shows that on the longest days of year that little to no shadows are cast on the Maggi Court residences from the east. On the shortest day of the year, morning and some afternoon shadows come from the east between the hours of 8:00 am to 10:00 am. These shadows would be cast by the existing tree canopy and would occur with or without the proposed residence. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. B-6 The Town concurs that the project has a slope greater than 30% across the entire property. The project applicant proposes to combine two existing parcels to establish a least restrictive development area that takes into account the existing trees, access to the property, and other existing constraints such as the existing access road at the western edge of the property. The Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines do permit development in areas when there is no other building site available on the property. The Town does not concur that the project would result in geotechnical hazards risking life and property. Please see Response A-7 regarding geotechnical hazards. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. 341 Bella Vista Avenue 2 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments B-7 The Town does not concur with this comment. The proposed single family house is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and the existing zoning designation of R-1-8 permitting single-family residential development. The project is not requesting any amendments or variances to the Town Code and would comply with all standard setback requirements. No inconsistencies with any of the Town Code or policies have been identified. Please see Response B-1 regarding visual impacts. Please see Response B-6 with regard to development on steep slopes. B-8 The Town does not concur with this comment. As noted in Section 12 of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, construction activities at the project site would be temporary and would be required to conform to existing Town regulations (Town Noise Ordinance, Chapter 16) limiting the hours of the day and the days of the week that construction activities would be allowed. Construction and demolition activities are permitted to exceed the Town’s noise limits when construction and demolition activities are performed Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 8:00 pm; and 9:00 am to 7:00 pm on weekends and holidays. Construction activities would vary as the project development transitions from grading and paving to constructing the house. The project site is approximately 0.23-acre and proposes the excavation of 692 cubic yards of soil. Therefore, construction activities involving heavy construction equipment would not be onsite for extended periods of time. Section 12.d of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist estimates that the excavation process using two small bobcat excavators would take approximately four weeks. No other temporary or periodic activities that would generate substantial increases in noise have been identified. Therefore, potential impacts are considered less than significant. B-9 The Town does not concur with this comment. As noted in Section 18.c of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, the potential for adverse direct or indirect impacts to human beings were considered in the response to certain questions in Sections 1. Aesthetics, 3. Air Quality, 6. Geology and Soils, 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials, 9. Hydrology and Water Quality, 12. Noise, 13. Population and Housing, and 16. Transportation and Traffic. As a result of this evaluation, there is no substantial evidence that there are adverse effects on human beings associated with this project. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Eleanor Leishman 332 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95032-5415 March 24, 2016 Lead agency: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Project Title a nd Location: 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 Subdivision Application M-12-008 Negat ive Declaration ND-16-001 Regarding: Objections to MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION To whom it may concern: I live at 332 Bella Vista Ave , a few hou ses north and across the street from the proposed development at 341 Bella Vista Ave. Our property was purchased by my family in 1957, and family members have lived here almost contin uously si nc e then. My husband David and I have owned and occupi ed the property since 2007. I 'm writing to express my strong disagreement with , and specific objections to, the "Mitigated Negative Dec- laration" determination given to this project by the Community Development Department in its "Initi al Study and Env ironmental Check li st," whic h it prepared for the Town of Los Gatos and published February, 2016 (see appl ication numbers referenced above). I find it inconceivable, as this study concludes, that t he proposed resi- dential bui ldin g project at 341 Bella Vista will create "no s ignificant impact" on the aesthe tic s and sceni c v ie ws; trees and wildlife; geology and soi ls; neighborhood character; light pollution and noise levels; or parking and traffic congestion on Bella Vista Ave. ALL of these areas wi.11 be s ignificantly impacted by this project! The owner(s) of the property in question have a Jong history of submitting plans that were too big, too dan- gerous , and too disruptive to the neighborhood to be built, a nd have faced ongoing vigorous opposition from neighbors and the Planning Commission a li ke. In fact, the Los Gatos Planning Commission has decisively dis- missed all previous plans to build on this site. The planning history of this project alone should have alerted the Community Development Department not to attempt to minimize the inevitable disruptions and damage to the environment that this project would cause. In its Initia l Study for the Town of Los Gatos , it has done just that. Based on the li st of categories of objection (which I have summarized above and wi ll spe ll out in more detail below), 1 urge the Community Development Department to order a full Environmental Impact Report on the proposed project at 34 1 Bella Vista Ave. Aesthetics and Scenic Views I couldn't disagree more with the Initial Study's determination that the project wou ld not s ignificantly affect the aesthetics a nd views of the area immediately surrounding the proposed house from Bella Vista Ave. While sce- nic views (e.g. of the mountains) are not in question here. the existing trees provide very attractive and effective vi s ua l screening from the d e nse de velopme nt a nd freeways down the hill. If seve ral o f th e se he ritage trees are re moved , a s the proj ect proposes , that visual screenin g will be lost. Instead , "view s" w ill f eature th e pro posed Be lla Vis ta house as we ll as th e previousl y screened ho usi n g develo pments a nd freeway interc ha nge s be low. Trees and Wildli fe The Initial Study s tates that the removal of thre e P rotected O ak T ree s (in additi o n to three Protected Non-na- ti ve Trees) wo uld have no s ignifi cant pote nti a l impact. H o w is the habitat destructi o n caused by re moving them NOT goin g to c reate a maj o r negati ve impact o n the bird s and o th e r wildli fe tha t c urre ntl y de pe nd o n t hese tree s fo r fo ragin g, nesting a nd cover? In ite m 4a-4d S pec ial-S tatu s Species, S ens itiv e Ha bitat/Communiti es, Wetl a nd s, Fi s h a nd Wildlife M ove me nt, Cor rido rs , a nd N ursery Sites , t he Initial Pl an o utl i nes Miti gation M easure fo r S peci a l Status M igrato ry Birds: "Direct and indirect impact s on s pecia l-statu s a nd mi g rato ry bird s peci es wo uld be co ns idere d s ig nifi cant und e r CEQA g uid e lines. However , impl e me nta ti o n of Miti gati on Measure BI0-1 wo uld reduce si gni fi c ant impacts o n s pecial-s tatus a nd mi grato ry bird s peci es to a less tha n s ig nifi cant level." A numbe r of q ues tio ns a ri se for me , fo r e xampl e: Who w ill moni tor a nd e nfo rce th e imple me ntati o n of these Mi t igatio n Meas ures? S ure ly these i ss ues and concern s require a mo re th orough e n vironme nta l in ves ti gati o n . C oncern s li sted i n th e Initi al Study abo ut th ese s igni fica nt direct a nd indirect impac ts o n s pecia l-s tatu s mi gra- to ry bird s pecies stron g ly s uggest that a full Enviro nm e ntal Impac t Report s ho uld be do ne on thi s prope rty, in o rd e r to mo re t ho roug hl y assess these and o ther impacts to birds a nd othe r w ildlife species o n the proposed buil d in g s ite. G eology a nd Soil s In s pite of the extrem e s lope o f the p rope rty, th e Initi al S tudy's asserti o n is th at the re a re no geologic da n gers inhe rent the proj ect. Thi s asserti o n is t rou blin g to say the least. Soi l ex cavatio n a nd cons truc ti o n wo rk i nvo lved in buildin g t he pro po se d ho use o n thi s stee p s ite , located as it is directl y above a de nse ly po pul at ed ho us in g a re a a nd g iven other geolog ic a nd se is mi c safe ty fac to rs, warra nt very seri o us conside rati on a nd s tud y . Who w ill be res po nsible if t he ho use s lides d o wn the hill during a major earthqua ke? Ne ig hbo rh ood c haracter , li g ht a nd no ise po llution , pa rkin g/traffic conges ti o n T he pro posed building proj ect a t 341 B e lla Vi s ta will have a negative effect on the cha racte r o f o ur neighbo r- hood by dimini shi ng it s tree v iews a nd peaceful qu ality, a nd by addin g to buil d in g de ns ity, li g ht and no ise poll uti on. It will contri bute t o the a lread y di ffic ult parkin g a nd da nge ro us t raffic conges ti o n o n t he street. T hese topics deserve m uc h mo re discussion . And they re quire a mo re com plete study by the Tow n Pl a nne rs as they conside r the impa cts thi s project will have o n Bell a Vi sta Ave . The la nd use issues in volved wi th t his proj ect are e no rmo us , a nd a re fra ught w ith ma ny sig ni fica nt ques ti o ns re- gard in g public safety , a nd re la tin g to questions a bo ut whether thi s proj ec t adh eres to Town Buil din g S tan dards . In s u mmary, l res pectfull y (but s tro ng ly!) reques t again tha t the Town require that a full E nvi ro nme ntal S tudy be compl eted before proceeding fu rt he r with a ny cons iderati o n of thi s pro posed proj ect. Yo urs trul y, El eano r L eis hma n 332 Be lla Vi sta Ave. Los Gatos, C 950 32-54 15 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter C – Eleanor Leishman C-1 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Responses A-2 and B-1 regarding visual impacts. Please see Responses A-3 and A-5 regarding impacts on biological resources. Please see Response A-4 regarding light pollution, and Responses A-12 and B-8 regarding noise impacts. With regard to traffic impacts, the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist did evaluate potential traffic impacts in Section 16. The Town’s Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 2014-59) specifies that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hour trips does not require a comprehensive traffic report. The proposed single-family residence would result in a net increase of 10 trips per day, with 1 trip occurring during the AM peak hour and 1 trip occurring during the PM peak hour. 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. C-2 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and no further response is required. This letter will be included in the administrative record as part of the response to comments and will be provided to the Town of Los Gatos decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. C-3 The Town does not concur that an Environmental Impact Report is required. Responses to the specific issues raised are addressed as they are raised within this letter. C-4 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Response B-1 regarding views from Bella Vista Avenue. Please see Response A-3 regarding the preservation and replacement of trees on the project site. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. C-5 Please see Responses A-3 and A-5 regarding impacts on trees and wildlife resources. It should be noted that the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist has been updated to remove the reference that three non-native trees would be removed. The project would only remove the trees noted on the protected trees noted in Figure 3. C-6 The Town does not concur with this comment. The mitigation measures identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration would be adopted with the proposed project. Town staff are responsible for ensuring that the applicant has satisfactorily satisfied the mitigation measure prior to issuing permits that would result in an impact. In the case of migratory bird species, the applicant would be required to demonstrate that Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (protecting nesting birds) has been completed by a qualified biologist prior to the issuance of any grading or improvement plans. The project site is an isolated patch of vegetation surrounded by development and existing roadways. The project site does not provide connectivity between other known larger habitat areas that would provide for the long-term viability of native plant or animal species. As such, the project site is not considered a wildlife movement corridor. There are no known sensitive plant or animal species in this area, and none have been identified on the project site. Potential impacts 341 Bella Vista Avenue 2 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments are considered less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C-7 The Town does not concur that there are geologic dangers associated with the proposed project. Please see Responses A-7 and A-8. Potential impacts are considered less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. C-8 The Town does not concur with this comment. The issues raised in this comment have all been addressed in the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist document supporting the Environmental Negative Declaration. The proposed project is one single-family residence in a residential neighborhood surrounded on two sides by single-family and multi-family residences. An existing house on the same side of the street is located just north of the project site at 331 Bella Vista Drive. The proposed project does not substantially change the make-up or the character of the surrounding area. Please see Response B-1 regarding visual impacts, Response A-4 regarding nighttime lighting, and Responses A-12 and B-8 regarding noise impacts. Please see Response C- 1 regarding traffic impacts. No specific impacts are raised in the comment. The Town does not concur that additional study is required for this project. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. C-9 The Town does not concur with this comment. The proposed single family house is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and the existing zoning designation of R-1-8 permitting single-family residential development. The project is not requesting any amendments or variances to the Town Code and would comply with all standard setback requirements. The project is subject to the Town’s Architectural and Site Design review and no conflicts with any Town building standards have been identified. March 22 , 2016 Lead agency: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Project Location : 341 Bella Vista Avenue To Whom It May Concern : I have lived in Los Gatos for over 15 years and am the owner of 154 Maggi Court, one of the townhomes that are west of the site for 341 Bella Vista Ave . I am writing to express my strenuous objections to the Mitigated Negative Declaration for this application . The hearing scheduled for April 13 , 2016 will be the fifth such meeting by the Planning Commission and Town Council of Los Gatos and will be the third plan submitted by the applicant Dan Ross for this site . As the Town Council and Mr. Ross are well aware, the applications from 2013 and 2012 were unanimously denied due to non-compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and ne ighborhood compatibility. The flagrant and consistent disregard for the counsel given to Mr. Ross by both the Planning Commissioners and Town Council members during prior hearings can only be explained by a motivation to max imize his personal financial gain at the expense of the commun ity 's well-being. The current plans still do not address any of the major concerns previously ra ised by the commun ity and Town officials, most notably the glaring violations of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines: 1. The proposed plan for this home grossly violates the standard to minimize bulk , mass and volume from surrounding properties outlined in the Code and Guidelines . a. Instead of reducing the mass and scale of the two 2 , 760 square foot homes planned in the 2012 and 2013 applications , the applicant's current plan is to combine the lots and build one massive 3, 139 square foot home with three stories, a roof top deck, and 5 exterior patios . b. The allowable FAR for this lot area is 1 ,620 square feet. Discounting the 501 square feet of garage space in the app licant's plan, the total living area is 2,638 square feet compared to the larger town homes in the Bella Vista Village at 1,650 square feet. c. The intent of the Cellar and Attic Po li cy adopted by the Town of Los Gatos in 2002 is to reduce the bulk, mass and scale of new and remodeled homes . Instead Mr. Ross has used it as justification to add 1, 156 square feet of li ving space, nearly equivalent in size to the "main "/below ground living area planned at 1,278 square feet. 1 2. According to the Mitigated Negative Declaration , there will be no sign ificant impacts on protected trees and the visual impact on neighboring properties. However, if the development proceeds as planned : a. 3 "protected " oak trees (including two above 35 " in height) and three protected non- native/non-protected trees will be destroyed despite the Tree Protection Ordinance. b. The proposed development would eliminate the pristine view of wildlife and trees for several houses on Bella V ista Avenue only to be replaced by views of the proposed home . 3 . The Hillside Standards and Guidelines place a high priority on protect ing the privacy of neighboring homes . Specifically, they require that the site and design for a new home follow standards to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors . a . I work from my home office and the noise created during the construction process and by the inhabitants of the new home would not only be an inconvenience, but would have a significant negative impact on my ability to conduct business and earn a livelihood. b. The ambient noise levels associated with a home of this mass and scale with its multiple outdoor living spaces would not be similar to noise levels generated by any existing adjacent or nearby residences. c . As noted in the mitigated negative declaration , "exterior and interior lighting also could have nighttime illumination effects on existing townhomes to the west." d . Line of sight from the roof top deck or someone looking over the edges of the multiple exterior balconies into several of the town homes on Maggi Court would serve as an material invasion of privacy. In the application filed on September 16, 2013, Mr. Ross stated that he will reach out to neighbors and hopes that "they w ill take a constructive approach to working together to achieve the best outcomes for all." I received a letter under my doormat 2 days ago. Strategically timing the delivery of this letter 3 days before responses are due is another thinly veiled attempt to claim compliance with due process and consideration for neighbors. I understand the applicant has a right to build on the lots which he purchased at 339 -341 Bella Vista Drive , but ask that the plans adhere to the Los Gatos Town Building Code and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines that were written to protect our hillsides and community against the negative effects of overdevelopment. The project, if allowed to proceed as outlined in the current plan , would have a significant negative impact on the environment , quality of life, and character of the neighborhood . Sincerely, Debra Chin 154 Maggi Court 2 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter D – Debra Chin D-1 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and no further response is required. This letter will be included in the administrative record as part of the response to comments and will be provided to the Town of Los Gatos decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. D-2 The Town does not concur that the project violates the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The Town does concur that the proposed house is 3,139 square feet and three stories. D-3 The Town concurs that the FAR is 0.15 or 1,620 square feet. The Town concurs with that the project proposes a total living area of 2,638 square feet. D-4 The proposed project is consistent with the Town’s development codes and is not requesting any exceptions or variances. No conflicts have been identified. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. D-5 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Responses A-2 and A-6 regarding the preservation of trees and Response B-1 with regard to visual impacts on Bella Vista Avenue. D-6 No conflicts with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines have been identified. As such, the proposed project would leave many of the existing mature trees onsite that would provide some screening of the proposed house. Figure 9, of the Initial Study shows a cross-section of the proposed house with the existing tree canopy. In addition to the tree canopy, the landscape screening plan shows that the project would plant screening vegetation along the western the property line to provide a visual screening barrier between the existing homes on Maggi Court and the project site. The landscape plan shows that the project would plant 8 Western Redbud trees, 14 Toyon shrubs, and 26 California Coffee Berry plants. This screening vegetation would provide a visual screen of the house at lower heights than the existing mature trees onsite. Therefore, potential visual impacts are considered less than significant. D-7 The Town does not concur that the project would have significant construction noise impacts. Please see Response B-8. D-8 The Town does not concur that the proposed project would result in significant noise impacts. No evidence linking the mass and scale to increased noise has been presented. The project proposes a single-family residence on a street with other single family residential uses. The proposed house would be approximately 48 feet from the nearest building on Maggi Court. At 48 feet, that distance is nearly twice the separation distance of any of the existing houses in Maggi Court or Bella Vista Court. The project is not requesting any exceptions or variances to the Town’s setback requirements. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. D-9 Please see Response A-4 regarding exterior lighting. 341 Bella Vista Avenue 2 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments D-10 In addition to the tree canopy, the landscape screening plan prepared for the project shows that the project would plant screening vegetation along the western the property line to provide a visual screening barrier between the existing homes on Maggi Court and the project site. The landscape plan shows that the project would plant 8 Western Redbud trees, 14 Toyon shrubs, and 26 California Coffee Berry plants. This screening vegetation would provide a visual screen of the house at lower heights than the existing mature trees onsite. Therefore, potential visual impacts are considered less than significant. D-11 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and no further response is required. This letter would be included in the administrative record as part of the response to comments and would be provided to the Town of Los Gatos decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. D-12 The Town does not concur that the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environmental, quality of life, and character of the neighborhood. The proposed single family house is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and the existing zoning designation of R-1-8 permitting single-family residential development. The project is not requesting any amendments or variances to the Town Code and would comply with all standard setback requirements. No conflicts with the Town of the Los Gatos Building Code or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines have been identified. PATRICKK. TILLMAN Attorney at Law March 24, 2016 Marni Moseley Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E . Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Sent via e-mail to: MMoselev@Josgatosca.gov and planning@Josgatosca.gov Re: 339 & 341 Be11a Vista Avenue Applications Applicant: Dan Ross Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-00 I Dear Ms. Moseley: I live at 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos, with Planning Committee Chairperson, Mary Badame. An application is pending for construction of one (1) single-family home to be built at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, directly above us. The application should be rejected. Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-001 ("MND") should also be rejected. The MND should be rejected because it lacks appropriate scrutiny of a project previously deemed "difficult," at best, by Town Council. Little to no insightful narrative is given; the tone being more that of a person simply reading a map. The Graphics do not reflect the 53° slope, making them misleading. The up-close-and- personal relationship this home, if built, will have with its downhilJ neighbors, goes untouched. As with the last MND, submitted by a company with which the Town of Los Gatos will no longer deal, this MND is skewed toward satisfying the spec-home builder, not the neighborhoods (2) this project will impact. Their conclusion : Oh yeah, it fits just fine. 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, Sa11 Jose, CA 95126 Plio11e: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawojfice.com b. Trees: (Pgs. 32-34, 40) How is it possible to fell six (6) "protected" + 100 year old trees with massive canopies, including a 45" Oak tree , and not have a significant impact on the neighborhood? Concern about viewing these trees was restricted to those residing on the opposite side of the street on Bella Vista Avenue. The trees will be gone. They get to see the roof of a house. "No impact" or "Less than significant impact." The townhome residents below, Bella Vista Avenue walkers, bikers, and drivers, also enjoy the ambiance supplied by these trees. No mention made of them. Those trees are gorgeous and make the neighborhood what it is. As to the proposed mitigation; THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to mitigate the loss of these trees. Certainly not with "24-inch box-size trees or [their] equivalent." (Pg. 40 @ 4e) The proposed mitigation is nonsense. The Bella Vista residences will never see those replacement trees, they are down the hill. As to the downhill townhome residents, I mentioned the 53° slope, we will be looking over them -all of them, for+ 15 years, at least. Applicant's resources would be better spent planting a vineyard. As to the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance, the mitigation suggestion is simply a numbers game, applying primarily to flat land. This area is special. It should be treated with respect. c. Visibility. (Pg. 32) The trees to be cut down are visible from viewing platform areas, a fact established in Town council meetings going all the way back to 12-12-97. It could not have been made more plain in the multiple meetings that resulted in +2 prior project rejections of similar plans from this same applicant. The proposed house will be more visible than the trees -which is the point. To avoid prior Town conclusions, the MND says the trees and house are not visible based on "photosimulations ... and a site visit." That is not the standard for establishing visibility. Unacceptable . 3 d. Light or Glare. (Pg. 33) The "glow" from the house will be the Bella Vista Avenue neighbors ' to enjoy. From downhill, we are looking at a lamp- a large lamp. The MND provides: "Exterior and interior lighting also could have nighttime illumination effects on existing townhomes to the west, although ... [assorted] ... proposed landscape screening would minimize the potential for impacts associated with nighttime illumination." (Pg. 33) Really. Light may shine on those beneath the lamp? But some box trees will eliminate that? For Christ's sake! (See tree mitigation garbage, above) That explanation passed muster? e. Shadow study. (Pg. 33) Applicant says the project/house will not change the shadow patterns from those of the trees. A house. A tree. Same thing. Who believes that? The graphic provided (Figure 11) shows more of the homes across the street than the Townhomes below. Our Townhomes are the only residences that could be affected by a shadow. #??. Privacy. Not addressed ... unless that box-tree thing was it. 4. Traffic. (Pgs. 56-58) That section of the road is a dangerous place for a driveway. Someone will get hurt. A large tree and those bush-trees of the Hotel block the view southbound. Applicant proposes a driveway that slopes downhill, meaning you have to back up going uphill ... into a blind intersection. "No impact." 4 The Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-001 is flawed. It is not reliable. It should be rejected . Thank you. Patrick K . Tillman cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail) Townofl.osGatos .032416 5 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter E- Patrick Tillman E-1 The Town does not concur that that the Mitigated Negative Declaration is skewed or that it does not address potential impacts. The Initial Study/Environmental Checklist evaluates the potential impacts associated with the proposed project. Figure 9 of the Initial Study shows an elevation of the proposed project relative to the existing slope and the adjacent homes located on Maggi Court. Figure 10 shows elevations with the existing landscaping included. Potential impacts are less than significant. E-2 This section of the Initial Study is describing the surrounding land uses. The surrounding land uses are described as residential as single-family residences are located to across Bella Vista Avenue and Multi-family residences are located adjacent the site along Maggi Court. E-3 The Town concurs that the project site steeply slopes towards the townhomes on Maggi Court. As noted in Section 1.c of Initial Study/Environmental Checklist, the proposed project would be subject to design review as part of the Architecture and Site Review process. During this process, the proposed design is evaluated for consistency with the Town’s HDS&G. As part of Architecture and Site review, the Town determined that the project would be consistent with the HDS&G policies for site planning, development intensity, architectural design, site elements, and landscape design. The HDS&G emphasizes minimizing grading and preserving natural features (including drainage channels and trees). Three of the site’s trees are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed home, but trees along the site margins would be retained and landscape screening is proposed along the western project boundary. It should be noted that at 48 feet, that distance is nearly twice the separation distance of any of the existing houses in Maggi Court or Bella Vista Avenue. The project is not requesting any exceptions or variances to the Town’s setback requirements. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. E-4 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental Checklist and no further response is required. This letter will be included in the administrative record as part of the response to comments and will be provided to the Town of Los Gatos decision-making bodies for their review and consideration. E-5 The Town does not concur with this comment. The proposed project would remove 3 protected trees. Please see Responses A-3, A-6, and B-1. E-6 Please see Responses A-6 and E-3. E-7 Please see Response A-2 regarding views from private residences. The project is consistent with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. E-8 The Town does not concur that the proposed project would obstruct designated scenic views. Please see Response B-1. The Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2020 Community Design Element (CD-I) generally defines the scenic resources within the town to be the views of the hillside areas of Santa Cruz Mountains, particularly the Sierra Azul ridge, rather than individual slopes interspersed within the Town. The Town of Los Gatos Hillside Area and Viewing Platform Map 341 Bella Vista Avenue 2 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments does not designate Bella Vista Avenue or Maggi Court as viewing platform areas. Los Gatos- Saratoga Road is considered a viewing platform, however, the existing tree canopy between the project site and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road would remain in place. The proposed house would have an elevation of approximately 5 feet higher than the elevation of Bella Vista Road and would not obstruct any view of the designated hillside areas. Potential impacts are less than significant. E-9 The Town does not concur with this comment. While the house may be visible at night, all lighting on the exterior of the house must comply with the Town’s buildings codes which prohibit light trespass over the property line. Exterior lights must be shielded to reflect the light downward and not outward. Light fixtures are reviewed by Town staff during the review of the building plans prior to the issuance of a building permit stage. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. E-10 Please see Response B-5. E-11 The proposed single family house is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and the existing zoning designation of R-1-8 permitting single- family residential development. The project is not requesting any amendments or variances to the Town Code and would comply with all standard setback requirements. The project is subject to the Town’s Architectural and Site Design review and no conflicts with any Town building standards have been identified. E-12 The Town does not concur with this comment. Section 16 of the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist evaluated potential impacts associated with the proposed construction and long-term use of the proposed house. The analysis identified the requirement for a traffic control plan to safely and adequately manage construction traffic. The analysis also includes a mitigation measure in which the applicant has to demonstrate that adequate stopping sight distance is provided for cars traveling on Bella Vista Avenue. This mitigation measure is to ensure that cars traveling on Bella Vista Avenue can see the project driveway from far enough away to safely stop or slow down when cars are entering or leaving the proposed driveway. The required stopping sight distance must be determined by a registered civil engineer or professional land surveyor and submitted to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. Potential impacts are less than significant. E-13 The Town does not concur with this comment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration, supported by the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist has evaluated the proposed project pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act. With the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measures all potential impacts have been reduced to less than significant. Erin Johnson 150 Maggi Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 March 23, 2016 RE : Mitigated Negative Declaration -ND-16-001 To whom it may concern, Who can judge neighborhood character better than one who grew up in Town, attended the local schools, and resides in the neighborhood in question? Degrading the existing visual character, quality of the site and surroundings with the removal of 150 year old Coast Oak trees and 692 cubic yards of dirt will have a significant impact that cannot be mitigated. How does this maintain the so-called rural character? From 60 feet above and 45 feet away, the quality of the site has changed to an urban setting with five patios and a rooftop deck serving as spectator seats to Maggi Court. It most certainly will have a significant impact to aesthetics and rural character of the neighborhood. It will be public nuisance. Attached is a San Jose Mercury News article dated 01-30 -16. The exhibit is of a three- story multimillion-dollar house sliding down a hill, threatening other homes. It too, passed inspection and geology and soils reports. Building a home adjacent to an area with high erosion potential, on a steep slope with slope stability hazard, with high potential for fault rupture and strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake does not provide me comfort or restful sleep at night. Furthermore, 63 window panes illuminating light at 60 feet above me and my neighbors would, no doubt, dictate how much shut eye I get. At least I could count on some extensive bedtime reading. Do we really want to play Dominoes with this scenario? Sincerely, Erin Johnson 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter F – Erin Johnson F-1 Please see Responses A-2, A-3 and B-1. The proposed single family house is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and the existing zoning designation of R-1-8 permitting single-family residential development. The project is not requesting any amendments or variances to the Town Code and would comply with all standard setback requirements. The project is subject to the Town’s Architectural and Site Design review and no conflicts with any Town building standards have been identified. F-2 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Response F-1. F-3 Please see Response A-7. F-4 The Town does not concur that the proposed project represents a hazard from erosion, steep slopes, slope stability, or fault rupture. Please see Response A-7 regarding the site specific geotechnical analysis prepared for the project. With regard to nighttime lighting, while the house may be visible at night, all lighting on the exterior of the house must comply with the Town’s buildings codes which prohibit light trespass over the property line. Exterior lights must be shielded to reflect the light downward and not outward. Light fixtures are reviewed by Town staff during the review of the building plans prior to the issuance of a building permit stage. Potential impacts are considered less than significant. Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Planning Commission, Janet Carmona <janetcarmona7@gmail.com > Thursday, March 24, 2016 4 :50 PM Planning Marni Moseley 341 Bella Vista I urge you to deny the current application of 341 Bella Vista Avenue for the following reasons : I. Disregard for Los Gatos Hillside Standards and Guidelines. This proposed development would be a three story structure. II. This proposed development exceeds the FAR . The applicant is counting the sq. of the main floor and the second level. Leaving out the sq . of the "cellar" with windows and bedrooms at an additional 1,156 square feet. Ill. This proposed development DOES NOT fit with the neighborhood . The plan calls for a rooftop deck? Please, I urge you to visit the site . This proposed development should not be approved. Regards , Janet Carmona 160 Maggi Court 408-807-2426 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter G – Janet Carmona G-1 The Town does not concur with this comment. Please see Response E-3. G-2 The Town does not concur with this comment. The FAR or Floor Area Ratio for the project site is 1,620 square feet or 0.15. The allowable FAR for this site has been reduced because of the existing slope at the project site. The project has a total coverage of 1,564 square feet which is less than the maximum allowed. Cellar area and garage area are not counted towards the FAR calculation. The Town of Los Gatos Cellar and Attic policy does not restrict any uses within cellars. The FAR calculations have been reviewed by Town staff and no conflicts have been identified. G-3 The Town does not concur with this comment. The proposed single family house is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential, and the existing zoning designation of R-1-8 permitting single-family residential development. The project is not requesting any amendments or variances to the Town Code and would comply with all standard setback requirements. The project is subject to the Town’s Architectural and Site Design review and no conflicts with any Town building standards have been identified. Ken Lown 156 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 March 22, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-001 I live at 156 Maggi Ct., part of the Bella Vista Village community below the proposed project with my wife, Mary Ann. We are both opposed to the proposed development by Dan Ross at 341 Bella Vista Lane directly above our town home. There are many aspects of the Initial Study and Environmental Checklist Form (ISEC) that misrepresent that actual negative impact of this proposed development to the Town Homes below and violate the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG) adopted by the Town of Los Gatos in January, 2004 including: 1. As stated in the submitted ISEC, the square footage of the two story home (three story including the garage and the roof deck) is 1,278 s.f. (Main Level) + 1,360 s.f. (Lower Level) for a total of 2,638 s.f. far in excessive of the 1620 s.f. maximum allowed by the HDSG on pages 27 and 28 when reduced for slope. Please note that the Lower Level as highlighed in Figure 6 – Lower Level Floor plan of the submitted ISEC is a living area including the Master Bedroom/bath + 2 additional bedrooms and a shared bath in some sort of split level fashion which drives this to at least a 2-1/2 story structure not counting the garage. It is not a cellar by any definition I have every heard in my 60 years of life and 39 years of professional life as a Mechanical Engineer (now Senior Engineering Manager for the last 16 years) holding a Master's Degree in Mechanical Engineering. 2. Figure 9 – Building Elevation Cross-Section of the submitted ISEC attempts to show line of site from the interior of the structure but also from the roof deck. The chosen location of a person on roof deck is substantially back from the railing. If you move that person to the railing then the line of site would go to all the way to base of the Town Home structures below imposing a significant adverse impact to privacy. Even from the Main Level the diagram is deceptive as someone right at the window or hanging their head out the window (I assume the windows open for ventilation) would have a much improved view of the Town home's backyards and into the bedroom windows. 3. Page 32 of the ISEC indicates under 1.c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings as “Less than a significant impact”. Less than significant to who? Certainly not less than significant to the current residents of Maggi Ct. in the Bella Vista Village community who now look up a beautiful landscape of old Oaks and other trees on a small section of very steep land. Certainly not to the residents of Bella Vista Avenue across the street who's view is also a beautiful natural landscape of old Oaks and other trees on a small section of very steep land. 4. Page 33 of the ISEC indicates under 1d. Light or Glare “Exterior and interior lighting also might have nightime illumination effects on existing townhomes to the west..” and then it goes on about intervening landscaping. This is weak! Any lighting on the back side of the proposed development will have an impact on the townhomes to the west and nothing prevents either the 1st occupants, or the 2nd occupants, or the 3rd to change the lighting if they so desired so the townhomes (my home) will certainly be impacted and my neighbors homes to the south of mine ever more so as they are more directly beneath the proposed building itself. 5. Page 40 of the ISEC section 4e discusses Tree and Biological Protection Ordinances. It says the proposal is to remove 7 trees including 3 protected Oak Trees and 3 protected non- native/non-protected trees. First that doesn't add up to seven and I have no idea what a “protected/non-protected” tree means. Two of the Oak trees are listed as 45 feet tall and one as 35 feet tall. Then it refers to “A1-D” for more information. I am assuming this is referring to the A1 attachment which appears to be blank starting after page 62. Well … the three Oak trees are big old trees that have been there a very long time. In a town that prides itself on tree preservation I do not see how it can be OK to allow these three trees to be removed. This section, further, goes on to say “The ordinance allows for payment in- lieu fees for those trees not planted on-site”. This is with respect to the required qty 30 of 24” box trees to be planted to make up for the old Oak Tree removed. I think it is saying that Dan Ross could just pay the town for removing these old Oaks which is a poor substitute for the current view now enjoyed by both the residents of Bella Vista Avenue above and the residents of Bella Vista Village below. 6. Page 50 of the ISEC section 91 -9j. Water Quality, Groundwater Resoruces Drainage, Flood Hazards states: Storm Drainage. According to the Erosion Control Plan prepared for the proposed project, potential water quality impacts could include short-term construction- related erosion/sedimentation …” then it goes on to say “... if not managed properly... “. Well … that's the crux of it, isn't it. If not managed properly. There are properties in Aptos, specifically up Cliff Drive in Rio Del Mar that are at risk of sliding down the hillside into the street below due to erosion of “not managed properly” drainage and assement of the viability of the hillside. Pacifica is facing similar issues except those apartments are being torn down. This is risky and the residents of Bella Vista Village are not willing to bear that risk! 7. Page 53 of the ISEC section 12b. Groundborne Noise and Vibration states “Since construction of the project facilities would not involve the use of impact equipment ...”. I do not know that this is true. I do not know that support columns which could require the use of pile drives will not be needed to support this structure on this hillside. I employ the Town Goverment in the form of the Planning Commision to become sure. 8. Now lets talk about short term noise increases. Page 54 of the ISEC section 12d. Short- term Noise Increases. It states “Project construction would result in temporary short-term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment.” Then it goes on to say “Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higer levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving equipment”. The reason OSHA (and the Town ordinances) limit noise levels to 85 dBA sound pressure (that is, the pressure of the acoustic output at the measured location, like your ear) is that is the level to be determined that a person can withstand indefinitely without hearing damage. Make no mistake, though, it is loud. Also, it accounts only for the noise level, not the noise frequency content which goes to “annoyance”. We all know that some noises are more annyoing than others and if you have been by a construction site (I am sure you all have) you know that construction noises are annoying! The Bella Vista Town homes are only 45 feet from the edge of this proposed construction project and will be able to thank the sloping hillside for acting as a reflection surface directing all (and potentially amplifying) the sound directly into our homes. This will be intolerable for anyone that works from home (and some of the residents in Bella Vista Village do work from home) or the school age children trying to concentrate on homework after school hours but well within the proposed construction hours. You might think I was done, but not quite yet. The dB scale is logrithmic. Every 3 db represents approximately a doubling of sound level. 90 dBA, for example as quoted in the ISEC, is nearly 4 times as loud as 85 dBA and 97 dBA, also quoted in the ISEC, is over 10x as loud as 85 dBA. Anything over 85 dBA requires hearing protection for people exposed to it over an extensive period of time (i.e., hours like during construction hours). I get that the town is being developed (significantly over developed in my opinion) but this construction site is in close proximity to the townhomes on Maggi Ct. and we (me and my wife along with my neigbors) will be significantly negatively impacted! There is no way at this time without an extensive acoustic study (which I would like a reference to if it exists) that the developer (Dan Ross) can know that the acoustic levels will be reduced as the ISEC is stating. It talks about “with windows closed” so I am assuming the residents of Bella Vista Village on Maggi Ct. are expected to keep our homes shut up tight as a drum for the convenience of a proposed project on an odd and predominantly unbuildable lot of land with excessive slopes. I would hope the Town does not think so. The residents of Bella Vista Village do have back yards (they are small backyards) but they are enjoyable and usable backyards. This will not be the case during construction of this project. 9. Page 55 and 56 of the ISEC section 14a. Public Services. It states “The Department (referring to the Santa Clara County Fire Department) has reviewed the proposed project only with respect to site access and water supply as they pertain to fire dpeartment operations. The Department will require that the proposed residence be equippped with an automatic residential fire sprinkler system.”. Now why would they require a sprinkler system in a single family home except that access is limited on the extreme slope surrounding the house making it dangerous for Fire Fighters to gain access to the sides and rear of the structure. I do not believe the narrow gravel trail between the 324 Bella Vista Avenue property and the Bella Vista Village townhomes on Maggi Ct. will act as a fire break in the event of a building fire that reaches the rear the proposed development which Fire Fighters will find difficult and dangerous to access allowing the fire to rip down the hillside into the buildings below. Of course they are requiring a residential fire sprinkler system! This if fundamentally a bad idea to put a building on this steep hillside with limited access for the health and safety of the development's residence and the residents of the townhomes below (again, myself, my wife, and my neighbors). Not to mention the extensive construction traffic on a small road heavily used by local high school students going to and from Los Gatos High School before, during, and after school hours. Regards, Ken Lown 341 Bella Vista Avenue 1 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Letter H – Ken Lown H-1 The Town does not concur that the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist misrepresents the negative impacts associated with the project or that the project conflicts with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The comments raised in this letter are addressed in the responses below. H-2 The Town does not concur with this comment. The FAR or Floor Area Ratio for the project site is 1,620 square feet or 0.15. The allowable FAR for this site has been reduced because of the existing slope at the project site. The project has a total coverage of 1,564 square feet which is less than the maximum allowed. Cellar area and garage area are not counted towards the FAR calculation. The Town of Los Gatos Cellar and Attic policy does not restrict any uses within cellars. The FAR calculations have been reviewed by Town staff and no conflicts have been identified. H-3 The cross-section in Figure 9 of the Initial Study provides a view from the south looking north. The cross section does not show any of the existing tree canopy on the south side of the proposed house that would screen view from the upper levels of the house. The landscape screening plan prepared for the project shows that western redbud trees and toyon plants along the western perimeter property line to provide a visual screen between the proposed project and the adjacent residences on Maggi Court. H-4 Please see Response A-2. H-5 Please see Response A-4 H-6 It should be noted that the Initial Study/Environmental Checklist has been updated to remove the reference that three non-native trees would be removed. Protected trees are mature trees as defined by the Town’s Tree Preservation Ordinance. The project would only remove the trees noted on the protected trees noted in Figure 3. Figure 3 refers to Sheet A.1.0 which is the Tree Canopy-Lot Coverage Statistics on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. The project includes a landscape plan that includes the replanting of trees. H-7 The initial study text refers to the requirements of site specific Storm Water Prevention Pollution plan which specifically addresses erosion during construction to ensure that potential impacts from erosion are minimized. Potential Impacts are less than significant. H-8 The preliminary geotechnical report for the project recommends that the lower basement level be built on a mat-slab foundation. No use of pile drivers is proposed. H-9 Please see Response B-8 regarding construction noise. H-10 As noted in the, Initial Study/Environmental checklist, due to the small size of the project potential construction noise impacts are considered less than significant. As noted above, the project does not propose to use pile-drivers or other large-impact types of construction equipment that are typically associated with the highest levels of noise from construction equipment. As noted in 341 Bella Vista Avenue 2 April 2016 Responses to Public Comments Response B-8, the project would use two small bobcat excavators during the grading phase of the project and larger pieces of construction equipment that would generate more noise would not be used. As such, potential impacts are less than significant. H-11 The Town does not concur that sprinklers are required because the proposed project is a fire safety hazard. The Fire Department requires residential fire sprinkler systems in all new single- family residential units. With regard to construction traffic, the Town of Los Gatos requires the applicant to prepare a traffic control plan to safely manage traffic during construction of the project. As such, potential impacts are considered less than significant. REQUIRED FINDINGS & CON SID ERA TIO NS FOR: April 13, 2016 341 Bella Vista Avenue Subdivision Application M-12-008 Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 Negative Declaration ND-16-001 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. PROPERTY OWNER: Jake Peters and Dan Ross APPLICANT: Dan Ross FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: • No significant impacts have been identified as a result of the project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. Compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with the exception of development outside the LRDA due to the existing slopes on the site and the below grade terrace wall exceeding five feet in height. The existing site contains only slopes over 30 percent. The applicant has proposed development in the most appropriate location on the site given its constraints in regard s to slope, tree canopy, and privacy impacts to adjacent neighbors. The retaining wall around the patio is required to provide egress from the master bedroom and provides a limited amount of usable outdoor space where privacy impacts on adjacent neighbors is limited. Required findings to deny a Subdivision application: • As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivi sion Map Act the map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made : None of the findings could be made to deny the application. a. That the proposed map is not consistent with all elements of the General Plan. b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with a ll elements of the General Plan. c. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed development. d. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the de signs of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likel y to cause s ubstanti a l environmental damage or sub s tantially and avoidably injure fish or wild l ife or their habitat. EXHIBIT 5 f. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. CONSIDERATIONS Section 29.20.150 -Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications: As required by Section 29 .20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture and site application were all made in reviewing this project. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2016\Bella Vista-341.doc CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -April 13, 2016 341 Bella Vista Avenue Subdivision Application M-12-008 Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 Negative Declaration ND-16-001 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. PROPERTY OWNER: Jake Peters and Dan Ross APPLICANT: Dan Ross TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. AP PROV AL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION OF AP PROV AL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration . Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 3 . STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 4. EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. 5. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder 's Office that requires all exterior paint colors to be maintained in conformance with the Town 's Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. 6. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 7. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town 's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's reports, dated October 28 , 2013 and September 24, 2014, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or will be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. 8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties. 9. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel posts driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than I 0 feet apart. EXHIBIT 6 Refer to the report prepared by the Town's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report, dated October 28, 2013 and September 24, 2014, for details. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans . 10. AIR QUALITY MITIGATION MEASURE -1: To limit the project 's construction- related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be included in the project's grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications : a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas , staging areas, soil piles, graded areas , and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. Recycled water should be used wherever feasible. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13 , Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer 's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The BAAQMD's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations . 11 . BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MEASURE -1: Special-status and Migratory Bird Species. In order to avoid impacts to special-status and migratory bird species during project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. With the incorporation of the following measures , significant impacts on these species would be avoided. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits or improvements plans, the applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, evidence that the following measures have been completed or have been incorporated into the construction documents. a. The removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the extent feasible. b. If tree removal, pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are necessary, such activities shall be conducted outside of the breeding season (i.e., between September 1 and January 31 ), to avoid impacts to nesting birds. c. If tree removal, pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are scheduled to commence during the bird breeding season (i.e., between February 1 and August 31 ), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of work. The preconstruction survey shall include the project footprint and up to a 300-foot buffer, access and sight-lines permitting. If no project footprint and up to a 300-foot buffer, access and sight-lines permitting. If no active nests of migratory birds are found , work may proceed without restriction and no further measures are necessary. If work is delayed more than two weeks, the preconstruction survey shall be repeated, if determined necessary by the project biologist. d. If active nests (i.e . nests with eggs or young birds present, or hosting an actively breeding adult pair) of special-status or migratory birds are detected, the project biologist shall designate non-disturbance buffers at a distance sufficient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, species, and the type/duration of potential disturbance. No work shall occur within the non- disturbance buffers until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. The appropriate buffer size shall be determined in cooperation with the CDFW and/or the USFWS. If, despite the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer it is determined that project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFW and the USFWS shall be contacted for further guidance. e . If project activities must occur within the non-disturbance buffer, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) to document that no take of the nest (i.e., nest failure) will result. If it is determined that project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFW and the USFWS shall be contacted for further guidance. 12. BIOLOGICAL MITIGATION MEASURE -2: Special-status and Migratory Bird Species. In order to avoid impacts to special-status bat species during project implementation, the measures outlined below shall be implemented. With the incorporation of the following measures, significant impacts on these species would be avoided. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits or improvements plans, the applicant shall submit to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, evidence that the following measures have been completed or have been incorporated into the construction documents. a. Prior to the removal or significant pruning of trees and the demolition of buildings, a qualified bat biologist shall assess them for the potential to support roosting bats. Suitable bat roosting sites include trees with snags, rotten stumps, and decadent trees with broken limbs, ex foliating bark, cavities, and structures with cracks, joint seams and other openings to interior spaces. If there is no evidence of occupation by bats, work may proceed without further action. b. If suitable roosting habitat is present, the bat biologist shall recommend appropriate measures to prevent take of bats. Such measures may include exclusion and humane eviction (see "c" below) of bats roosting within structures during seasonal periods of peak activity (e.g., February 15 -April 15 , and August 15 -October 30), partial dismantling of structures to induce abandonment, or other appropriate measures. c . If bat roosts are identified on the site, the following measures shall be implemented: • If non-breeding/migratory bats are identified on the site within a tree or building that is proposed for removal , then bats shall be passively excluded from the tree or building. This is generally accomplished by opening up the roost area to allow airflow through the cavity/crevice, or installing one-way doors. The bat biologist shall confirm that the bats have been excluded from the tree or building before it can be removed. • If a maternity roost of a special-status bat species is detected, an appropriate non- disturbance buffer zone shall be established around the roost tree or building site, in consultation with the CDFW. Maternity roost sites may be demolished only when it has been determined by a qualified bat biologist that the nursery site is not occupied. Demolition of maternity roost sites may only be performed during seasonal periods of peak activity (e.g., February 15 -April 15, and August 15 - October 30). • No additional mitigation for the loss of roosting bat habitat is required. 13. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless first approved by the Planning Division. The outdoor lighting plan can be reviewed during building plan check. Any changes to the lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. 14. TOWN INDEMNITY : Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval. Building Division 15 PERMITS REQUIRED : A building permit shall be required the construction of the new single family residence . Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary. 16. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 17. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36". 18 . SOILS REPORT: A soils report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official , containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics. California Building Code Chapter 18. 19. SHORING : Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall conform to the Cal /OSHA regulations. 20. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS : A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation comer locations d . Retaining Walls 21. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS : The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wooded backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs located 34-inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5 ' level landing, no more than 1-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 22. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms must be blue-lined on the plans. 23. BACKWATER VALVE : The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50 .025 . Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 24. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet of chimneys. 25. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE : The project requires a Class A assembly. 26. WILD LAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildlife Urban Interface Fire Area and must comply with Chapter 7 A of the 2007 California Building Code. 27. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182 . 28. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182 . 29. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1701 , the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at w ww.lo s gatosca.gov/building. 30. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee or online at www.los gato sc a .go v/building. 31 . PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of the licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538) 32. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development -Planning Division : (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5770 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: ( 408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 33. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards . All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances . The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and /or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued. The Applicant's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the Applicant's expense. 34. AP PROV AL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer. 35 . ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation (Cal trans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit. 36 . PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT): The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all existing and proposed private improvements within the Town 's right-of-way. The Owner shall be solely responsible for maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition at all times and shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Town Attorney, and a copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, prior to the issuance of any permits. 37. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Applicant or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on -site drainage facilities , grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of work that went on without inspection. 38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Applicant's operations. Improvements such as , but not limited to : curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs , pavements, raised pavement markers , thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos , names, graffiti , etc . Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Applicant shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 39. SITE SUPERVISION : The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 40. STREET CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours , protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required . 41. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 42. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any Permit. 43. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. 44. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles A venue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage , retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 45. DRIVEWAY. The driveway conform to existing pavement on Bella Vista Avenue shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed. 46 . DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer: a drainage study of the project including diversions, off-site areas that drain onto and/or through the project, and justification of any diversions; a drainage study evidencing that the proposed drainage patterns will not overload the existing storm drain facilities; and detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems (including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding) will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100-year flood. 47. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first , the Applicant shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town. 48. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit. 49. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b . Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 50. PAD CERTIFICATION: A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement. 51. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING : Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction. 52. RETAINING WALLS : A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E . Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls . Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. 53. CERTIFICATE OF LOT MERGER: A Certificate of Lot Merger shall be recorded . Two (2) copies of the legal description for exterior boundary of the merged parcel and a plat map (8 -Yi in. X 11 in.) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval. The submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports less than ninety (90) days old and the appropriate fee. The certificate shall be recorded before any permits may be issued. 54. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 55. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans. 56. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant 's engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by the Town . The Applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations , retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. Approval of the Applicant's soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans . 57. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the Applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 58 . SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Updated Geologic and Geotechnical Study by Upp Geotechnology, dated June 25 , 2015, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town 's consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant. 59. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any permit. 60. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: Applicant shall be required to improve the project's public frontage to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, curb ramps, traffic signal, street lighting (upgrade and/or repaint), etc. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 61. UTILITIES: The Applicant shall install all new , relocated , or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27 .50.0 l 5(b ). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 62. UTILITY SETBACKS: House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation . The Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of the utility, input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation . 63. TRENCHING MORATORIUM: Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed subject to the following requirements: a. The Town standard "T" trench detail shall be used. b. A Town-approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used . c. All necessary utility trenches and related pavement cuts shall be consolidated to minimi ze the impacted area of the roadway. d. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of three (3) inches, meet Town standards, or shall match the existing thickness , whichever is greater. The final lift shall be 1.5-inches of one-half (Yi ) inch medium asphalt. The initial lift(s) shall be of three-quarter (%) inch medium asphalt. e. The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the Town Engineering Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place. f. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction inspector depending their assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required, the slurry seal shall extend the full width of the street and shall extend five (5) feet beyond the longitudinal limits of trenching. Slurry seal materials shall be approved by the Town Engineering Construction Inspector prior to placement. Black sand may be required in the slurry mix. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion of slurry seal operations. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by the Inspector before occupancy. 64. SIDEWALK/CURB IN-LIEU FEE: A curb and sidewalk in-lieu fee of$22,984.00 shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. This fee is based on 169 LF of curb at $64/LF and 761-square feet of 4 .5-foot wide sidewalk at $16/SF in accordance with Town policy and the Town 's Fee Schedule. 65. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Applicant shall install one (1) Town standard residential driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos , names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 66 . MITIGATION MEASURE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC-I: Horizontal stopping sight distance. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall Demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer that adequate horizontal stopping sight distance exists for the project driveway in each direction on Bella Vista A venue. The applicant shall prepare an exhibit that has been stamped by a registered engineer or a professional land surveyor stating that adequate sight distance is provided . The horizontal stopping sight distance requirements shall be consistent with the Caltrans Highway Design Manual as specified in the Town's Street Design Standards. 67 . FENCING: Any fencing proposed within two hundred (200) feet of an intersection shall comply with Town Code Section §23 .10.080. 68. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23. l 0.080, 26.10.065 , and 29.40.030. 69. FENCES: Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences that encroach into the neighbor 's property will need to be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Waiver of this condition will require signed and notari zed letters from all affected neighbors. 70 . CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the Town Engineer. 71. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on -or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9 :00 a.m . and between 4 :00 p.m. and 6:00 p .m .). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off of the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Applicant/Owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris. 72. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8 :00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m . to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize, on a case-b y- case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant shall provide written notice twenty- four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours . Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 73. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m . to 8:00 p.m ., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays , construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 74. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse location(s). 75. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused . A Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line, or at a location specified by the Town. 76. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: Drainage piping serving fixture s wh ich have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Building Official. The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. 77 . BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material , equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 78. MITIGATION MEASURE HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY-I : Construction Erosion Control Measures. Prior to the issuance of grading permits or improvement plans in lieu of grading permits, the applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer that the project's stormwater quality control measures, including the erosion control features described in the project's final Erosion Control Plan have been incorporated into the project design. 79. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate the following measures : a . Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c . Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas . d . Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 80. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas , and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day . Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m . and shall include at least one (I) late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty-five (25) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 81. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities . 82. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks . No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING -Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property. 83. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud , silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm drains . 84. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours . The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued. The Applicant's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Applicant's expense. 85. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: The Applicant shall initiate a weekly neighborhood email notification program to provide project status updates. The email notices shall also be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter. 86. COVERED TRUCKS : All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANT A CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 87. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED: An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the new residence and barn, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval , prior to beginning work. 88. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from the road . Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background. N:\DEV\CONDITNS\2016\Bella Vista-3 41 .doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank r -- - - 341 Bella Vista -PROJECT DATA EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRED/ PERMITIED Zoning district R-1 :8 same - Land use Vacant Single famil y res idence Single famil y residential Lot size: $ Square feet/acres 10 ,155 8,000 Exterior materials: $ siding N /A Natural Cedar - $ trim N /A Natural Cedar - Non -reflective aluminum $ windows N /A - $ roofing N /A Eart~one som~ and reen 1vm - Building floor area: $ first floor N /A 185 $ second floor N /A 1278 $ garage N/A 501 $ cellar N /A 1179 - Setbacks (ft.): $ front N/A 12ft,7in to 12 .5 feet minimum 20ft ,9in $ rear N/A 23ft,7 in to 36 ',4 in 20 feet minimum $ side N/A 11ft,7in 8 feet minimum $ side street N/A 86ft 15 feet m in imum Maximum height (ft.) N/A House 17 '6" at south , 2 5 feet maximum 22 '1" at north . Garage 2 5 ' at west co rn e r. Floor Area Ratio(%) 14.6 % SF house N /A 1482 EXIIlBIT 7 -- SF garage N/A 501 Parking N/A 2 in garage, 2 on two spaces minimum dri veway, 2 on street. Sewer or Septic Sewer Sewer - Grading (cu. yds.) $ house N/A - $ driveway N/A - $ landscape area N/A - November 13, 2013 Ms. Suzanne Avila Community Development Department Town of Los Gacos 110 E. M ain Street Los Garos, CA 9503 1 RE: 339-341 Bella Vista Avenue Dear Suzanne: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations follow. Neighborhood Context URBAN DESI GN The sire is wide but s h a llow, very steeply sloped, and one of the few homes in rhc area located on the west s ide of Bella Visra· Avenue. Homes across Bella Vista are a mix of one and rwo stories designed in traditional styl es. Tradirionally designed multifamily unirs are located at the b ase of rhe sire, and arc l argely buffered from chis sire by heavy hillside land- scaping. Phocos of the site and surrounding neighborhood arc shown on the following page. The sile with the proposed structure shown 700 LARKSPUR LA N DI NG C IRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 EXHIBIT 8 TE L: 415.33 1 .3795 CDGPLAt-.@PAC ll ELL.Nl I This Page Intentionally Left Blank This Page Intentionally Left Blank March 21, 2016 Marni Mosley Town of Los Gatos Dan and Deborah Ross 188 Villa Ave Los Gatos, CA 95030 Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RE: 341 Bella Vista Avenue Written Project Description and Letter of Justification. HISTORY: RECEIVED MAR 2 5 2016 TOWN OF Lo·s GATOS PLANN I NG DIV ISION My name is Dan Ross. I have been a resident of Los Gatos for 16 years and currently live on Villa Ave. My family and I are wanting to build a home on Bella Vista in which to move. We have been working on this home approval process for more than 10 years . There are currently two legal and buildable lots on Bella Vista Avenue, 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue. Both lots have been deemed by the Town to be legal and buildable from a legal, technical, geotechnical, policy and architectural perspective. In 2011, we applied for approval of two single family homes, one on each of the two lots. Sitting on 5,000 +/-sf lots each, the homes consisted of approximate 1838/1803 sf with 481/399 sf cellar and 441 sf garage, using the foundation area underneath the home and garage as living space, as permitted by Town Code . The total square footage of the previous proposed homes combined was 3641 sf plus 880 cellar= 4521 sf. total. Although the previous application was recommended for approval by Town Planning Staff and Town Engineering based on similar homes in the neighborhood with zero lot lines, exceptions/variances to driveway length, setbacks, height, medium density, multifamily and condo/apartment zoning. The previous application was denied primarily based on: 1) Exceeding FAR, when accounting for 60% reduction of net site area required per Hillside Design Guidelines. We did reduce the square footage of the homes at our second Planning Commission meeting, utilizing the foundation area under the home and garage as living space . With allowable FAR of 800 +/-sf, the intention was to have an 800 sf+/-main level living area, and utilize the lower foundation/basement/cellar area as living space. The foundation was necessary, as stilts are not allowed by the Town. 2) As both front and rear setback exceptions were required, the proposed homes were deemed too large for site . The Planning Commission requested "significant reduction" of the size of the homes. There was a need for a driveway length variance. The driveway length did meet the Town requirement, when accounting for the distance from the property line to edge of EXHIBIT 11 pavement. When accounting for front and rear public easements, there was not a need for a front/rear setback exception or driveway variance. 3) There was concern regarding the location of the driveway for the northerly house, relating to limited visibility along the slight curve on that portion of Bella Vista Avenue. Although lower in height than existing trees, there was concern this northerly house would tower over adjacent townhomes. 4) Planning Commissioners stated the Spanish and Craftsman style homes weren't "designed for the hill, we should pick an architectural style that is designed to the hill." 5) Planning Commission and neighbors stated one house would be more appropriate, the architectural style should be designed to the hill, there should not be a need for front and rear setback exceptions, and there should not be a need for a driveway variance. NEW APPLICATION AND REVISED PROJECT DESCRIPTION: In direct response to neighborhood, Planning Commission and Town Council direction we are proposing a lot merger to create one legal, conforming lot of 10,155 sf with one home vs. two homes, and complying with all Town Codes. The application includes a main level of 1,278 sf and a lower countable level of 185 sf for a total of 1,463 sf. The cellar of 1,179 sf which is permitted and encouraged by Town Code and is not counted in the sf to calculate FAR. The upper, lower area and cellar= 2,638 sf total. The Planning Commission, and Commissioner O'Donnell specifically, requested a significant reducti on in sf. This new plan is reduced by 1883 sf or 42%, compared to the previous two home application. With one compliant driveway and one garage, vs two driveways and two garages. 1) Complies with All Town Zoning Codes. The house has been designed to and meets the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Code and Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. The plan is compliant and meets FAR, height, front set back (per section 29 .40.060), side set back and rear set back regulations. With 10,155 sf lot, 14% FAR and 13.4% lot coverage, we do not require nor are we requesting ANY Variances. 2) Addresses Privacy. Locating the house to the south reduces interface with adjacent townhouses, and allows the use of existing mature trees to screen the one townhouse to the west. We were able to achieve greater than the required 20' rear setback, with rear setbacks of 23'4" at the north corner and 36'4" at the south corner. This also allows us to locate the driveway in a safer location, away from the curve on Bella Vista Avenue, and meet the 15% max driveway slope requirement. Per HDS&G compliance checklist, page 4, section B: the outdoor activity areas have been moved away from neighbor quiet ar eas/bedrooms, second story windows have been minimized and oriented away from neighbors, the one small deck at back of home is less than 6' (per checklist) and intended to block downward views from inside the home, landscaping is used to screen views to neighbors, existing vegetation will remain. Section Glg states "screen noise sources: parking, outdoor activity." The garage will block sound and light from vehicles. The patios to the south near highway 9 are oriented away from the neighbors. Page 4, section E: Three story elevations are prohibited. The house itself is not three stories. The garage is angled so one corner at the rear, at 4' 9", is visible. This minimizes the appearance of three story elevation. A garage is not required , we would prefer it for sound, light and appearance (storage of garage related items) benefits. 3) Retains More Trees on Site. All existing trees to the north will remain. The two trees in the building footprint requ i re removal and are allowed to be removed in specific conformance to Town Code Town Code: Section 29 .10.0990 (9) and 29.10.0955 which allows removal of trees within the building envelope -"Significant impact on a property from a tree means an unreasonable interference with normal and intended use of the property." The legal, normal and intended use of the property is in accordance with the Town General Plan and Zoning of Rl-8, single family residential. While the Town consulting arborist has identified trees 10, 11, 16 and 21 to be removed, we seek to protect and work around these trees, with the intention of maintaining the wooded nature of the site and providing as much mature screening as possible relating to neighbors. The Town Arborist report states: "Most of the trees are not in good condition when evaluated individually because they have grown in crowded, shaded conditions for many years." We will work with Town Arborist and neighbors to plant additional trees, per landscape plan and Town Code, that provide the right amount of screening without too much shade . The neighbors were against us creating more shade. This plan will not create more shade. 4) Designed to Planning Commission and Council Direction. Planning Commissioners commented that the home should be "designed to the hill". The proposed design is common for hillside sites, in Los Gatos and other communities. Please see the plans for examples and inventory within our Town of many other similar structures. Exterior finish materials will include natural wood, warm tones, non-reflective materials and shielded exterior down lights. The house will sit below Bella Vista Avenue. 5) LRDA: For the purposes of the Least Restrictive Development Area, the home is sited in the most appropriate area within the building envelope, in the area furthest from the neighboring properties. Given the site and slope greater than 300~, the home is in the least impactful location. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: 1) House is not visible from Viewing Platforms. 2) House sits lower than existing tree heights, and won't block views of the Los Gatos hillsides or create new shade pattern. 3) Drainage plan to meet Town codes, per civil plan . 4) Natural wood exterior finish will blend with natural environment. Earth tone roof. S) Existing mature trees will screen impact to adjacent townhome ne ighbor . Additional trees/shrubs to be added, as appropriate, per Town Code. The existing trees to the north and south of the home will remain. The olive tree between our home and Maggi Court home will remain. After meeting with neighbors on Bella Vista, we agree to plant trees that will screen power lines . The oak tree near the power pole will remain. 6) Original topography will be maintained . 7) Window type and location sensitive to privacy. 8) Overhang is modest, building is stepped with slope. 9) We are using below grade rooms. 10) We are using horizontal and vertical building components. 11) Minimalist style minimizes bulk, mass and volume of home. 12) No perimeter fencing proposed, unless needed for privacy. 13) House has been moved furthest from adjacent properties. 14) Natural features will be preserved on 86.6% of the lot. {13.4% lot coverage). 15) The home/submittal should "protect and preserve viewsheds and the ridgelines of the mountains." This home will be lower in height than the existing trees, follows the contour of the hill and is set down slope from the street. It is not on a ridgeline. As stated on Page 7 of the HDS&G: D. Applicability and Approval Process: The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines apply to the areas shown on the Hillside Area Map. The map includes all areas with HR and RC zoning, and some lots with R-1 zoning. The R-1 lots are included because of the presence of a hillside environment and/or steep slopes. The subject parcel appears to be included in the HDS&G due to slope, not due to being in the hills of Los Gatos. See Hillside Area Map. This parcel is not in the mountains, not on a ridgeline. It is in an urban setting, in the middle of Town, immediately adjacent to Highway 9/Los Gatos Saratoga Road, a motel, medium density attached townhomes, as well as single and multi-family and condominium homes. You can see/hear Highway 17 and Highway 9/Los Gatos Saratoga Road from this setting. The proposed home will not be seen from Town designated Viewing Platforms or Valley Floor. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY : 1) The neighborhood on Bella Vista Avenue is made up of one and two story single family detached homes, duplexes, houses with back yard cottages/apartments and condominiums on flag lots. The proposed lot is the largest lot on the west side of Bella Vista and one of the largest lots on the street. The townhomes on Maggi Court immediately adjacent to the proposed home are medium density residential, 3 stories in height and 35' tall. They are attached to each other and/or 7' apart, with 1650 sf living area and 550 sf garages on 1307 sf lots. The FAR = 126%, not counting the garage . Each also has attached third story exterior patios/decks. Maggi Court townhomes have reduced setbacks and driveway variances . The Maggi Court project was built on land zoned R-1:8, single family homes on 8000 sf lots. The Maggi Court project received an exception or variance to be rezoned for medium density, 35' tall town homes, along with 126% FAR. 2) Our proposed home complies with the Town's Zoning Code and requires no General Plan Amendment, no Zoning Code Amendment, no Planned Development Zoning and no Variances. a. The proposed home has only a 14.6% FAR . The home has been designed to have minimal lot coverage of only 13.4% on 10,155 sf lot. b. The home meets the Town's height requirements and will sit below Bella Vista Avenue. The height at the rear north corner of the house is 22' 1" and 17' 6" at the south rear corner. c. The application meets the Town' setback requirements. The rear setback is 23' 4" at the north corner and 36' 4" at the south corner. Side setback also comply with the Town's Zoning Code. The path/easement at north side of home creates more distance from townhomes. d . The home is designed to minimize the need to use the rear yard and side yard to the north for decking and outside entertaining, to minimize the impact on the townhome neighbors. e. It appears to be the largest lot, and the driveway appears to be the longest driveway on the west/down slope side of Bella Vista. The two on-street parking spaces on Bella Vista Avenue will remain, which will help with neighborhood parking. 3) The high quality, minimalist style minimizes impact on neighbors. This style is in response to Planning Commission request to design a home style that fits the hill. 4) The Town's Consulting Architect supports the design and architecture. 5) See Sheet A.1.1 for neighborhood compatibility data. PRIVACY: 1) The house has been placed on the part of the lot that is furthest from the adjacent townhomes. Existing mature trees and plants between our home and the townhome to the west will remain. Fencing adjacent to the downstairs bedrooms will block views. Window placement and planter boxes minimize direct views. The kitchen window has privacy "fins" that block views to the right and left. The view from that window will be of our parcel and the road between the townhomes. See landscape plan for landscape screening. See architectural plans for sight line details, mass and scale, and distances between our home and neighbors. Utilizing the exterior space that is part of the structure minimizes the need for more intrusive decks and patios in the back yard and side yard to the north. The small deck on the roof of the home has permanent planter boxes that block downward views. The view will be over the olive tree and townhome rooftop. We are open to glass wall to screen sound . The Town's Consulting Engineer has commented that as an extra measure of stability, the house foundation should not retain the hill. The retaining wall at the front of the house and on the south side of the house is in response to this request. Again, the resulting patio area is closest to highway 9, minimizing the need for decking/patios at the back of house and north of house, which would have a greater impact on townhome neighbors. This is an effort to push outdoor activities as far away from neighbors as possible. GARAGE DESIGN: A garage is not required. We have designed the roof to be sloped from front to back, with the rear wall of the garage lowered to 4' 9" +/-. This is intended to minimize the appearance of height from the rear of the property. If the Town would like limit potential or perceived third story dimension, one alternative is to eliminate the garage, which could expose garbage cans, storage containers, bikes, garden tools, vehicles .... all the items people normally keep in their garage. Also, the garage will serve as a noise and light buffer from vehicles in the driveway. While the Town has previously approved similar garages for similar sites (52 Oak Hill) and it is not our preference to remove the garage, and we don't think it makes sense, we are willing to remove the garage if the Planning Commission desires. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT: The mandatory Town construction management plan will be implemented. We currently live on Villa Avenue, backing to Oak Hill. We watched the home at 52 Oak Hill get built, San Jose Water Company site, Sister of the Holy Names site, Blue Bird Lane, Town Library and many others within the last few years. As evidenced by 52 Oak Hill, which overlooks other homes, and Villa Avenue, projects like ours have been approved and built during the time frame we have been working on our project, that were also subject to the Hillside Development Standards Guidelines. That parcel is similar in size to ours, appears to be steeper than our lot and the home was approved with rear facing covered patios, and a third level garage with an additional parking space to the side of the garage . Our proposed home is smaller than this, and we are not asking for the additional parking space. Oak Hill Road is sloped, and narrower than Bella Vista Avenue. We will meet the Town requirements regarding construction logistics. COMMUNITY BENEFIT: 1) This home will not create more than five net new peak hour traffic trips. Therefore, the Town's Community Benefit policy is not applicable. CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBORS/NEIGHBOR CONCERNS: 1) We have notified neighbors of our plans in the past, have done so again and offered to meet with any neighbor to review our plans. Pat Tillman/Attorney stated he is the spokesperson for the Maggi Court neighbors, and that the neighbors would NOT meet with me individually. He stated that any communication should be through him. Neighbors Ms. Chin and Mr. Straight did not disagree with that statement, and I have not heard from them. Each time I have interacted with a neighbor I have expressed an openness and willingness to meet. None have not contacted me. I recently left a message for Mr. Tillman, he did not return my call. In the past, Mr. Tillman conducted a group meeting in his home (regarding the previous submittal), where he put me in a folding chair against a wall and basically deposed me and my wife for 90 minutes. It was not a two-way dialogue. There was at least one additional Attorney in the room. In past attempts, neighbors have not responded to my letters, have been unwilling to meet individually to address individual concerns, and group meetings have been hostile toward me and my family. At hearings and in group meetings I have been verbally attacked, badgered and threatened. For reference, please look at old letters on file and previous Planning Commission meeting minutes. 2) I did receive a call from a neighbor who lives in the adjacent Maggi Court Homeowners Association. This person won't speak publicly for fear of retribution, but stated : "We live in town homes, our homes are connected and very close to neighbor units. Our patios and balconies are connected, we share walls, we see into our neighbor's homes, patios, balconies. We hear each other, we hear our neighbors air conditioning units and hear and feel the vibration of our attached neighbor's garage door. We hear traffic from LG/Saratoga Road/Hwy 9 and Hwy 17. This is an urban setting. Our neighbors on the other side of us are apartments, condos and a motel . Passerby's can see into the units from Bella Vista Avenue. Your home is further from us than we are from each other. This notion that the neighbors have the privilege of absolute privacy is flawed. Looking at the size of your home compared to the size of your lot, and the size of our homes compared to our lots? Seeing what we got, and what's going on around town, you should be building four townhomes! We had the right to build our homes, and you should have the right to build your home." 3) Despite the above, I have always been respectful to my neighbors and the Town and the proposed home takes into consideration the public comments made by neighbors, Town Planning Commission and Town Council. It is unfortunate that the original builder, previous homeowners and/or Realtors did not disclose that there are two legal buildable lots adjacent to some neighbors' homes. While some neighbors may want nothing to be built on these two lots, the lots are legal and buildable and we have presented a thoughtful plan that complies with Town Code, requires no Variances and directly responds to previous input. As we have notified neighbors of our final plans, I hope they will take a respectful approach and recognize that we have been responsive to specific issues raised previously. SUMMARY: The previous application was denied based on the request for significant reduction in sf, the need for front and rear setback exceptions and a driveway length variance. Response: The square footage has been reduced 42% and meets Town FAR requirements. The plan meets the Town height, setback and driveway length requirements. The driveway has been oriented to the straightest part of the road, with the most visibility. I've worked in Los Gatos since 1989, my wife and I started our family here in 2000. Our friends from the neighborhood, Van Meter School, Fisher Middle School, Los Gatos High School, Cornerstone, Adventure Guides, and many others can see what has been built around this site. We ask that Town leadership review the facts, remove the emotions and approve this compliant home as proposed. While there may be some new decision makers on the Planning Commission and Town Council, we want to be clear that this one lot, one home proposal is not the beginning of the process but the compromise solution. While I am reserving the right and option to retain two lots for development if this proposal is not approved, the proposed design addresses specific issues raised previously and we request that the proposed home be approved as proposed. Please review plans and don't hesitate contact us with any questions. Our design and technical team is available as well. Best regards, Dan Ross 408-314-5626 This Page Intentionally Left Blank RESOLUTION 2012-057 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DENYING APPEALS OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A REQUEST FOR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS, VARIANCE FOR DRVIVEWAY LENGTH AND TO CONSTRUCT TWO SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8 APNs: 529-23-015 AND 529-23-016 SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-06-009 VARIANCE APPLICATION: V-11-001 ARCIDTECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S-06-046 AND S-06-064 PROPERTY LOCATION: 339 AND 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: DAN ROSS AND JAKE PETERS APPELLANT: DAN ROSS WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on April 2, 2012, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law. WHEREAS, Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Planning Commission Reports dated October 12, 2011 and February 8, 2012, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. WHEREAS, the applicant proposed a lot line adjustment between two lawfully created, non-conforming parcels (less than 8,000 square feet), a variance for reduced driveway lengths, and to construct two new single-family homes on property zoned R-1 :8. SmTounding properties on Bella Vista Avenue are developed with single-family homes and the property below the site on Maggi cowt is developed with medium density townhomes . EXHIBIT 1 2 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission last considered the applications on February 8, 2012, and voted to deny the Subdivision, Variance, and Architecture and Site applications based on concerns about the proposed house size, bulk and mass at ·the rear, reduced setbacks and pedestrian safety on Bella Vista. WHEREAS, the applicant appealed the decision of the Planning Commission based on his belief that the Planning Commission erred in its decision in stating that the denial was based on home sizes of 2,400 square feet, a variance for the rear yard setback (when such variance is not being requested), a perceived safety concern with the driveways was not substantiated by fact, and that project opposition was factored into the denial. WHEREAS, the Council has determined that the Planning Commission did not err in its decision in that the proposed residences do not comply with the allowable FAR for the properties, the reduction in house size was not significant as requested by the Commission on October 12, 2011, and the bulk and mass at the rear of the houses was not reduced. NOW THEREFOR, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the appeals of the decision of the Planning Commission on Subdivision application M-06-009, Variance application V-11-001 and Architectw·e and Site applications S-06-046 and S-06-064 are hereby denied. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal Law. 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Vitaliy Stulski <vstulski@gmail.com > Monday, March 21, 2016 10:23 PM Marni Moseley Planning Development of 339 and 341 Bella Vista Hello Marni and Planning Commission Officials, I, my wife Natallia and our sons David and Daniel live at 152 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032. We are owners of this property. It came to my attention that a new project plan for 339,341 Bella Vista property have been submitted to the Town. As you may find I and my wife strongly opposed two houses project that had been attempted on this property before. Though a single house is being proposed now, we still believe that this development is still present multiple problems to the community. From the issues that directly concern us I'd like to highlight the following: -Environmental impact. The project will require cutting down big healthy trees and removing other vegetation. -Safety concerns. We reside in a seismic zone and next earthquake is a scientifically imminent. Removing large chunk of the hill, destroying tree root systems and putting heavy construction on top does not sound like a safe proposal at all. I constantly come across articles about landslides .in our area. These two are from this month: Santa Clara (http ://k:utv.com/news/local/ santa-clara-homes-threatened-by-slow-moving-landslide ), Moraga (http://www.mercurynews.com/ci 29631461 /moraga-landslide-prompts-home-evacuations ). -Financial loss to the residents around the project. This project will make properties in a direct proximity to a development decrease in their value, cascading to the rest of the neighborhood. -Significant inconvenience for the residents. During the time of construction noise, dust and light will impact the residences around. After construction -light in the evening and shadow during the day will impact residents below the development. I recognize that these project will also cause serious privacy and large safety for our neighbors who live directly down the hill from the proposed development. Thank You, Vitaliy Stulski and Natallia Stulskaya EXHIBIT 1 3 1 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: To whom it may concern, Christopher E. Johnson <christopher@peraltacapitalholdings.com > Tuesday, March 22, 2016 2:53 PM Marni Moseley Straight Forrest; Johnson Heather Regarding 341 Bella Vista Ave My wife and I live at 158 Maggie court, with our three children. We are writing this letter, to express our concerns regarding the proposed building adjacent to our neighbors, and our community. One of the things that we love the most about this community, and it's location, is the live Oak trees behind the property, and privacy we enjoy at the back of our Town House . Any planned buildings, or development of any kind, threatening these important Oak trees, and our privacy, is something we strongly would object to, under any circumstances. Thank you. *Sent from my iPhone Gs+ Best, Christopher E. Johnson Co Founder, Managing Partner Peralta Capitol Holdings, LLC Mobile#, (408) 624-0837 Office#, (408) 402-5029 *I likely dictated this message to my device, or typed this message very quickly. Please kindly excuse any extreme brevity, Apple auto correct weirdness, or total Siri dictation fails. 1 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To : Cc: Subject: Marni, TRIOA L. CAPRI <tricia_capri@yahoo.com> Tuesday, March 22, 2016 3:12 PM M arni Moseley TRIOA L. CAPRI Opposition to 341 Bella Vista I don 't understand how they plan to build a house at 341 Bella Vista on that sloping hillside. I love those three beautiful Coastal Oaks and I'm told they will be cut down!!!?? That is ridiculous -those take so many years to grow and they cannot easily be replaced. What is the plan? Will they move them adjacent to the property? Will they move them AND plant new trees? The trees add much to the asethetics of the open space and we are quickly losing the quaint, rustic feel of our town . How can this happen? We cannot let this happen . Tricia Capri Homeowner 25 5 Los Gatos Blvd. Los Gatos, CA 95030 1 M arni Mose l ey Fr om: Sent: To: Subject: Marni Moseley RE : 341 Bella Vista For rest Straight <fastcbra@aol.com > Wednesday, March 23 , 2016 12:44 PM Marni Moseley 341 Bella Vis ta Let me give the reasons for my objection to the proposed Structure at 341 Bella Vista. I bought my home 14 years ago with the knowledge that the Town (Los Gatos) determined the lots were unbuildable after years of trying. My realtor and new neighbors informed me of the Towns comments . After 6+ public hearings at the Town, the applicant continues to bring forth a plan that has increased size, bulk, and mass of a home 60' directly above me. Most importantly the Towns arborist (Ellis) said the site should be kept as an open space or low maintenance park .... then 3 years later the same arborist (hired by the developer) suggested the biggest trees were not in the best health. I have sent to the Town (years ago) two other Tree experts and both state the trees are in good health and can live hundreds of years. Lets be honest ... for developments , The Town has many t i mes in the past, demanded that trees (some the ugliest) not be cut down. But it now feels fine with cutting down three of the biggest (hundereds of years old) Coastal Oaks in town . The proposed house is 44' away from my house and is 6 stories high above me. That's more than a 60 degree angle when I look up. Sit i n a chair and look at the ceil ing .... then come down 30 degrees . That's what a neck stretcher I'm looking at. In the morning I get up at about ?am .... filtered sunlight comes into my many windows . With the proposed structure that wi II be totally gone . I won't see the sun till noon . Privacy ... you have to be kidding with 5 decks and a roof patio where is the privacy? Forget any measu r es to reduce the viewing ... all those measures will be eliminated as soon as the building i nspector is gone. What I really loved about the Maggi development was the privacy and quiet. I can hear the birds in the day .... see the various animals that make the park like area their home . There's an owl that lives in the trees that predates my 2004 purchase. Bats also come out at night. How can that be mitigated with a huge house and decks with a combined 6000sf living area. Plus .... taking away nearly 12000sf of Coastal Oak canopy . And too: .... I don't believe the cellar square footage used in the calculations . Previous drawings by the same ar chitect have been wrong and misleading. Forrest Straight 146 Maggi Ct M arni M ose ley From: Sent: To: Subject: Kathy Murtfeldt <kmurtfeldt@aol.com> Thursday, March 24 , 2016 4:26 PM Marni Moseley 339/341 Bella Vista Avenue Dear Town of Los Gatos Pl anning Department, My husband and I live at 226 Bella Vista Ave in Los Gatos . We have been homeowners for 11 years. We have attended two hearings before on the development of these two properties. It continues to concern us that this property owner has chosen not to take the advice given him in previous Planning Commission and Town Council meetings to develop a house that complies with the City's building ordinances. The plans for these two lots have many issues that concern the neighbors on our street and below on Maggi Court. Among our concerns are privacy and the safety of the homes below. Also the drainage of this property on to the properties below. The preservation of the very large oak trees on this property are all at risk with the development of one large house. We have two houses being constructed cu rrently next to us at 222 and 224 Bella Vista Avenue . The traffic mess that is created with building these large houses, with heavy equipment, contractor trucks and building materials often blocking the street to through traffic seems not to have been considered in the plan to bu i ld on this property. The lot is so steep that all of the staging for the build will have to be done on Bella V ista Avenue. This street gets major traffic from the LGHS. I can not see how this project can be done without causing major traffic jams on our street. We th ink the house is too large for the lots and that only a small house about 1500 sq feet (less than half of what p lans call for) that meets all of the hillside restrictions be developed. Sincerely, Kathy & Bob Murtfeldt 226 Bella Vista Ave Los Gatos, CA 95030 408 399 3043 1 M arni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Dear Planning Commission, Janet Carmona <janetcarmona7@gmail.com > Thursday, March 24, 2016 4:50 PM Plann ing Marni Moseley 341 Bella Vista I urge you to deny the current application of 341 Bella Vista Avenue for the following reasons : I. Disregard for Los Gatos Hillside Standards and Guidelines. Th i s proposed development would be a three story structure. II. This proposed development exceeds the FAR . The applicant is counting the sq. of the main floor and the second level. Leaving out the sq. of the "cellar" with windows and bedrooms at an additional 1,156 square feet. Ill. This proposed development DOES NOT fit with the neighborhood. The plan calls for a rooftop deck? Please , I urge you to visit the site. This proposed development should not be approved. Regards , Janet Carmona 160 Maggi Court 408-807-2426 1 From : Janet Carmona [mailto :jan et carmona7@ gmail.com) Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9 :06 PM To : Planning Cc : Marni Moseley Subject: 341 Bella Vista Dear Planning Commissioners, Charles Erekson Kendra Burch Mary Badame Melanie Hanssen D. M ichael Kane Matthew Hudes Thomas O'Donnell Joel Pau lson I personally invite you and urge you to visit the proposed development. Please view it from our neighborhood on Maggi Court. My con t act i nformation i s: Janet Ca r mona 408-807-2426 janetcarmona7@gmail .com I look forward to hearing from you. Kind Regards, Janet Carmona This Page Intentionally Left Blank Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject Kemp, Melanie < melanie.kemp@cbnorcal.com > Thursday, March 31, 2016 7:39 PM Marni Mose ley Comments to Marni Moseley re : 341 BELLA VISTA AVENUE review by Planning Commission Good afternoon Ms . Moseley, I'm a homeowner at 174 Cuesta de Los Gatos Way in Bella Vista Village which is being impacted by the new construction project that Dan Ross is proposing for 341 Bella Vista Avenue. I will be out of town on April 13 when a hearing is scheduled to review the recently submitted plans for this site so I'm submitting my concerns directly to you in hope you'll share it with others on the Planning Commission and those who attend the hearing. I've been a Realtor for 40 years and am very conscious of t he negative impact an imposing home can have on adjacent neighbors . I've developed a half dozen single family homes in Cupertino and Saratoga where impact on neighboring properties was a major consideration for the Planning Commission. My projects were sc rutinized very closely with much less tolerance for stretching existing guidelines. Why does it seem this project becomes more onerous each time it's brought before the Planning Commission? I'm extremely concerned with the negative impact this 3,000 square foot, 3-story home will have on the neighboring properties on Maggi Court which will, in turn, affect the values of all 47 homes in Bella Vista Village. Why is the Comm ission even considering a home of this size that's clearly outside existing limits? I'm an original owner in this development having lived in a 3-story floorplan there for the past 16 years, and I know from firsthand experience that a 3-story home offers incredibly invasive views of properties at lower elevations directly beneath it. Decks that hang off the rear elevation add insult to injury. If anything were to be built on the proposed site, I would hope that it first meets the criteria for floor area rati o and slope density, that it would be no more than 2-stories, no mature trees of 6" diameter or larger would be removed, and any decks that overlook the Maggi Court homes would be el i minated. I am happy to take your call if you 'd like to discuss further. My best to you , Melanie Kemp 1 fa MELANIE U_~JI KEMP .'.' .• ' .. MELANIE KEMP BROKER ASSOCIATE COLDWELL BANKER 40 Years' Experience I International President's Premier I Top 1% Worldwide C: 408 .805.1555 I melanie .kemp@cbnorcal.com I www.melaniekemo .com 410 N. Santa Cruz Avenue I Los Gatos, California 95030 BRE 00867212 The infonnation in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is unauthorized. If you arc n ot the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is prohibited and may be unlawful. The sender believes that this E-mai l and any attachments were free of any virus, wonn, Trojan horse, and/or malicious code when sent. This message and its attachments could have been infected during transmission. By reading the message and opening any attachments, the recipient accepts full responsibi li ty for taking protective and remedial action about viruses and other defects. The sender's company is not liable for any loss or damage arising ia any way from this message or its at1acbments. Nothing in this email shall be deemed 10 create a binding contract to purchase/sell real estate. The sender of this email does not have the authority to bind a buyer or seller to a coolracl via written or verbal communications including, but not li mited to, email communicati ons. 2 Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Ms Moseley, Dear Mr Paulson, williamsonnick@aol.com Monday, April 04, 2016 1:22 PM Marni Moseley; Planning 341 Bella Vista Avenue Follow up Flagged I am writing concerning the plans for development of 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue . I live directly below the project site and so I'm impacted, terribly . I would be most grateful if you could visit to see the story polls from my perspective, from below in Maggi Court, before filing your report for the Planning Commission. This is a peaceful hillside and it will be devastated by this development and I don't believe you have been given the complete facts . If you would also have some time to meet me in the next days, either this evening , or tomorrow or possibly Wednesday I would be more than happy to come to your offices or to meet you at my home. Yours sincerely, Nicholas Williamson Eleanor Leishman 332 Bella Vista Ave . Los Gatos, CA 95032-5415 April 3 , 2016 Lead agency: Town of Los Gatos Project Title Community Development Department 1I0 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 and Location: 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and SiteApplication S-12-103 Subdivision Application M-12-008 Negative Declaration ND-16-001 Regarding: Objections to proposed development at 341 Bella Vista Ave . Dear !'-is . Mosely and Planning Commissioners , Town of Los Gatos : RECEIVED APR -5 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION My husband David and I live at 332 Bella Vista Ave , a few houses north and across the street from the proposed development at 341 Bella Vista Ave . I'm writing to express my concerns about, and objections to , the Architecture and Site Application S-12-103 at 341 Bella Vista Ave. A bit of history: I've been attending Planning Commission meetings on proposed applications to develop this property for 14 years, before the current owners purchased it. In 2002, the subject property was designated as 319 Bella Vista, and the owner of the property was Khalaf Ghayyen. The Planning Commission denied his residential building plan in 2002 and his subsequent appeal in 2003 was also rejected . The property was later sold to the current owner(s). J 'm very concerned about the impacts that this proposed project will have on the environment: these concerns include questions about the slope stability of the building site; the loss of three protected Oaks and the effects of this loss will have on wildlife (including endangered bird spe- cies); and the creation of more traffic safety issues on Bella VistaAve ., where significant traffic and parking challenges already exist. Geology and Soils The site in question is a horizontal strip of land aJong the west edge of Bella Vista Ave. On page 43 of the Initial Study, the Town describes the site thus: "The project site slopes downhill toward the West with slopes averaging 53%. The proposed grading plan estimates that approximately 692 cubic yards could be cut and exported from the site ... " I ask you to consider this question: If the Town of Los Gatos were zoning this property today, would it zone it as a "build-able" lot ? Given the extreme slope and proximity to the town home development directly below thi s site, I ha ve no doubt that this site presents serious building c hal - lenges . Yet the Town's Initial Study (Geology and Soils , page 43) states that the impacts of build- ing on this are "Less Than Significant," although some of these impacts are listed as "Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ." It's my sincere hope that these proposed mitigation measures will be put into place and scrupu- lously followed, and that they will be sufficient to prevent slope failure during an earthquake, severe rainstorm or other di saster. I urge the Planning Commission to consider these potential impacts and mitigation measures very carefully when deciding whether or not to allow this project to be built as proposed. Trees and Habitat Loss According to the plans submitted by the owners to the Town , the project will involve cutting down 3 protected Oak trees , and a number of other non-protected trees . ln addition, it seems very pos - sible that other trees will be damaged or destroyed in the excavation and building process . Small trees planted on the site will not compensate for the loss of the magnificent heritage Oaks . It would take 100 years for small trees to grow mature enough to replace the size, height and canopy of the trees that will be lost to this building construction . Would it possible to alter the building plans to save one or two of these protected trees without sacrificing the overall design goals of the project? l urge you to explore t his possibility with the owner(s) during th e Planning Commission hearing next week, on April 13 . The Initial Study identified some mandatory mitigation measures to be followed regarding the wildlife habitat, specifically nesting of endangered bats . What safeguards exist to ensure that t he owner follows these mitigation measures , and that the Community Development Department is adequately monitoring and enforcing them? What consequences wo uld accrue to the owner if they were not followed? Traffic and Parking Increased traffic caused by th e Blue Bird Lane development, and the ever-increasing amount of "cut-through " traffic from Los Gatos Blvd. have contributed to ongoing traffic problems on Bella Vista Ave . High traffic volume is especially noticeable during the commutes to and from the High School, but recent housing construction on the street has also significantly contributed to it . Traffic calming procedures implemented on Bella Vista several years ago (the installation of "speed humps") have done little to slow down the speed of traffic . Pedestrians (man y with chil- dren, strollers and dogs ); j oggers; and cyclists favor our street, and they all have to be careful about cars and trucks speeding along the street. There is little or no police enforcement of the posted speed limits. And there's very' little on-street parkin g available for those who need to park on Bella Vista , especially during the day. The short curve of the street and steep bank afford no o n-street parking at the new property . I'm especially concerned about the safety of cars exiting the driveway from the proposed resi- dence , and also about the safety of southbound drivers. For all the above reasons , I respectfully urge you, the Planning Commissioners, to explore the risks and possible downsides of this project with extreme care as you come to a decision about whether or not to allow it to move forward. Yours truly, Ellie Leishman PATRICK K. TILLMAN Allorney al Law April 6, 2016 RECEIVED APR 6 -2016 TOWN OF LOS GAT OS PLANNING DIVISION Sent via e-mail to: MMoselev@josgatosca.gov and planning@Josgatosca.gov Marni Moseley Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications Applicant: Dan Ross Planning Commission Meeting of 04-13-16 Dear Ms. Moseley: Please include the attached letter dated January 17 , 2012, and all its attachments, in the materials you will be giving the Commissioners for the 04-13-16 Planning Commission Hearing. The information therein is still relevant to the current project proposed by Dan Ross. Thank you. Respectfully, Isl Patrick K . Tillman Attachments cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail) Tow nofLo sGato s.0406 16 2021 The A lameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com This Page Intentionally Le.ft Blank PATRICK K. TILLMAN Attorney at Law January 17 , 2012 Steve Rice, Mayor Los Gatos Civic Center 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Marico Sayoc, Chairperson Los Gatos Planning Committee 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Greg Larson Los Gatos Town Manager 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECEIVED APR 6 -2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DI VISIO N Sent via e-mail to: srice@Josgatosca.gov Sent via e-mail to: maricosayoc@yahoo.com Sent via e-mail to: manager(ii)Josgatosca.gov Wendie Rooney, Director Sent via e-mail to: wroonev@Josgatosca.gov Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications Applicant: Dan Ross Gentlepersons: I live with Mary Badame at 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos. Applications are pending for construction of two (2) homes to be built at 339 & 341 Bella Vista A venue, Los Gatos, directly above us. The applications should be rejected. 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com The history of this project and the inconsistent application of the law warrant special attention by the Planning Commission and Town Council. Something is terribly wrong when Town personnel recommend a project with umpteen HDS&G exceptions/waivers, that is directly contrary to its prior recommendation(s), will seriously invade our privacy and the privacy of six to eight (6 -8) other townhome owners in our complex, recommend a project that, in fact, will be a "nuisance" within the legal definition, and inflicts a collective financial loss on us of well over $800,000. As to the exceptions/variances requested, several seasoned contractors testified at the I 0-12-11 Planning Commission hearing that they have never seen an application ask for this many exceptions, variances, and/or favors . A local architect, well familiar with the process, testified that the exceptions/variances are directly related to Applicant's design (aka mass & scale), not undu e hardships created by zoning regulations and/or specific conditions of these lots -the standard for granting exceptions/variances. Approving/granting any number of Applicant's requests would re -set the bar for new construction applications -set a precedent contrary to the letter and spirit of the HDS&G. Procedurally, the Applicant's last presentation to the Planning Commission took place 10-12-11. The Commission rejected the proposal and advised Applicant to "dramatically" ... "significantly" reduce the size of both homes . In an e-mail dated 12-19-11 @ 10:54 a.m., Suzanne Davis, Senior Town Planner, advised a member of our neighborhood that they received the revised plans1 "late Thursday," 12-15 -1 l. (Exhibit 10) These revised plans were meant to be addressed by the Planning Commission at the meeting set for 01-11-12. The delayed submission eliminated the staffs ability to evaluate them for the 01-11-12 Commission meeting, so the next Planning Commission meeting to address this project will be 02 -09-12. 1 Consistent with Applicant's regard for the HDS&G , the Planning Commission, Town Council, and his neigbbors, and contrary to the '"dramatically" ... 'significantly' reduce" admonition of the Planning Commission, in the "revised plans" he reduced the Lot l home by 128 ' and Lot 2 home by 49'. (Exhibit 10) 2 THE STANDARD EVIDENCE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA "Shall" and "May" Construed. "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive. Evid. Code § 11 INTERPRETATION OF LOS GATOS REGULATIONS Construction -Intent of Legislature or Parties -General Subversive to Particular Provisions. In the construction of a statute the intention of the legislature, and in the construction of the instrument to intention of the parties, is to be pursued, if possible; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it. (Emphasis added) Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §1859 4 PROPOSED PROJECT -Violations The project should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. Traffic Safety 2. Lot line change 3. Grading Standards 4. Building height, bulk, & mass 5. Set-backs 6. Floor Area Ratio (''FAR") 7. Architectural Design for Privacy & Respect for Neighbors 8. Tree Preservation 9. Geologic instability 10. Fire Hazard 11. Drainage 12. Shade 13. Neighborhood support 1. Traffic Safety. Applicant requests a variance for his driveway, allowing him to make it shorter. Several families living on Bella Vista A venue testified at the 10-12-11 Planning Commission hearing that the driveway(s) for this project are dangerous to children, joggers, bicyclists, young drivers, Mothers shuttling their High School children to school early in the morning, and basically anyone coming down the road. The road curves, the view is blocked; it's guesswork pulling out. Several Planning Commissioners seemed concerned . This application has been pending for over five (5) years, yet no one in Planning identified the problem, let alone attempted to solve it. I'll spare you the legalese on roadway and roadside safety, the Town has an attorney who should be well familiar with the concept of negligence and/or deliberate misconduct. In sum, the Town of Los Gatos is obligated to make our streets reasonably safe. It is now on notice that if anyone gets hurt as a result of this traffic condition, the Town of Los Gatos will be held accountable in a Courtroom. Let's hope they are only minor injuries, with ample coverage ... and do not involve children. 5 2. Lot Line Change. The proposed lot line change is illegal. (State: Gov. Code §66412(d); Los Gatos General Plan: "Lot line adjustments are reviewed according to Section 66412(d) of the Government Code of the State of California .... If the lots are currently nonconforming as to size, they cannot become more nonconforming (smaller)." 2 Aside from that illegality (above), the representations made by Applicant to the Planning Committee ( 10-12-11) that the lot line change is designed to save a protected tree appear to be an outright lie, not a mistake. (Exhibit 2) By design, the lot line moves North, taking land/rom Lot 2, giving it to Lot 1. The new lot line will pass through the center of a large, protected Oak Applicant was not allowed to cut down. (Tree #2) What Lot 2 gave up was unusable land -the building footprint for Lot 2 could not be placed in the Southern-most part of the lot beyond its own 8'-Southern setbackfrorn the same tree. With the new lot line, Lot 1 now has an 8'-Northside setback.3 Without this gift, the proposed home on Lot 1 simply would not fit. In essence, between Applicant and his cousin, they agreed to share the area dedicated as unbuildable because they could not get permission to cut down that tree. This tactic, this gift to Lot I, still leaves Lot 1 a non-conforming lot. Credibility is always an issue when discretion is being exercised . The Town should not disregard this charade between family members to make themselves appear to be friends of the environment ... or this Town; they are neither. 2 I can not provide you with a citation of the Los Gatos regulation from which I talce this quote. I can not figure it out from the Town's website. Instead, see Exhibit 13 . 3 The proposed 17' foundation "cuts" into the hillside for both homes, each ~8' from this old/large/sprawling tree ( 44.6 inch trunk diameter@3', 45-65' canopy), will kill it, anyway. (02-08-05 Arborist's Report @ pg . 17, Tree #2) 6 b. Bulk & mass. Standards: 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. 2 . Buildings shall be designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours. Blending with the existing terrain reduces the appearance of bulk. (Emphasis added -the whole thing) HDS&G @ pg . 36 Lot 2's front -yard setback is only 5Yi'. The downhill setback at the Northern- most point is only 12 '. The home is 36' tall; its downhill foundation starts at the ceiling level of our znd floor living room. You can't stuff more home into such a narrow lot, nor make it any more prominent for the downhill residents -we can wave to them from our bed. As to the rest of Los Gatos, these chesty houses will be clearly visible. As to mitigation, trees are not viable cover for these homes , even really big ones, because, inter alia, there is no space between them and the downhill trail for them to grow. With respect to the design "conform[ing} to the natural topography of the site and run w ith the contours, (#2 , above) this project is depicted in the "Don't do this" diagrams under this section . (HDS&G @ pg. 37 & 41) Applicant recognized the fact that this project was an elephant before he bought it. He knew the previous owner of this property sold it because he could not get his proposed project approved (2000 -2003) in large part because it exceeded the F A R. (Exhibit 3) I believe the prior home proposed was smaller than either of Applicant's proposed homes and was to cover both lots. To sidestep the HDS&G "standards" (above) and the same problems the prior owner encountered that were re-iterated to him by Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner, Applicant has been making friends with Town employees . ANYONE standing on the trail at the foot of these lot s, looking up, understands my point. You have an obligation to orient yourself to this problem before making decisions on it -it's not too inconvenient to do so, the Jot s are within walking distance of Town Hall. 9 2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors. 3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or any accessory building will be minimized. 4 . All standards and applicable guidelines are being met. ... 9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. (Emphasis added) HDS&G @ pg. 29-30 The Planning Commission/Town Council may not approve residential projects in excess of the FAR without satisfying items 1-9, above -all of them. Here, at least five of nine ( 5 of 9) conditions, above itemized, cannot be met. (Also see 29.40.075(c)) As to Applicant 's plea: !just want to be treated like the owners of 145 Bella Vista Avenue. Who wouldn't? Recall, that applicant pulled a fast one (1) by demanding adherence to the Town Code to get approval of two (2) cellars for one (1) house5 ; thus eliminating 2053 square feet of area from the FAR. They forced removal from the FAR calculation more living area than they had to claim. 145 Bella Vista Avenue is not a fair comparison because: 1. Two (2) cellars, eliminating 2053 sq. ft . from FAR. (" ... Mr. Kennedy is pushing the envelope ... " 11-01-01 Hearing Trans. 228:19-20) 2 . 24° slope (versus 50-60° slope). 3. FAR, as written, was strictly enforced. 4. Built before HDS&G enacted. 5. Downhill is a baseball field (no residents). 6. Minimal tree removal. 5 Two (2) cellars; that was a good one, prompting the Town to change the definition of a cellar. 12 7. Architectural Design for Privacy and Respect for Neighbors: A. Design Objectives: The standards and guidelines m this section are intended to encourage architectural design that is: 1. in harmony and visua11y blends with the natural environment, 2. responsive to site constraints and opportunities, 3. compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors, and 4. respectful of the rural character of the hillside (Emphasis added) HDS&G @pg. 31 The proposed homes are contrary to items 1 -4, above. These homes are not in harmony with anything or anybody; they are stuffed into our backyards, towering over us, pointed directly into our bedrooms that are on the 3rd floor. Highlighting/explaining the abuse and disregard for items I -4 , above, would add +20 pages to this letter. A quick visit to the site by those responsible to vote on the project would serve the same purpose. B. Design to be neighbor friendly. Protecting the privacy of the neighboring homes is a high priority_ in the siting and design of a new house or addition. The following design standards shall be followed to the greatest extent feasible to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors. Standards: 1. Privacy impacts shall be addressed and resolved during the constraints analysis phase and initial design stage, not with mitigation measures imposed as an afterthought. Sight lines shall be studied so that windows and outdoors areas are placed to maintain privacy. 13 9. Geological Hazards: Standards: 2 . Construction shall be avoided in areas with geological hazards (e.g., slope instability seismic hazards, etc.) as identified in the in the site specific geological investigations and reports, unless adequate mitigation design measures are proposed to achieve a low level of risk. HDS&G @pg. 23 The hillsides of Los Gatos are notoriously soft. In the Town 's file, the Geological Report compares the project site with the visible portion of the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road directly beneath Bella Vista Avenue (overpass area). The pictures within the report clearly show soft dirt twenty feet (20') deep. Bedrock appears to be something deeper than 22 feet -the maximum depth of their borings -so we do not know where the bedrock is (how deep?). Several geological reports in the Town's file itemize serious concerns about the area and insufficient data being provided, all of which concerns are eventually blown off with a simple: no problem. The proposed two (2) houses will cut away the alluvial soiL8 in two (2) large swatches, each ,..,60' x 30', with "cuts" up to 17' deep. Lot 2 is only 50' deep. Couple this removal with the need to remove surface vegetation for a good distance to each side of the two (2) houses. We have two (2) homes in soft dirt. Worse, the project weakens the hill's slide resistance. Bella Vista Avenue residents, the road itself, and the downhill complex -ours -are at risk. 10. Fire Hazards: Standards: l . Building locations shall be selected and structures designed to minimize exposure to wildfires. 3 . Development shall have adequate fire access. 4. A dependable and adequate water supply for fire protection and suppression purposes, as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, shall be provided for all properties ... HDS&G @pg. 24 8 "Alluvial soil" is sediment deposited by moving water. 16 Guidelines: 1 . Development shall avoid areas subject to severe fire danger. In order to achieve this, development should: a. be set back from the crest of the hill b. not be located at the top of a canyon c. not to be located on or adjacent to slopes greater than 30°. d. not be located within densely wooded areas HDS&G @ pg. 25 The applicable area is at the crest of a ridge and slopes downward in excess of 50° (60° for Lot 2). Access to the back of these proposed homes is poor, at best -only via a narrow, gravel, downhill trail running parallel with the rear-face of these homes . The trail has no water supply. A fire at either of the proposed homes would likely burn both of them to the ground, then run downhill to the Maggi Ct. Properties, less than 25 feet away.9 Because of the steep slope and limited access, the back of these homes is secure from fire fighting equipment and effort. Applicant may have solved the tree-fire issue by cutting them all down, however, the house-fire issue remains. Has the Fire Department been consulted? It 's not in the Report. 9 Note: the proposed homes would be approximately 25 feet away laterally and tower over the condos on Maggi Court, making it an easy jump for ambers. Trees between us -for privacy?? (proposed but not functionaJ idea) -that would only enhance the threat/risk. 17 11. Drainage Standards: 1. Runoff shall be clispersed within the subject property to the greatest extent feasible. Runoff concentrated that requires larger drainage facilities shall be avoided. 2 . Upslope drainage shall not negatively impact downslope development. 3. Natural drainage courses shall be preserved with any native vegetation intact and shall be enhanced to the extent possible, and shall be incorporated as an integral part of the site design in order to preserve the natural character o f the area. HDS&G @ pg. 21 The roofs of these two (2) houses are massive (combined area of +3024 sq. ft.) During the rainy season we can expect substantial runoff to a drainage system. Doubtful it w i ll be pumped uphill to Bella Vista A venue, 10 but instead, allowed to run downhill using a gravitational system . . . and into our complex. With respect to the vegetation currently protecting us from excessive drainage, it will be gone, e.g. most of Lot 2 (60-70%) will be covered by the building with the balance being cleared away from the homes . A quick rejection of this argument is cavalier. It was certai nly an issue in a less threatening site addressed by Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner. (Also see "HDS&G -I nconsistent Enforcement," infra) 10 Not e : th e T own file reflects uphill pumping o f s ewage/dra in ag e. Again, d oubtful. Regardless, if the pump fail s, or is not turned on , thi s water (and sewage?) w ill fl ow freely into our back yards ... alo ng wi th a goo d portio n of the hillside. 18 HDS&G -Inconsistent Enforcement Dan Ross is the primary, if not exclusive applicant on this project. The other named owner is his cousin who lives in Utah and probably not involved, at all. Pre-Dan Ross history of this site is appropriate. The Planning Department of Los Gatos stated: COMMENTS/CONCERNS : 11. The Town sets a high priority in preserving its hillsides, natural views, and the character if its neighborhoods. This site is in a very visible location that has the potential to greatly impact these views and the character of this neighborhood. The Planning Department can not recommend approval of the design as submitted because of its potential to greatly impact these views, is not in keeping with the residences in the area, and has potential privacy impacts with the residences of the Bella Vista Development that is now under construction. The applicant should consult with an architect to develop a design that addresses the massiveness of the rear elevation, articulates the bulk of the second story from the lower story, minimizes privacy and view impacts, minimizes grading and retaining walls, and preserves the sites existing trees. . .. (Emphasis added) Bella Vista Proj. App . PRJ-97-020 Rec: 02-12-97 Similar concerns were voiced by the MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL on April 3, 2003: DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission considered this matter on February 26, 2003. The Planning Commission unanjmously denied the appeal due to lack of progress. The Commission further directed 20 the applicant to, should they resubmit an application, incorporate the following: -Merge the two lots , APN 529-23-015 and 529-23-016; -Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot; ... (Emphasis added) Mr. Ross knew or should have known the history of this property when he purchased it on or about 12-23-04 for the focused purpose of building on it. He's a seasoned developer of SFD (He has owned + 10 homes in Santa Clara County and developed several). In 2005-2006, Mr. Ross' (Applicant's) Application -this project -was reviewed by Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner. Among the "DEFICIENCIES" he noted: 06-14-06 (Exhibit 3) 2. Reduced driveway variance 3. FAR calculation is not correct 4. Max height exceeded 9. Cellar exception to FAR incorrectly calculated 12. Provide a Letter of Justification/Description detailing how the proposed project is compatible with surrounding neighborhood, complies with HDS&G, complies with the General Plan. Justification for the variance, reduction in required setbacks, and exceeding the FAR is also necessary. 13 . Speak to the neighbors (he did not) Mr. Paulson, Assistant Planner, was taken off the case and it was assigned (?) to Suzanne Davis. Appropriate, here, is the attitude Suzanne Davis -and this Town -had toward enforcing the HDS&G circa 2006, prior to her taking the Dan Ross project. In a project she was assigned from before 05-08-06 until 09-24-08 (107 Colorado Court, Los Gatos), a vacant lot way up in the hills, a SFD project objectionable to possibly one (I) neighbor from 'afar, her report to the Planning Commission (05-08-06; Exhibit 4) recites the same, numerous objections I set forth, above; she quotes the same nine (9) "criteria for allowing an exception to the FAR" and references that Applicant to the 2 1 Exh.# 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 EXHIBITS Item Hillside Development areas 05-16~06 Correspondence: Dan Ross to Town of Los Gatos 06-14-06 Report -Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner (Bella Vista) 05-08-06 Report -Suzanne Davis (Colorado Ct) 09-24-08 Report -Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner (Colorado Ct) November 2010 Election Brochure March 2011 Friends of The Library fundraiser June 2011 EIR: MND 07-01-11 PKT complaint re: MND 12-15-11 E-mail re: Submission of Revised Plan Grading diagram (modified) & protractor Shadow diagrams (2) Lot line Regulation -Town of Los Gatos 24 EXHIBIT 1 • I I I I I I I I I I I I. 1· t 1: r u u EXHIBIT 2 May 16 , 2006 To : Town of Los Gatos Planning Department From : Dan Ross I -'I ' .-. . • .. • ' -.: • J J Re: Letter of Justification-Single Family Res idence with no demolition . I am writing on behalf of myself, owner of 341 Bella Vista Avenue and Mr. Jake Peters , owner of the adjacent lot at 339 Bella Vista Avenue . We have the mutual goal of each buildin g a home , and have decided to pursue this process jointly to ach ieve some economies of scale as well as present a more cohesive plan to the Town and surrounding neighbors. We'd like to offer the following points : 1) Our plans have been designed around Town guidelines, fit into FAR requirements and follow the General Plan recommendations. 2) We have taken our design cue from the surrounding homes on Bella Vista , as well as the Town homes on the downslope of our lots. Our goal is to build homes that successfully integrate into the existing neighborhood . ·. 3) Our ''footprint" cue comes from 145 Bella Vista. a more recent approved and constructed home on the same West downslope side of Bella Vista as our lots. 4) After site and tree location/arborist analysis, we are asking for a lot line adjustment as part of this application. Viewing the 2 lots, it makes sense to move my Northern lot line approximately 15 ' to the North. This will put one of the large Oak trees on the lot line , between the proposed homes. Our goal is to save ttlis tree, and make two nonconforming lots more equally proportionate, as it relates to the mass and scale of each proposed home and surrounding homes . Mr. Peters and I are in agreement on this. 5) We propose to use fencing/landscaping at the back of our homes between the existing townhomes to mitigate privacy issues and visual impact. There are numerous homes on this side of Bella Vasta . We are asking for the same privileges enjoyed by the other properties in this vicinity . We are asking for a front setback variance , due to the downslope of the lot Town engineering has reviewed this, they have stated that 18' of driveway from garage to edge of pavement is acceptable. Other setbacks are within guidelines. Than k you for your consideration . Best regards, ~th, Da n Ross 408-314-5626 EXHIBIT 3 EXHIBIT 4 The Planning Commission -Page 2 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10, 2006 A. BACKGROUND: Site Description The subject property is located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of Santa Rosa . Drive (see Exhibit A). The are a number of large oak trees located within the proposed building site and the majority of the lot has slopes greater than 30%, making it extremely challenging to develop. Although the property is 40,075 square feet, the allowable floor area is 4,300 square feet due to .the applicable slope reduction. Previous Approval In 1997, the Development Review Committee approved plans for a new 5,923 square foot house with a 909 square foot garage and a swimming pool. However, that application expired in 1999 and is no longer valid. The approval was made prior to the adoption of the new General Plan in 2000 and prior to the adoption of the new Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines Chronology of Project 9/28/2005 10/12/2005 10/20/2005 3/13/2006 4/4/2006 4/1212006 4/18/2006 Status of Project Architecture and Site application filed (staff met with the applicant on several occasions prior to submittal). Staff Technical Review meeting. Many concerns were raised and many technical deficiencies were identified. Meeting between applicant, architect and staff (including Randy Tsuda, Assistant Community Development Director). Applicant submitted preliminary plan revisions in response to technical review comments and staff concerns. Meeting between applicant, architect and staff (including Bud Lortz, Community Development Director). Applicant was informed that staff could not support the proposed project. Revised plans submitted for referral to Planning Commission. Development Review Committee meeting. Staff has advised the applicant on numerous occasions that the plans are in need of major revisions to comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS&G). Staff typically tries to work with an applicant to evolve a project to the point where it can be approved or approved with conditions. While the applicant has reduced the overall house size from that of the initial submittal, the project remains significantly noncompliant with the HDS&G. The applicant believes that the project has merit, that it is consistent with other homes within the Alta Vista subdivision, and does not wish to reduce the house size further. The Planning Commission -Page 3 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10, 2006 Staff has forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that direction can be provided to the applicant for a significant redesign of the project or the application can be denied. The · technical and peer reviews (includes arborist, architect, geotechnical and environmental evaluations) have not been completed in the interest of saving the applicant time and expense and saving staff and Town consultants from expending significant time to completely analyze plans that are significantly noncompliant with the HDS&G. Recommended conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. If the Commission decides to remand the project for significant redesign, the technical reviews and evaluations and conditions of approval will be completed before the application is returned to the Commission for final action. B. REMARK$: Exhibit 1 provides general project data. The applicant has also submitted a letter of justification (see Exhibit J). Staff has summarized the main issues relative to the proposed project for the Commission's consideration and discussion as follows: House Size The proposal is for a 5,775 square foot house with an attached 1,230 square foot garage. The total floor area is 6,605 square feet excluding 400 square feet of the garage. In addition, there are 1,875 square feet of covered terraces and porches. The total floor area exceeds the maximum allowable FAR of 4,400 square feet ( 4,800 square feet including the 400 square foot garage exemption). Most of the property consists of slopes in excess of 30% and a new home cannot be built within the least restrictive development area (LRDA) of the site. However, Staff believes the encroachment outside the LRDA should be minimized as much as possible and that the size of house is too large for the site. The proposed project is located predominantly on slopes in excess of 30%, impacting most of the mature oaks trees and requiring a significant amount of grading and retaining walls. The Planning Commission -Page 4 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10, 2006 The following table compares the proposed res idence with other homes on Colorado Court. Address h ouse garage total sq. ft. lot size FAR 471 Santa Rosa Drive 9,305 822 10,127 46,174 0 .22 108 Colorado Court 5,542 822 6 ,370 41,818 0.15 109 Colorado Court 4,578 1,020 5 ,598 45,302 0.12 111 Colorado Court 4,798 1,008 5 ,806 88,427 0.07 112 Colorado Court 5,239 780 6,019 42,253 0.14 114 Colorado Court 3,896 611 4,507 50,030 0 .09 !•v=ge 5,560 844 6,405 -0.13 Colorado Court 5,775 1,230 7,005 40,075 0.17 The house at 471 Santa Rosa is not representative of the average home size within the Alta Vista subdivision and does not meet current hillside requirements. At the time the house was approved, both the Commission and Town Council indicated that it would not be supportive of a future project that is similar in size, scale and massing to this home. Even with this house included the applicant's proposal exceeds the neighborhood average for house and garage size and FAR. As stated in theHDS&G, achieving the maximum floor area is not guaranteed due to individual site constraints. The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than designing to the FAR. The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square footage is not a goal. Greater weight will be given to issues including but not limited to height, building mass and scale, visual impacts, grading and compatibility. Criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area (pages 29 and 30 of the HDS&G) is as follows: 1 . The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms. 2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors . 3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or an accessory building will be minimized. 4 . All standards and applicable guidelines are being met. The Planning Commission -Page 7 l 07 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10, 2006 There are 16 Coast Live Oaks on the site that are concentrated on the front half of the property. Eleven of the oak trees are proposed to be removed. and two others will be severely impacted by construction. Three of the oaks can potentially be saved under the proposed plan. The Consulting Arborist has not yet evaluated the plans to evaluate the feasibility of maintaining any of the existing trees . Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS&G: • The house and driveway have not been sited within the LRDA. • The overall square footage exceeds the maximum allowed and justification is not sufficient to grant an exception. • The height limitation is being exceeded by five feet. • Amount of development is extensive (building area is extremely limited by site constraints); the site may not be able to support the proposed pool. • Tree removals are significant. • Total grading volume is significant and cut and fill criteria has been exceeded. • Extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to construct the proposed project. General Plan Conformance The project may be in conflict with the following policies and implementing strategies from the General Plan: L.P.8.4 Emphasize preserving the natural land forms by minimizing grading. Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the property. L.P.8.8 Existing specimen trees shall be preserved and protected as a part of any development proposal. L.I.8.10 Hillside Design Standard: Houses shall be designed to step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads. CD .P .2.3 Mass Grading in New Construction: Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided . Siting of the house must consider natural topography. The Planning Commission -Page 8 107 Colorado Court/S-06-22 May 10 , 2006 CD .P.2 .4 Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures up and down the hillside, a maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. CD.P.2.6 Hillside landscaping : Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the following goals in mind : A. Preservation and use of native/nat\ll'al vegetation D. Following the natural topography E. Preservation of natural trees, vegetation C. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should deny this application because a complete redesign is required for the project to comply with the HDS&G. However, the Commission may refer this application back to staff with specific direction to the applicant for desired plan changes. If the Commission finds merit with the proposed development to the extent that it could be approved through redesign staff suggests direction be provided on the following issues : • house size • house height • overall development area • pool/outdoor area • grading • retaining walls • tree removals The Commission may identify additional issues that have not been raised by staff. If the application is continued; staff recommends that a hearing date not be specified as the length of time to complete the technical and peer reviews cannot be determined at this time. The applicant will be charged for the cost of the additional public notice. If the Commission decides to deny the application, findings for denial should be made. The Commission's input on the key issues would be helpful to the Council in the event an appeal is filed . EXHIBIT 5 • TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: September 24, 2008 ITEM NO .: 3 STUDY SESSION PREPARED BY : APPLICATION NO .: LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: CONTACT PERSON: APPLICATION SUMMARY: Joel Paulson, AICP Associate Planner Planned Development S-08-011 107 Colorado Court (Located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of Santa Rosa Drive) Preston Scott Cohen Sarwat and Colette Fahmy Scott Cohen (617) 441 -2 l l 0 Requesting approval to construct a new residence on prope1ty zoned HR-2 1/2 . APN 527-56-033 RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding the proposed project. PROJECT DATA: ACTION : General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential Zoning Designation: Hillside Residentia~ (HR -2 1/2) Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan and Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Parcel Size: 40,075 square feet Swrnunding Arca: ____ J_E~~~~a_ L~!ld Us:_J_Q.~~~~.!..~J~~--·--·-·_! _£~ing_ North 1 Residential I Hillside Residential HR -2 112 Ea!! __ ~esidentia!_____ I Ifillside Residential -HR_-2 1/~-- South Residential I Hillside Resi~ential HR-2 1/2 West Resource 1 Open Space RC Conservation 1 Provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding the prop osed project. Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 2 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 EXHIBITS : I. Location Map 2. Letter from Jack and Laurie Goldstein (2 pages), dated May 2, 2008 3 . Letter from Reza Nikfar, received May 5, 2008 4. Letter from Jerry S. Glembocki (6 pages), received May 5, 2008 5 . Letter from applicant (2 pages), dated June 18, 2008 6. Presentation from applicant (29 pages), received August 28, 2008 7. Development Plans (16 pages), received February 6, 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,380 square foot residence which contains four levels and includes an attached 853 square foot three-car garage and 2 ,884 square feet of cel1ar area. The cellar area is exempt and is not included in the floor area total noted above. Although the property is 40,075 square feet, the allowable floor area is 4,400 square feet for the home and 400 square feet for the garage due to the applicable slope reduction. The garage is accessed from and faces Colorado Court. There are a number of large oak trees located on the property and the majority of the lot has slopes greater than 30%, making it extremely challenging to develop. General project data is included in Exhibit 5 . Additional information has been provided by the applicant in Exhibits 6 and 7 which provides discussion and exhibits illustrating the proposed project and previous proposals. BACKGROUND The subject property is one of two remaining undeveloped lots in the Alta Vista subdivision and is located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of Santa Rosa Drive (see Exhibit 1 ). Most of the neighborhood was developed in the mid-l 980s. In 1997, plans were approved for a new 5,923 square foot house with a 909 square foot garage and a swimming pool. However, that application expired in 1999 and is no longer valid. The approval was made prior Lo the adoption of the new General Plan in 2000 and prim to the adoption of the new HiJlside Design Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). On May t 0, 2006, the Planning Commission considered an architectuTe and site application to construct a 5, 775 square foot house with an attached 1,230 square foot garage. The total floor area was 7,005 square feet including the garage . TI1e Commission received public testimony and discussed the project. The Commission voted 5-1 to deny the application based on the following: Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24. 2008 • The proposed project was not in compliance with the HDS&G. • A complete redesign was needed to bring the project into compliance with the HDS&G . • There was significant neighborhood objection to the proposed project. On June 19, 2006, the Town Cow1cil considered an appeal of the Commission's decision. TI1e Council detennined that the Commission's decision was co1Tect and denied the appeal. REMARKS: This study session was scheduled because staff identified the need fo r Planning Commission input on high level issues that will impact how the project design evolves. Staff has identified several key issues for the Commission's consideration as discussed below. No fmmal action on this application is requested at this study session. The technical and peer reviews (includes arborist, architect. geotechnical, and environmental evaluations) have not been completed in the interest of saving the applicant time and expense and saving staff and Town consultants from expending significant time to completely analyze plans that may need significant redesign. Recommended condjtions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. Staff and its consultants wjJJ undertake more detailed analysis prior to the Commission's formal cons ideration of the application. A . Site Constraints Most of the property consists of slopes in excess of 30% and there are a number of existing trees . A new home cannot be built within the least restrictive development area (LRDA) of the site and an exception to this requirement will be necessary . However, staff believes the encroachment outside the LRDA should be rrunimized as much as possible. The proposed project is located predominantly on slopes in excess of 30%, impacting most of the mature oaks trees, and requiring a significant amount of grading and e x cavation. B. Mass and Scale I Neighborhood Compatibility The proposed total square footage of the structure (house, garage, and cellar area) is 8, 11 7 square feet. WhiJe ceHar area is not counted in the FAR, the Commission has raised concems on previous projects where above ground square footage is maximized and large cellar elements are incorporated. The proposed project has two levels that contain cellar area due lo the parcel's topography. The downhiJl elevation at the interior area of the two wings of the home presents the most visible mass of the proposed structure. While this will not be as apparent from the valley floor given the proposed retaining walls and grotto , it is still a concern that needs to be addressed because it will be visible from homes across the canyon on Madera Court. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 l 07 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 G. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS&G: • A house cannot be sited within the LRDA. • The height limitation will be exceeded. • Tree removals are significant. • Total grading vohm1e is significant and cut and fill criteria will be exceeded . • Extensive use ofretaining walls is necessary to consti.uct the proposed reflecting pool and grotto. GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES The project may be in conflict with the following policies and implementing strategies from the General Plan: L.P.8.4 Emphasize preserving the natural land forms by m.inimizil1g grading. Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the property. L.P .8 .8 Existing specimen trees shall be preserved and protected as a part of any development proposal. L.1.8.10 Hillside Design Standard : Houses shall be designed to step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads. CD.l>.2.3 Mass Grading in New Construction : Fo ll ow nalural land contour and avoid mass grnding in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided. Siting of the house must consider natural topography. CD.P.2.4 Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping stmctures up and down t he hillside, a maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. CD.P.2.6 Hillside landscaping: Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the following goals in mind: A. Preservation and use of native/natural vegetation B. Following the natural topography C. Preservation of natural trees, vegeta1ion EXHIBIT 6 Additional Endorsements for Diane McNutt Toni Blackstock Debbie BlackweU Boyd Bowdish Jade Bradbury Beverley Bryant Carol Burt Jim Burt Don Callahan Barbara Cardillo Irene Carrion-Upson Dennise Carter Peter Carter Elizabeth Cilker Smith Brian Copeland Kim Couchee Phil Couchee Gay Crawford Jill Cronk Michael Cronk Mary P. Curtis Jane Decker Martin D . Dermer Sandra Hutchins Dixon Liz Dodson Lyn Dougherty Paul Dubois Kristen Dryden Charles Erekson Stuart Ferguson Dave Flick Shari Flick Susan Fitts Stan Garber Sandy Gordon Heidi Grassman Elke Groves Carl Guardino Charles Hackett Alice Hansen Eric Hansen Dave Henderson BiU Hirschman Ter i Hope Holl y Hunter Morley Chris Hutchins Duffy Jennings Marc Jensen Mon iqu e Jensen Bob King Kitty King Joan Kjemtrup http ://www.smartvoter.org /2010/11 /02/calscVvote/mcnutt_d/endorse.html Page 2 of 4 1/10/20 12 Additional Endorsements for Diane McNutt Donald Knight Jonathan Knowles Anne Johnson Sara LaBerge Mike Loya Jack Lucas Michelle Mano J eaone Martin Mary Martin Janice McCabe Mary McCall Joe McCarthy Phil Micciche Chris Miller Phil Mills John Moore Sara Morabito Mike Moresco Eric Morley Nicole Morley Sean Morley Jan Morris Ike Nassi Ronee Nassi Larry Noon Maureen O'Connell Tom O'Donnell Rick Oderio Jane Ogle Peggy O'Laughlin Keith Plottel Aana Pregliasco Larry Pregliasco Jeanne Rajabzadeh Steve Ravel James Reber Linda Rice Steve Rice Lisa Richardson Dan Ross Deb Ross Ed San Juan Dave Sandretto Nancy Sandretto Eric Schmidt Mark Sglarto JoAnn Shank Paul Shephard Connie Skipitares Ervie Smith Margaret Smith http ://www.smartvoter.org/2010/11/02/ca/scl/vote/rncnutt_d/endorse .html Page 3 of 4 1/10/2012 Additional Endorsements for Diane McNutt Ken Spice Teni Spice Ed Stahl Rochelle Stone Marie Tallman Chris Tanimoto Nancy Thielmann Howard Thomas Sue Thomas Mary Tomassi-Dubois Kim Vestal Chad Wal sh Mark Weiner Bill Wheelehan Dana Wheelehan Colleen Wilcox Chris Wiley Jan Willoughby Susanne Wilson Steve Yvaska Jim Zanardi Next Page: I ssue Questions Cand idate Page II Feedback to Candidate II Thi s Contest November 20 10 Ho me <Ballot Looku p) II About Smart Voter Page 4 of 4 The League of Women Voters does not support or oppose any candidate or political party. Created from infonnation supplied by the candidate : October 4, 2010 14:14 Smart Voter <http://www.s martvoter.org/> Copyrigllt ©League of Women Voters of C alifornia Education Fund htto:(/ca.fwv.ore http ://www.smartvoter.org/20I0/11 /02/ca/scl/vote/mcnutt _ d/endorse.btml 1/10/20 12 EXHIBIT7 .,,,.Town turns out to equip new library « all things los gatos Page 2of11 Sandi Grenwell and Bob Long dance to the music of The Blues Rockers (Dan Ross on drums, Ed Goguen on bass) http ://allthingslosgatos .com/20 11 /03 /23/town-twns-out-to-equip-new-library I 7/11 /2011 EXHIBIT 8 Lead Agency: Project Title and Location: NOTICE Town of Los Gatos Environmental Impact Review Mitigated Negative Declaration Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 9503 I 339 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-06-46 Subdjvision Application M-06-09 Negative Declaration ND-08-02 Project Description: The project sponsor is requesting Lot Line Adjustment1 and Architecture and Site approvals for construction of one single-family residence on the west side of Bella Vista A venue, just north of Bella Vista's bridge over Los Gatos -Saratoga Road. The project sponsor proposes to reduce the project site's existing lot size from 6,049 square feet (s.f.) to 4,915 s .f., and construct a single-family residence on the reconfigured lot (indicated as Lot Two on the site plan dated October 27, 2007). This parcel's (APN 529-23-015) southern property line would be relocated northward and the size of the immediately adjoirung parcel (APN 529-23-016) to the south would be increased from 4,106 s.f. to 5,240 s.f. The proposed residence would be 2,760 s.f. (including the cellar and garage). The proposed residence would have one main floor encompassing 1,038 s.f. and an attached garage (441 s.f.) at street level. Below street level, a lower floor would consist of 1,281 s.f., including a cellar area of 399 s.f. Access to the residence would be provided from Bella Vista Avenue to the garage by a proposed 19-foot wide driveway that would be approximately 22 feet long. The proposed garage would be 441 s.f. and attached to the main floor of the proposed residence. Determination: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there wi1J not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures listed below have been added to the project, mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. An Environmental Impact Report will nol be required. Statement of Reasons to Support Finding: l. Aesthetics: The project site is located on the west side of Bella Vista Avenue, and homes on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue (#320 and 322 opposite the site) currently have partially obscured, distant views of the mountains to the west. Existing mature trees on the project site partially screen scenic vistas from these homes, particularly the 45-inch oak tree located at the project's southern boundary. Since this 1 While this project is technically a subdivision application, it is actually a lot line adjustment because there are already two existing lots and the project would not create a new lot. JUNE, 2011 MlTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -339 BELLA V£STA AVENUE nearby residential development, and the site's steeply sloping topography . State farmland mapping shows the project site as "Urban and Bui lt-Up Land," indicating that this land has already been converted to non- agricultural use. There are no existing agricultural or forestry uses/operations at or adjacent to the site. 3. Air Quality: The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the Bay Area Air Qualily Management District (BAAQMD) as non-attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM10). To address these exceedances, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG , prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAOS) in September 2005 and Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule (PMIS) in November 2005. The PMIS discusses how the BAAQMD implements the California Air Resources Board's 103 particulate matter control measures. The BAAQMD recently adopted the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which updates the BAOS. The consistency of the proposed project with the most recently adopted regional air qual ity plan, the CAP, is determined by comparing the project's consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the CAP is based on population projections of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that are based on the Town's General Plan in effect at the time the CAP was approved, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the CAP. The project would be consistent with the use and density allowed on the project site by the Los Gatos General Plan, and therefore, the project would be consistent with the CAP. In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Qualicy Management D istrict (BAAQMD) adopted new CEQA significance thresholds and updated their CEQA Guidelines, which include these adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants for both construction and operation of proposed projects . The proposed project's construction and operational emissions are expected to not exceed these thresholds when compared to screening criteria identified in the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. For single- family residential use, the screening criteria are 325 single-family units for operdtional emissions and 114 units for single-family residences for construction emissions . The proposed single-family residence would remain below these criteria and therefore, a detailed air quality assessment would not be required and the project's air quality impact is expected to be less than significant. However, 2010 BAAQMD GuideUnes also specify that the project must also meet two other criteria: (1) the BAAQMD 's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures must be implemented during construction; and (2) the project does not include demolition, simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases , simultaneous construction of more than one land use type; extensive site preparation; or e xtensive material transport (more than 10,000 cubic yards of soil). The project would meet the second criterion so that implementation of the following measure is consi dered to reduce the project's construction-related criteria pollutants to a less-than- significant level: MlTIGA TION I : To limit the project's construction-related dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor emissions, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures .shall be implemented: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas , and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day . b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered . c . All visible mud or dirt tracked-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day . The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d . All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. JUNE. 2011 3 MlTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE e. All roadways, driveways , and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as s oon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless s eeding or soil binders are used . f . Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13 , Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points . g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shal l be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation . h . A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible ro ensure compliance with applicable regulations . MITJGA TION MONITORING: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Community Development shall be responsible for ensuring that these measures are properly incorporated into projec t plans and implemented during project construction. 4. Biological Resources: The project site consists of a steeply sloping hillside vegetated with coa~t live oaks (Qu ercus agrifolia) and an understory of vinca (Vinca major), an ornamental groundcover. A large number of the trees present on the site are the resuh of regrowth from the stumps of trees previously cut on the property . Special-Status Species. Within the study area, oak woodland habitat also provides nesting habitat for special-status bird species, as well as many other migratory bird species. Site clearing activities (e .g ., grubbing, grading, trenching, and tree removal or pruning) could result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. Direct and indirect impacts on special-status and migratory bird species would be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Implementation of the following measures will reduce s ignificant impacts on special-status and migratory bird s pecies to a less-than-significant level: MITIGATION 2 : If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are necessary, such activities should be conducted outside of the breeding season be tween September I and January 31 to avoid impacts to nesting birds . MITIGATION 3 : If project construction begins during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys s hall be conducted within the project footprint and a 300-foot buffer, b y a qualified biologist no more than two w~ks prior to equipment or material stagjng, pruning/grubbing or surface-disturbing activities. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation is necessary . MITIGATION 4 : If active nests, i.e . nests with eggs or young birds present, are found, non-disturbance buffers shall be established at a distance sufficient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location , topography, cover, the nesting pair's tolerance to disturbance and the type/duration of potential disturbance. No work shall occur within the non-disturbance buffers until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. Buffer size should be determined in JUNE , 2011 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE cooperation with the CDFG and the USFWS . If buffers are established and it is determined that project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work should cease immediately and the CDFG and the USFWS should be contacted for further guidance. MITIGATION 5: If active nests are found within 300 feet of the project area, a qualified biologist shall be on site to monitor the nests for signs of nest disturbance. If it is determined that construction activity is resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFG and the USFWS shall be contacted . MITIGATION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendation s are reflected in final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction . Construction activities in the vicinity of occupied bat roosts coufd result in the destruction of the occupied roosts of special-status bat species. In addition, disturbance during the maternity roosting season could result in potential roost abandonment and mortality of young. Direct and indirect impacts to special- status bat species would be considered signJficant under CEQA guidelines. Implementation of the following measures will reduce significant impacts on special-status bat species to a les s-than -s ignificant level: MITIGATION 6: Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted to identify suitable bat roosting habitat including rock outcroppings, snags, rotten stumps, decadent trees with broken limbs, exfoliating bark, cavities, etc. Sensitive habitat areas and roost sites shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If no suitable roost sites or evidence of bat roosting are identified, no further minimization measures are necessary. MITIGATION 7: If suitable roosting habitat is identified, the following measures shall be conducted: a. A qualified biologist shall survey su itable roost sites immediately prior to the removal or grading of rock outcroppings, debris piles , man-made structures, etc. b. Removal of suitable tree roost sites shall be conducted by first removing limbs smaller than 3 inches in diameter and peeling away loose bark. The tree should then be left overnight to allow any bats using the tree/snag to find another roost during their nocturnal activity period. c . A qualified biologist shall survey the trees/snags a second time the following morning prior to felling and removal. d. Trees should be removed during the non-breeding season between September I and February J to avoid disturbance to maternal colonies or individuals. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction . Tree Removal. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3-1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy -Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24- JUNE,2011 5 MrTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE Development of this project in combination with the home proposed on the adjacent property at 341 Bella Vist.a Avenue, would have potentially cumulative effects on Tree No. 2, which is located between these cwo proposed homes. lmplement.ation of tree protection measures specified by the arborists (specified below) would reduce the project's impact on this tree to a less-than-signific ant level, and therefore, the project's contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. To minimize potential damage to trees that are proposed to be retained (particularly those with significant value identified above) as well as those potentially affected by the development of the proposed project (339 Bella Vista) as well as development of the adjacent lot (341 Bella Vista), the following measure will be required to reduce potential tree impacts to a less-than-significant level: MITIGATION 8 : The project app.licant shall be required to implement all Tree Protection Specifications made by Deborah Ellis (February 8, 2005) and Arbor Resources (January 29, 2007 and February 24, 2011). These measures are included in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study. MJTIGA TION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction. S. Cultural Resources: The project site is undeveloped and the potential for encountering cultural resources during project construction would be low due to the site's relatively steep topography and the site's elevated location away from creeks. There is typically a higher potential for encountering archaeological resources in areas adjacent to or near a river or creek. 6. Geology and Soils: The project site slopes downhill toward the north with slopes averaging 53 percent. The proposed plan estimates that approximately 247' cubic yards (c.y .) would be cut and 96 c .y . would be filled. Town requirements will include provision of a interim and final erosion control plans. Such measures would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less-than-significant level. A review of the Town's hazards maps indicates that the project site has no erosion potential, moderate shrink-swell potential, low slope stability hazard (due to slope steepness), high potential for fault rupture, and moderate potential for seismic shaking. Very low liquefaction and no debris flow hazards were identified for the site. The Town's Fault Map indicates that the site is located approximately 500 feet north of a concealed fau lt. Between 1998 and 2007, soil and foundation as well as geotechnicaJ investigations were completed for the project. Several peer reviews of these investigations were completed by the Town's geotechnical consultant, Geomatrix, between December 2006 and November 2007 . Copies of these studies are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. These investigations involved review of available geologic maps and aerial photographs. drilling four test borings, and laboratory soils testing. These investigations concluded that the site bas a low potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading. These studies also indicate that the site does not present any signs of slope inst.ability hazards such as colluvium- ftlled swales, undercut cliffs or banks, or areas with recent evidence of landsliding. These analyses recommend that a soldier pile retaining/debris wall be consuucced on the east side (upslope side) of the building footprints to keep the Bella Vista right-of-way stable during excavation and construction. The site lies within the seismically active Bay Area, but is not within any of the "Earthquake Fault Zones" established by the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 . The project would be subject to strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake , with a low potential for ground rupture at the site. Geomatrix indicates the closest know faults are traces of the potentially active Berrocal and Shannon fault JUNE, 2011 7 MlTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -339 BELLA VISTA A VENUE zones located about 1,200 feet north-northeast and 1,000 feet south-southwest of the project site. The active San Andreas fault zone is located about 2 .5 miles southwest of the property. The potential for fault ground rupture on the project site is considered to be low because of the distance from the se faults. However, the subject property will be subject to very strong to violent ground shaking during a fut:ure large earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault zone, or on one of the other major active faults zones in the re g ion . It should be noted that most of the Bay Area as well as surrounding residences are subject to groundshaking hazards. Compliance with seismic design parameters per the Unifonn Building Code would be adequate to address _regional seismic safety concerns such as groundshaking. Given the extent of grading proposed and the extensive portion of the home that would be located below grade, the following measure shall be required to reduce identified potentially s ignificant geologic , soils, and geotechnicaJ constraints to le ss-than-significant level s: MITIGATION 9 : The project shall incorporate all recommendations in Ali M . Oskoorouchi's geological and geotechnical investigation for the proposed project (included as Auachment 3 of the Initial Study) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and s ubsurface soil conditions on the site. MITIGATION MONITORING : Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments shall be responsible for ensuring that the recommended measures are properly incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction . 7. Greenhouse Gases: "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the sutface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred Lo as "global warming ." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth 's atmosphere by transparency to shon wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on- road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions. Californi a has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is in the process of developing CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions but thresholds have yet to be established. GHG statutes and executive orders (EO) include EO S-1 -07, EO S-3-05, EO S-13 -08 , EO S-14-08, EO S-20-04, EO S -21 -09, AB 32, AB 1493, AB 3018, SB 97, SB375, SB 1078 and 107, and SB 1368 . AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to Feduced statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Pursuant to this requirement, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted its Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies to achieve required reductions by 2020. However, on March t 8, 20 I I , the San Francisco Superior Court issued a final ruling that effectively blocks the CARB from implementing GHG reducing actions outlined in the Scoping Plan until CARB complies with CEQA. If the decision is finalized, the CARB will have to reconsider the environmental impact of the Scoping Plan and examine alternatives to the Scoping Plan 's cap and trade policy. Although implementation of certain elements of the Scoping Plan at the statewide level may be delayed, local GHG reduction policies would still apply to this project. In April 2008, the Town adopted near-term policy recommendations from the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative. These policies require the submittal of a completed LEED or BujJd It Green 's GreenPoint Rated checklist JUNE,2011 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -339 BELLA VISTA A VENUE as part of all planning applications and require all new public construction and renovation projects over 5,000 s.f. to achieve at least a LEED Silver certification. Requiring a checklist as part of a planning application does not require that the proposal incorporate green building practices. However, it will enable the Town to track the current use of green building practices and establish a baseline for future green building practices and requirements . The checklist requirement will also draw the attention of design and building professionals to the possibility of incorporating green building techniques into future projects. In addition, requiring LEED certification for new public construction and renovations will set an example and encourage sustainable practices for private developments. Short-term GHG emissions would also be generated by project-related construction actlVlhes. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for construction-related GHG emissions, but the project's construction-related emissions are expected to have a less-than-significant impact on global climate change based on GHG modeling results done for larger projects. However, the BAAQMD encourages implementation of construction-related GHG reduction strategies where feasible, such as: using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles/equipment, local building materials (within 100 miles), and recycling of construction and demolition waste, to reduce construction-related GHG emissions. The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissions associated with project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required under Mitigation Measure #2 in Section 3, Air Quality). Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to long-term increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from direct sources (traffic increases and minor secondary fuel combustion emissions from space heating). Development occurring as a result of the proposed project would also result in other indirect operational increases in GHG emissions as a result of electricity generation to meet project-related increases in energy demand. Electricity generation in California is mainly from natural gas-fired power plants. However, since California imports about 20 to 25 percent of its total electricity (mainly from the northwestern and southwestern states). GHG emissions associated with electricity generation could also occur outside of California. Space or water beating, water delivery. wastewater processing and solid waste disposal also generate GHG emissions. The adopted BAAQMD's operational GHG screening criterion for single-family residences is 56 units, and the proposed project would fall well below this criterion and therefore, the project's operational GHG emissions would nol exceed the BAAQMD GHG significance thresholds; consequently, a detailed, quantitative assessment of the project's GHG emissions would not be required. Although GHG emissions would be less than significant, the proposed project will be required to comply with energy efficiency requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Administrative Code). In addition, a GreenPoint checklist has been prepared for the project consistent with Town's adopted GHG policies and the project. The project is estimated to achieve a GreenPoint rating score of 105, which would meet the minimum advisory GreenPoint rating score of 50 points. The GreenPoint checklist considers project design elements, but also considers recycling of construction waste. 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List No significant public health risks are anticipated since the project site is undeveloped. There are no known previous uses on the site that would pose the potential for public health risks or presence of contaminants at the site. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality: Storm Drainage. At present, the 0.11-acre project site is undeveloped. The proposed residence would result in development of 2,063 s.f. of impervious surfaces (building, JUNE, 2011 9 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE foot lot. Since the lot is smaller than the required minimum lot size, it is considered a nonconforming lot. Nonconforming lots are considered a hard ship for the owners and certain exceptions to the Town's Code (such as minimum building setbacks) may be allowed if compatible with established setbacks in the neighborhood . The project site is located adjacent to residential uses . Access is from B ella Vista Avenue and the project parcel is a residential lot that is undeveloped, located adjacent to developed residential properties to the west and east. The proposed single-family residential use would be consistent with existing adjacent and nearby single-family residential uses on Bella Vista Avenue. 11. Mineral Resources: The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally- important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. 12. Noise: The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m . on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p .m. on weekends and holidays . This ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the propeny line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Project construction wouJd result in temporary short-term noise in cre ases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and s lightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmovi ng and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet , depencling on the type of equipment. With controls, construction noise levels could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance. Residential uses are generally considered to be noise-sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. There are single-family residences located east and west of the site. The residences to the east are located approximately 15 feet from the proposed residence, while the townhomes to the west are located approximately 40 feet from the residence . At 40 feet, the ordinance noise limit (85 dBA at 25 feet) would result in maximum noise levels of 81 dBA , respectively at the closest residences to the west and east. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a builcling exceeds 45 to 60 d.BA. To maintain s uch interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 70 to 80 dBA and this exterior noise level is used as a significance threshold or criterion. Therefore, even with compliance with the Noise Ordinance limit of 85 dBA at 25 feet, construction noise levels could result in periodic speech interference effects when heavy equipment is operated on the project site. However, such levels would only occur for a sbon period, primarily when grading and drilling equipment are operating near the western project boundary, not during the entire project construction period. Due to the small size of this project and short duration of construction, such a temporary impact would be mitigated to a less -than-significant level by enforcement of time restrictions and noi se level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance. Long-term noise increases associated with the project would result from increased traffic along Bella Vista A venue and residential activities (i.e., operation of appliances and maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers , blowers, etc.). Traffic increases associated with the project would be minor and would not significantly or measurably increase ambient noise levels in the project vici nity . Nois e generated by project residential activities would be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses and would not conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood . 13. Population and Housing: The proposed project would consist of one single-family residence on one parcel , and would not result in intensification of residenti a l use s or significantly increase local or regional population. Since the project would not extend new roadway s or utilities to any adjacent undeveloped JUNE, 2011 11 MlTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE lands, the project would not induce new growth. The project site is currently undeveloped and no existing housing units would be d isplaced by the project. 14. Public Services: Services are currently provided to residential uses surrounding the project site. The project would not significantly increase demand for public services since this is an in-fill development and services are already provided to the surrounding area. The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides fire protection services to the project area. The Department has reviewed the proposed project only with respect to site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations. The required fire flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) meet the required spacing. The proposed residence also would be subject to formal plan review by the Departmenc requirements and will be required to comply with adopted model codes. 15. Recreation: The proposed addition of one residential unit would incrementally add new population to the area, and thereby increase the demand for recreational services. This increment.al increase would not be significant given the small size of the project 16. Transportation and Traffic: The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991-174) specifies that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hour trips could be approved without a comprehensive traffic report if it is determined that the benefits of the project to the Town would outweigh the impact of increased traffic. However, the project would be subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee . The project would result in a net increase of ten trips per day with one trip during the AM peak hour and one trip during the PM peak hour. According to the Town 's traffic determination, traffic generated by the proposed project would represent a minor impact and no additional traffic studies would be required. The Town 's Zoning Ordinance would require provision of two parking spaces for the proposed single- family residence. The project would meet the parking requirements by provision of a two-car garage and two additional parking spaces in the proposed driveway. Approximate grading quantities for the project are 247 c.y. of cut and 96 c.y. of fill, resulting in a net export of 150 c .y . of fill. Export of 150 c.y. of material off-site could generate up to 13 truckloads or a total of 26 one-way truck trips (assuming 12 c.y. per haul truck). If the adjacent home (341 Bella Vista) is constructed at the same time, a total of 28 truckloads or 56 one-way truck trips could be generated on Bella Vista Avenue. Since the Town wiU prohibit haul truck operations on local roads between 7 a .m. and 9 a .m. as well as 4 p .m . and 6 p .m., trucks operations would occur 6.5 hours per day. Assuming approximately five to nine trucks could be fiUed per hour, the 28 truckloads or 56 truck trips would occur over a one-to two-day period . Due to access limitations on Bella Vista Avenue, the Town will require the applicant to work with the Town Parks and Public Works Department Engineering lnspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This would include, but would not be limited to, provisions for the developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris will be required to follow a designated route between Los Gatos Boulevard and Bella Vista A venue (as specified by the inspector) and be covered (or at least two feet of freeboard must be maintained). These requirements will reduce potential traffic safety hazards to a less-than-significant level. 17. Utilities and Service Systems: Utilities are currently provided to adjacent residential uses. While some utility extensions may be required onto the site, no major off-site utility improvements would be expected to be required for project development since this is an in-fill development and involves development of one residence on one existing parcel. JUNE, 201 l 12 MrrIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATION-339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE 18. Cumulative Impacts: When the proposed project is considered together with the home proposed on the adjacent property at 341 Bella Vista Avenue, the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts, particularly those related to biological resources and traffic during and after construction. The project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with construction of both proposed home s are described under relevant topics above . With implementation of mitigation measures specified in this report , they were determined to be less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than significant. Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above recommendation are on file and available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California. Date Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development JUNE, 2011 13 EXHIBIT 9 , PATRICK K. TILLMAN Attorney at Law July l , 2011 Lead agency: Project Title and Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Location: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-06-46 and S-06-64 Subdivision application(s) M-06-09 Negative Declaration ND-08-02 and ND -08-03 Regarding: Objections to MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION[S] To Whom it may concern: I am an owner of 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos, California. I will be seriously-negatively impacted if the above-referenced application(s) to build at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, California are granted. I read the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION[S] pertaining to the above . They are completely devoid of the "human" aspect to the proposed projects and their technical information is evasive garbage. In 2008, these same people submitted an application for the same project. It, too, was chalked full of distortions, e.g. 1) discussions were had with the affected neighbors and 2) pictures were submitted of the impacted residents (looked like they were building in the Yosemite National Park). When we were drug into that process, we -10-15 families in our neighborhood -told Applicant several times, we warned him in no uncertain terms , that any building on these lots must be in strict compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines ("HDS&G"). 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 615-96 70 Fax: (408) 615-9715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com The primary applicant this year is again Dan Ross. Since his/this project appli cation was shot down in 2008, instead of heeding our warnings, Mr. Ross made himself part of the Los Gatos General Plan Update Advisory Committee (from 2008 until 2010), and then part of the North-40 Advisory Committee (since 2011). Mr. Ross has been providing his invaluable opinions regarding land use to the Town of Los Gatos on a volunteer basis, actively ingratiating himself with the powers that be. Mr. Ross told us/me that he was getting the assistance of Los Gatos Planning personnel in this re-submiss ion. Most troubling of all his comments was that he has no plans consistent with the FAR requirements because he was told by a Town of Los Gatos official, someone in the Planning Department, not to even bother submitting any. In essence: "don't worry about it." On an historical note, as to this same location and a similar project, the Planning Department of Los Gatos stated: COMMENTS/CONCERNS: 11. The Town sets a high priority in preserving its hillsides, natural views, and the character if its neighborhoods. This site is in a very visible location that has the potential to greatly impact these views and the character of this neighborhood. The Planning Department can not recommend approval of the design as submitted because of its potential to gre atly impact these views, is not in keeping with the residences in the area, and has potential privacy impacts with th e residences of the B e lla Vista Development that is now under construction . The applicant should consult with an architect to develop a design that addresses the massiveness of the rear elevation, articulates the bulk of the second story from the lower story, minimizes pri vacy and view impacts, minimizes grading and retaining walls, and preserves the sites existing trees . (Emphasis added) Bella Vista Proj . App. PRJ-97-020 Rec: 02-12-97 2 Similar concerns were voiced by the MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL on April 3, 2003: DISCUSSION: The Planning Commission considered this matter on February 26, 2003. The Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal due to lack of progress. The Commission further directed the applicant to, should they resubmit an application, incorporate the following: -Merge the two lots, APN 529-23-015 and 529-23-016; -Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot; ... (Emphasis added) Why is this Applicant being treated differently? As to specific issues raised in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TION[S]: Project Description. a. Lot size. The lots are small -6,038 sq. ft. and 4,106 sq. ft . Applicant proposes to reduce the size of the larger lot from 6,038 sq. ft. to 4,915 sq. ft. He disregards the law that says you can not make a non-conforming lot more non-conforming. (Gov. Code §66412(d)) The adjacent lot would then increase in size from 4, I 06 sq. ft. to 5,240 sq. ft. Both lots, before and after the shift, are substantially below the 8,000 sq. ft . minimum for R-1 :8 zoned projects. b. House Size. Applicant wants to construct two (2) 2. 760 sq. ft. homes, one (1) on a 4,915 sq. ft. lot and the other on a 5,240 sq. ft. lot. Both lots sit on a +53° (average) slope within the purview of the HDS&G. There is virtually no room in front of each house (to the road) and none between their downhill face and multiple neighbors -us. Applicant represents that there is forty feet (40') between the downhill face of the project and the neighbors -us. Again, a lie. He also omits the fact that 25 feet of that distance consists of a gravel walkway ( ~ 10 feet wide) and our 15 foot backyards. At the Northern end of the project, these monstrosities will be built right up to the downhill lot-line. 3 c. Environmental Impact Report. He says one is not needed. Do you need an EIR to build in someone's backyard? 1. Aesthetics. a. Across the street. No problem for those living across the street that may have enjoyed the trees and/or the view, he says, the roof of the proposed homes will be lower than the canopy of the + 150 year old oak trees they are killing/ removing. The Bella Vista residents will certainly be far happier looking at the new roofs. b. "Visual character along Bella Vista." Construction of these two (2) homes will look like an overstuffed backpack on the West side of the street. They detract from the serenity of that section of the street -they are out of place. c. View analysis. Applicant's report properly defines the "view analysis"1 issue, then goes on to prove/factually admit -contrary to his own conclusions -that his project violates the HDS&G from all three (3) oftbe locations to which he makes reference. At all three (3) locations -according to this report -the project is visible based on the HDS&G standard. But instead we get: "Hey!! You can't see the poles from here ... good thing these damn trees and shrubs block the view, otherwise, we 'd have failed the 'view analysis'." Applicant also invokes the view blockage "by an approved new building on the parcel located between the site and Alberto Way." First, view blockage by a building more appropriately calls for moving the viewing platform. Second, for how many years have we been threatened with more construction at The Los Gatos Motor Lodge? 10!! Third, when will this proposed project block the view? 5-10 years from now? Fourth, the view of the project is not blocked if you move 10 feet from either side of the viewing platform. And fifth, if built, you can probably see the project from Cupertino. Who is he kidding? 1 Applicant identifies the issue in footnote #2: " 'Potential' is defined as capable o f being seen from a viewing platform if trees or large shrubs are removed, significantly pruned, or impacted by construction." (Emphasis added) 4 d. HDS&G Minimum Grading. Grading Standards: Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels are considered excessive and contrary to the objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. Grade to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate buildings and to site structures consistent with slope contours. These are maximum numbers and may be reduced by the deciding bo<;Iy if the project does not meet grading standards or is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Standard and Guidelines. Maximum Grade Cuts -8' (From Chart) The Applicant proposes two (2) grade cuts totaling 17 feet. The first is 4!/i'. Three (3) feet later, another 12!/i foot cut is required. Because of their close proximity, the two (2) "cuts" should be considered as one (I). To further aggravate the problem, the last 412 ' of the downhill edge of the house sticks up 3' above the natural slope, indicating the cuts should be even more drastic and demonstrates just how steep this hillside is. In the "6. Geology and Soils" section, Applicant asserts that "approximately 247 cubic yards" of soil will be cut from each house location - presumably to build the foundation of the house. The quantity of soil to be removed does not sound massive because it's not-the angle of the hillside is so steep, they need only shave off a little topsoil. He goes on to state that 96 cubic yards of soil will be returned -"filled." True (maybe), but again misleading. The 96 cubic yards is "filled" outside the house-foundation footprint to build up a platfonn for the garage. Almost 50% of the soil removed to build the whole house is needed to build up a 20' x 20' garage pad. Again, reflecting just how steep this slope is . e. "This screening would help to minimize loss of privacy at the existing townhomes, immediately downhill of the site since the proposed home[s) would directly overlook these townhomes." 5 You Asshole!! You lying sack. The lowest part of each proposed home - the foundation -is level with the very top portion of our living room. They look down on us and into our living room area (2"d floor) and bedroom area (3rd floor) from their basement. They tower over our homes. Because of the steep slope, they would have to have 60 foot trees to block their view; and then, where do they plan on putting these trees -there is probably not 10 feet of room anywhere between their foundation and the lot line ... then there is the gravel walkway, then there is our 15 foot deep backyard. f. Outdoor lighting. According to Applicant, they are 40 feet from our homes ... and uphill. Both our living room (2"d floor) and bedroom (3rd floor) have large sliding glass doors, easily 10 feet wide. Any lights on the downhill side of these homes will light up our entire backyard, living room, and bedroom. As to the "landscape screening' they claim will mitigate, see above. In a Solar/lighting study submitted to the Town of Los Gatos in 2008 by Applicant (Geier & Geier contractor), they recommended a "set-back" from the downhill neighbors of75 feet -as opposed to their currently proposed 40 feet. This report was removed from Town's file. (Also see "Solar Study," supra) 4. Biological Resources. a. Tree removal. NO ARBORIST IS ADVOCATING REMOVAL OF THE TREES. And, no arborist voices any serious concerns about the health of these trees if no construction goes forward. All the reports are based on the premise that these homes will be built. The closest an arborist came to making a recommendation was: There are already high density condominiums or apartments on the east[ sic] (downslope) side of the parcel, and these trees in their intact groves provide a good buffer and screening between the condominiums and the single family residences on the west[ sic] side of Bella Vista A venue. It is too bad that this small parcel cannot be kept as an open space buffer, or a low- maintenance park. If this were not possible, then the construction of only one house on the lot would preserve more of the trees and the general open space nature of the parcel. (ARBO RIST REPORT 09-20-01) 6 For the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Unfortunately, now that this arborist is on Applicant's payroll, and not consulting for the Town of Los Gatos, she seems less enthusiastic about allowing these trees to survive and contribute to the community. Her opinion of the health of the trees now seems a bit less hopeful, as well. Regardless, the opinions regarding removal are only if the homes are constructed. And if so, the whole damn lot of them can go. Applicant wants to remove 12 "regulated trees" and jeopardize the health of 6 more -out of21 -leaving basically none. Completely omitted are the new owners' plans for a lawn. As to replacement trees, where are you going to put them, on top of the homes? They're not going to fit between the downhill face of the home and the property line. Feigning environmental concerns is very telling about the nature of this project. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Each of these homes will result in at least 2,063 sq. ft. of "impervious surfaces" (building, driveway, and porch) - between the two (2) of them, over 4,126 sq. ft of impervious surface within a 100 foot distance, on a +53° (average) slope, leading down to a gravel pathway (approximately 10 feet wide), leading down to our homes. No problem. Applicant has a septic system to handle even the biggest storm. And much like they do at the better trailer parks , any excess can be pumped uphill right onto the street ... where it can accumulate ... or run downhill, right back to the project from where it came -they are downhill of the stree t . "And NO!!" this system is not consistent with requirements on similar properties. There are no properties similarly situated to those being addressed. 7 10. Land Use and Planning. a. "Medium Density Residential" apparently is 5-12 units per acre. This entire plot of land is "0.11 acres ." With two (2) homes on it, that would be + 18 units per acre ... on +53° (average) sloped land. Are we not going in the wrong direction for density?? b. Consistent with existing adjacent and nearby residences. Again: ''NO, it's not." The only homes with any similarities, i.e. on downhill side of Bella Vista, are at least a ~mile down the street, on the other side of Highway 9. Downhill of these homes, and I believe there are four (4) of them, is the parking lot to the Los Gatos Lodge and the Los Gatos High School Baseball field . None of them have downhill residents. 12. Noise. Nobody cares about the noise level during construction. Construction is noisy, but temporary. Noise that does concern the downhill residents is, and will be, tolerating the ongoing noise of those living above us. This noise will not "be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses." Another outright lie. Standing in our backyard, standing on our upstairs deck, without trying, I can listen in on conversations taking place on Bella Vista Avenue. I hear the words clearly. With that as my standard , I anticipate being privy to far too many conversations to which I was not invited. There's also parties, kids, barbeques, television to be concerned about. I do not want to be hollering "shut up" at my neighbors . If I do, I expect to get an equally nasty response. Did I mention we are downhill of them? That would put me/us at a disadvantage. OTHER Solar Study. Applicant is obligated to submit a Shade and Shadow Study, setting forth potentially significant impacts on the project neighbors . Such study was submitted to the Planning Department in 2008, commissioned by Applicant and prepared by Geier & Geier. It was removed from the Town 's file. Therein, Geier & Geier identified substantial impacts on the downhill neighbors. In particular, in Winter months the project would block the sun from the downhill neighbors from before 9 :00 a.m. until shortly after 12:00 p.m. 8 I find no reference to this mandate in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA TION[S]. CONCLUSION These Mitigated Negative Declarations are a fraud . Those submitting them are shameless liars. This is Los Gatos. Our homes boarder on $1.0 million in value. Having the proposed projects built will certainly harm the value -estimated to exceed $100,000 per household times at least eight (8) households; but more importantly, our privacy is gone, our quality oflife is gone. We did not move into Los Gatos to live like this. The Town Council is charged with preserving its hillsides, natural views, and the character if its neighborhoods. At the very least, I expect my Town not to rubber-stamp a lifetime nuisance.2 Allowing this Applicant, this insider, a waiver (aka "variance") to virtually everything this community and the HDS&G stand for is certainly not appropriate. The projects proposed should be rejected based on the integrity of the presentations, alone. Respectfully, Patrick K. Tillman cc: Bella Vista Home Owners BellaVista .NegDecl070111 2 Acts Constituting Nuisance. "Anything that is ... indecent o r offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, ... (CC §3479) 9 EXHIBIT 10 ---Original Message-- From: Suzanne Davis <sdav is@losgatosca .gov> To: debrachin <debrachin@aol.com> Sent: Mon, Dec 19, 2011 10:54 am Subject 339-341 Bella Vista Hi Debra , Page 2 of2 I am sorry for the delay in response to your email last week. I was waiting for the full size sets of plans which came in late Thursday. The house si ze for 339 Bella Vi sta has been reduced to 1,792 sq . ft. The garage size is unchanged at 441 sq . ft . and there is a small cellar (399 sq . ft.). The house reviewed by the Planning Commission in October was 1,920 sq . ft . The house at 441 Bella Vista is 1, 780 sq . ft. with a 399 sq . ft . cellar and 441 sq . ft. garage . The plan reviewed by the Commission in October was 1829 sq . ft. with a 481 sq . ft . cellar. I advised the applicant that the Commission recommended a greater reduction . They have decided to move forward with the plans as revised . You are welcome to come in and look at the plans. The public counter is open from 8 am to 1 pm through Thursday of this week. Town offices will be closed from December 23, 2011 through January 2, 2012. Suzanne 12/20/201 1 EXHIBIT 11 EXHIBIT 12 EXHIBIT 13 Il e Los Gatos CA Official Site! ·Lot Line Adju stment Procedures hnp J/www.losgatosca.gov/index.asp x?NID = 1190 of 3 • The existing houses do not become nonconfonning as for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements of the zone . • The existing buildings meet the requirement of the Uniform Building code for fire separation or fire wall construction . 2. After final action by the Development Review Committee , the applicant will be notified by the Planning Department that the application is complete and any requirements that must be met before the certificate or map can be recorded . 3. The Development Review Committee has authority to approve this application . The Development Review Committee may approve or deny the application but may not attach cond itions, except to meet the requirements of the Building or Zoning regu lations , per Section 66412(d) of the California Government Code. If the application Is denied , the applicant may appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Final Action 1. INhen the application has been approved by the Development Rev iew Committee, the applicant shall submit the following items to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department: • Updated title reports, for all parcels , if the title reports are older than 90 days . • Two copies of the legal descriptions of the new parcel configurations . labeled "Exhibit A. and "Exhibit B'. These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer. • Two copies of a map, 8·112" x 11 ", suitable for reproducing and recording , showing the original parcel configuration and the new parcel configurations. Label the map "Exhibit C.' These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer. • One copy of the closure calculations. • Copies of any maps referenced in the title reports or legal descriptions. • Engineering Division plan checking and processing fee . 2. The Engineering Division will review the legal descriptions , may and title reports , and prepare a document entitled "Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment" • Any corrections that must be made will be sent your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer, and corrected documents resubmitted . 3. The Director of Parks and Public Wonts will sign the Certificate of Lot Line Adiustment once the legal descriptions and map documents have been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division staff. 4. The Town Clerk's Office will send the documents to your title company with instructions for reco rding . Additional Information 1111/?01 ? 1 ·47 PM ~e Los Gatos CA Official Site! • Lot Line Adjustment Procedures http://www.losgatosca.gov/index.aspx?NID= 1190 of3 1. Legal descript ions and map of the new parcel configurations shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, Per Sections 6731and 8726 of the California Government Code, these are the only persons authorized to prepare such documents. 2. Your title company should provide you with new Grant Deeds for the new parcel configurations and arrange for the recording of these documents. Copyright Notices I Powered by ClvicPlus 1/13 /2012.1·4?.PM For fUtlhet Information on topb such as lees, 1ppUcations, or Butld~lannlng regUlatione, plelse COnlact lhe Community Oewlopment o.p.rtment: (408) ~74 !!IWW.IOK!flosgt QO'{ Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department • Lot Line Adjustment Summary Handout Wht! ls f /ot l/M 1diusfaHrnf? Loi line adjustmenl is the relocatlon of an interiof lo t fine between two or more neighboring pan:ets. Lot llne edjustmenbl are re\llewed according to Soclioo 664t2(d) or the Government Code of !he stats of Ca llfomla . The applcanl has the oplion of using this procedure or completlng the lot line adjustment by fifing a Paroet Map. E"21mple Dlustration: LAtl ld.1 B :B'· ... ~-· i I E»al~~~/ ~ , I PTqoosod ~ '"" ~· How to •DPIY for• 1911/n! !!dlus1ment7 Application for lot lino adju5Vn ents (bolaldary Changes) shall be made kl the Community Develop~nt Department oo the prescribed form. Application forms and pertioent lnfonnatlon can be oblained at the ComtrMl!ty Development Department. wrwt /lemS sht!I be s!!bmltttd with the ppp!fc4tlon7 c AU owners of record mU<Sl sig n the epp!ic;allon. c Evidence !hat any holders of Deeds of T 1ust have no objections lo the proposed boundary changes. o THJe repons covering all paroel irwol\/ed deted within 30 days . o The reqUl red Cornmuritty Development Department processing fee. o Seven (7) copies of a crawing no ler;er than 24• x 36" showing eJdsting aod proposed boundaries , ell improvements (OOU.SS, driveways. h'88$, etc.) arid required btildlng setbacli;s that may be affecied by the proposed boundary change. Wb«t Is lt!e lot /jne PdlustmeoC D/!ICUSZ Once an application ts accepted a t the Community Development Department all Lot Line Adjustment appll<:&Uon will be revlewe<1 by eppf1C21tion Is complete and any requirements that must be met before recordati<>n of !he cer1i!icate or map. Note: The DRC h9s •111hority to 1ppron °' deny the 1pplkafion but may not •Ulch conditiom, •xtePt to meet the 1'9qUirements of the Buildfflfl or Zoning regu/llflons, perSecllon ff412(d) of the Callfomi• Government Code. 3. When !he appl ication has been approved by tho ORC, the appkant shall aubmk !he toMowing items to the Engineering Section of the CornmunltY Development Department: the Development Review Committee (ORC) and o sen1 to pertinent departments and orgJllli;zations Updated tllJe reports, for an parools. If the title reports are older than 9 0 days. t01 re'-'ew and recommende!lon. 1. The DRC wil limlt 118 review to Iha following items: • l01 Stal -lnS confotmlng 10 the axisti~ zoning OC"dinanc.e. tt the lats are a.rrentty nonconfonnlrig as to size, lhey l<!!C!IQ! become more nonconformlng (smaller). • Setbad<s remain confonning er ®llQl become more nonconforming, • Lot frontage and lo( depth roqulremenls remain c:onfonning. • The exisiing houses @1!21 beocme nonoonformirig as for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements of the zone. • The existing buildings meet tho requinlment of lhe Uniform Building Code for tire separetton or fire wall constru«lon. 2. After final action by the i;>RC, the applicant will be notified by the Community De'<elopment Department lllet the o Three (3) copklg of the legal des~ o1 the new parcel configurations, labeled 'Exhibit A" alld 'Exhibit B". Thesa documenlS mll$1 be wet s1amped by your Ucensed SUrwyor or CMI Engineer. o Three (3) copies of a map, 8 W x 11 •, suitable for reprodu(:ing and recording, ehowlng the original parcel configuration and the new pare.el conflgllnllions. t...bel the map "Exhibit C'. These documents must be wet Sl8mped llY your Licensed Surveyor °' CM! Englneer. o Two (2) coplas of the dosure calC1Jlations . o ~ng Secllon plan ctiecklng and Pl'OoessinQ fees. 4. The Engineering Section wi'll pnipare a document enlltled 0 Cettlfk:ate of Lot Line Adjustment' lncfudlng tegel deactiptkilns , maps and title reports and send it to our ootside consultant for review end approval. Note: Any cooections !hat must be made will be se nt to your lloemed SUNeyor o r Civil Engineet, and corrected documents resubmitted. 6. The Community DevelOpment Director will sign the documents, once the documents hll"8 been app(oved end s igned off by ou r plan check consuhanl 6 . 1118 Town CJer1(6 Office will send fhe documents to your title company with Instructions for recording . How to vpal t dtcWonZ II the application is denied by the DfM!lopment Review Convnittee (ORC), the applicant may appeal the decision to lhe Plannlng Commission. The applicant must flte a written noUce of appeal with the Town Cieri< within 10 calendar days of the decision. AddttfOltf/ fnfpmttCloo? Legal descriptions and mapi; of the new parcel conflgurationg shall be p19pe.red by a Registered Civil angiooer or Lioansed Land SUrveyor. Per Sections 6731 end 8726 of the California Government Code, lhlllMI &RI the ooly persons authorizll<l IO prepared suet\ documents . Your title company sho uld provide you with MW Grant Oeeda ror the naw parcel configuratiOns and anange for the recorda!ion of thecie doouments, after lhe Town approws tho lot line adjustment. This Page J 11tentionally Left Blank Planning From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: ---Original Message----- Forrest Straight <fastcbra@aol.com > Thursday,, April 07, 2016 9:41 AM Planning Fwd: 341 Bella Vista Osterlingl.JPG; Osterling2.JPG From : Forrest Straight <fastcbra@aol.com> To: mmoseley <mmoseley@losgatosca.gov> Cc: fastcbra <fastcbra@aol.com> Sent: Thu, Apr 7, 2016 9:39 am Subject: 341 Bella Vista Marni Moseley Town of Los Gatos RE: 341 Bella Vista I am a resident of 146 Maggi Ct . My residence is directly below the property on Bella Vista. I have several concerns about this project, and cannot see how it has got this far through the planning process with so many variances allowed; and additionally, Los Gatos codes , standards and guidlines dismissed . Tree Report attached as jpegs Trees My biggest concern is the "Ellis" Arborist report suggesting three huge Coastal Live Oaks be cut down. I've attended planning meetings and seen some of the ugliest trees in town be saved . Few plants figure more promently in California history than oaks. How can we cut down three huge native examples ... just for a (just give me more square footage) home. There is not a more beautiful and majestic tree than a native California Oak. The Coastal Live Oak has the ability to live centuries and commonly exceed 250 years of age. So ,after reading the "Ellis" report, I went to a "Tree Expert" and asked the quest ion .... are these three (forgetting the other 20 or so other Oak examples on the property) huge and beautiful Oaks really dead or in bod shape . The report is attached from John Thompson Tree Expert ..... suggesting the trees are in good shape and might need some trimming or feeding . H is company has three crews, that trims, removes and maintains trees six days a week in Atherton, Woodside, and six major golf courses in the area. He says he's not an arborist. However , much like a nurse or doctor, he works daily with the care and maintenance of oaks. For a formal written arborist report, John gave me several names , but he said the best was Ralph Osterling . I called Ralph Osterling and had conversations with both Rolph and his staff arborist Walter Fugi i. Their report is also attached. Their conclusion is the same . Two of the three oaks are in good health. At this time, tree three is in less than good health, so lets trim and feed the tree so it can be saved too. 1 I can go on wi th size of the home violating codes .... setbacks .... hi llside development guidelines ... privacy ... and erosion drainage issues. But, you've heard them before. I've dealt with planning and bu i lding departments i n Arizona; Nevada; California; and Los Gatos Everywhere there are rules , regulations , and codes .... sometimes a variance or change to the rules makes common sense Never have I ever seen such a complete d isregar d of rules and regulations applied for the prosperity of this applicant Let me talk more about trees ...... . In my experience I've found you pay people enough money they'll tell you what you want t o hear Let's be honest ... these Coastal Oaks despite what anyone will say to their health will live far longer than our grandch i ldren. Let's look at the two Ellis Arborists reports three years apart. One for the City and one for a property owner. For the city she suggests ... It's too bad this small parcel cannot be kept as an open space or low maintenance park ..... or if not possible that one home be built ...... and that the Coastal Live Oak is a very desirable species for the area and that the town of Los Gatos values highly. She 's saying don't cut down the trees. The second report makes no City suggestions other t han the health of the oaks have diminished . I have seen in town planning .... the insistence of keeping some of the ugliest trees preserved ..... to obtain a building perm i t . Let's not be foo led that the submi tted reports, where the tree health is anything less than 10 of 10 mean these trees should be mowed down Of the two dozen trees on this property ... the plans call for remov i ng all but three or four trees .... and the proposed construction will kill the remaining ones in a few years anyway due to their proximity. You 've got to be kidding me this project has gotten this far along without someone in the town process just saying NO. Soi l Report In the soil report it talks about soil stability in section 7 .2 What we have is several oaks with root structures stabilizing the hillside. The roots are deep .... and with oaks extend to the tree canopy. The canopy that is pr oposed to be removed is approx 10 ,000sf at the home site. Hense a r oot structure of 10 ,000sf. Then proposed is a huge dest abilzing cut into the hillside for the proposed home ..... which adds weight to the soil and stabili t y . 2 During rains the root sructure stabilizes the hill and prevents erosion. Without this deep stability, there is more of a chance of a slide. Already there is evidence of a small slide at the bottom of the h i ll near the edge of the property line. So the Soil Report states .... "Long term stability is hard to predict. Hillside will remain stable as long as the equilibrium is not disturbed." Well that's what removing the oaks will do ... d isturb the equilibr ium. There's a section too on l i qu ifaction and earthquake induced landslides . Well this property is in that hazard zone . The zone indicates there's been previous occurances of landside movement and depending upon subsurface water conditions there's a potential for permanent ground d isplacements ... meaning landsl ides. Now if this was across the street on level ground ... probably not a problem .... but when you add heavy winter rain storms plus an earthquake plus a 53 degree hillside and no tree root stability ..... I'm guessing the lands l ide possibility is greater than t he report suggests. I'm guess ing too the soil engineer wouldn 't want to live in my house. Forrest Straight 146 Magg i Ct Los Gatos , CA 95032 408 395 0302 3 146 Maggi Court 15 October 2008 Page 2 of 2 Tree 3 , coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) The sparse canopy and lack of growth of this oak is typical of a tree unde r st ress from disease or d rought. At this time, overall health i s poor to very poor. Summation Based on today's observatio ns, tree 1 a n d tree 2 appear to be in good health and should be considered suitable f or p reservat1on . Bot h oaks will require routine tree maintenance in order to extend their safe and useful life. For reasons of safety, preservation of tree 1 may require cabling and I o r bracing that is often performed on trees with multistem trunks . The proper implementation of a qualified Tree Preservation Plan should be expected to minimize construction impacts to the tr ees. A qualified Arborist i s required to monitor the status of the trees and perform regular site v is its to verify that p roper tree preservation measures have been implemented and are kept current. Tree 3 is in poor to very poor condit ion with the outward sympt oms of a tree in decline. Tree 3 should not be consi dered a su itable cand idate for preservation. Should you require additional information kindly contact our office at your earli est convenience. Respectfully, ) ~~.-,~ W. aJter Fujii I \ '"· Staff Arborist \ A SCA Reg istered ConsLitting Arborist N o . f 02 lSA Certified Arborist No . tNf:..3._257 ~/ Ra/pit Werli11f! Consu ltarrts. l rJC. Erin Johnson 150 Maggi Court RECE,VE D APR 7 :... 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS .PLANNING DIVIStON April 6, 20l6 I live at 150 Maggi Court and am the granddaughter of a former Town of Los Gatos Chief of Police . I grew up in Town with clear understanding of the importance of following direction and understanding rules. I cannot believe that afte r eight (8) years and four (4) public hearings, we are going through the process again for a fifth time. What is there not to understand about building on a cliff with us directly below? Looking up at the cliff, there will be a mass ive home towering over and threatening our homes. The mass and scale is huge . The loss of privacy is huge. Rules are rules whether a requirement, direction, regulation, standard, guideline, policy, or ordinance. When I receive direction from higher authorities, I follow it. Plenty of direction has been provided to the applicant who chooses not to take it. The latest application has increased in mass and scale, with expanded interior and exteri or living areas . A change in di rection for the worse! A protected Oak Tree, which the applicant previously expressed intent to save, is destined to be destroyed. It doesn't have to be. The applicant tucked notes on neighbor's doorsteps on 03-22-16, two and a half years after declaring to t he Town his intentions to reach out to the neighbors for a "constructive approach to working together". The note delivers the message that his plans are in compliance. Alas , they are not. I see a clear pattern regarding i ntentions. Exceptions are needed -major exceptions to the Hillsi de Development Standa r ds and Guidelines. Rules are rules and they exist for good reason. The process has allowed ample opportunity for direction. Rules and direction are not being followed for the applicant's own good reason. Please deny the project and uphold the standards (rules} of our Town. Respectfully, Er in Johnson Marni Moseley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Dear Ms Moseley, Nick W <williamsonnick@aol.com > Thursday, April 07, 2016 10:42 AM Marni Moseley; Planning Laura Williamson 341 Bella Vista Avenue -Objections (Planning Commission) BV160407Will_lx.pdf; A TIOOOOl.htm; BV Slides x.pdf; A TI00002.htm Attached please find a letter concerning the planned development to 339 and 341 Bella Vis ta Avenue in Los Gato s and containing some of my family's objections for the attention of the Planning Commission today, and also for your review. I am also attaching a copy of the slides referenced in our letter. One of the slides contains a photo, and 1 don't know if you are printing documents so I am crossing my fingers it will reproduce how it appears on my screen. lf any of the Commissioners would like to arrange a time to visit our home I can be reached at 4086019284 and please feel free to pass this number onto the Commissioners. I know that they must be very busy at present so I will do whatever I can to work around their schedules. Thank you for your kind attention. Your sincerely, Nicholas Williamson 148 Maggi Court Los Gatos California 9 503 2 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank April 7, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Deparbnent 110 East Main Street Los Gatos California 95031 Dear Madams and Sirs of the Planning Commission, Re. Application to Develop 341 Bella Vista Avenue 148 Maggi Court Los Gatos California 95032 We are writing concerning the application for merging and developing lots 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue. Our family lives directly below the project site at 148 Maggi Court and so we will be impacted, terribly, if this application is granted. We have already sent two other letters to the Town responding to the Mitigated Negative Declaration and would like to make some further comments now. This is a peaceful and beautiful hillside and we believe the fragile ecology will be devastated by this development. The Town Arborist is estimating that 48% of the trees on site (10 of 21) including seven protected trees two of which are magnificent native oaks over 45ft high and in good health, will be lost and potentially more will be gone once construction starts. She also estimates the total canopy that might be lost could be in the region of 70 % . This is a huge amount of change for any piece of land and potentially catastrophic for this bit of land and the surrounding properties. We all know the value that trees bring to our Town and community, many of them are protected and the reason for that is perfectly captured in the Town Code, section 29.10.0950, Intent. The importance of these trees to this hillside is everything which is captured in the Code and more. The trees are integral to this a hillside and they are integral to the character of Los Gatos. It feels as if putting a building on a hillside slope as steep as this one (>50%) should need ten times the land there is here in order to keep a balance between hillside and development The plot has an average slope of 53% whilst the Hillside Standards say slopes above 30% are considered hazardous and shall be avoided, particularly if the hill is noted at risk of landslide which this one is . This slope is near double what is considered hazardous and it leads straight down and into the town homes of Maggi Court. The proposed building would be less than 50 feet from our home, less than 40 feet from our yaI"d, and its roof would towe r more than 50 feet above the head of our Page 1of2 daughter if she was playing outside on the deck. The risk of loss, injury or death is present, and has been noted by Town Planners. The Applicant's own geo-technical firm wrote that" a hillside will remain stable only as long as the existing slope equilibrium is not disturbed ... a small but unknown level of risk is always present to structures located in hilly terrain. Owners of property located in these areas must be aware of, and willing to accept, this unknown level of risk". Whatever mitigation is applied is it really fair to ask us to accept this risk? Proximity and elevation then, are huge concerns and so is the massiveness of this structure. It is noted throughout the documentation on record as a three story building and of course three story buildings are prohibited. Separate from that point the building is undeniably massive for a such a small space, sandwiched as it is between existing properties. The applicant was advised to propose something small and he has not done that. And the massiveness is not changed by merging the lots and making one house, that seems to us to be just a tactic to design to FAR, but the Hillside Standards say that applicants should not design to FAR and that far greater weight shall be given to issues, including but not limited to, height, building mass and scale, visual impacts, grading and compatibility. There are many more issues to list including the safety on Bella Vista Avenue. One of the neighbors has already pointed out how difficult it will be to reverse a car up a 15% ramp at a controlled speed onto a blind bend and be able to see clearly oncoming traffic and kids on bikes going to school. The loss of privacy or the ability for us to move around our home without feeling like we might be being watched is also significant and should be apparent to anyone. And then there are less obvious things like nighttime light pollution from the many windows and glazed doors, because as things are today the hillside is completely dark at night. In summary this house is simply too big and too close to other homes to be appropriate and development of it will devastate and drastically alter the character of the hillside and this bit of land. We can see in the records that development of this land has been tried many times before and each time rejected and always for good reason, and we are most grateful to the Town for its thoughtful and considerate stewardship. This land is what it is and what is has been noted to be, virtually unbuildable. We would be most grateful if you could visit our home to see this project from our perspective. In the meantime we've included a few charts as attachments to this letter which we hope will provide you some insight. Thank you for listening to our concerns. Yours faithfully, The Williamson Family (Nick and Laura, James and Amy) Page 2 of 2 341 Bella Vista Avenue Preparation for Planning Commission Hearing April , 2016 Visual character will be devastated View from bedroom balcony of town home (148 Maggi Court) also showing filtered sunlight Trees to be removed Summary of Town Arborist Report • 21 trees on lot (3 more on neighbor's lot possibly impacted) • 10 trees to be removed (480/o of lot trees) • 7 protected trees including two 45ft and SOft oaks in good condition ·Total number of trees to be removed is higher than shown on Applicant's plans ·Estimated 70% loss of canopy ·Possibly more trees lost with construction damage Trees to be removed View from below with trees to be removed in red (148 Maggi Court) Environmental Impact of Tree Removal "This division is adopted because the Town of Los Gatos is forested by many native and non-native trees, and contains individual trees of great beauty. The health and welfare of the citizens of the Town require that these trees be saved in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the Town, prevent erosion of topsoil, provide protection against flood hazards and risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. Trees contribute significantly to the value of land in the Town. Special provisions regarding hillsides are included in recognition of the unique biological and environmental differences between the hillside and non-hillside areas of the Town" Sec. 29.10.0950. Intent, Town Code Significant environmental impact Glossed over in documentation ·Health and welfare of citizens ·Scenic beauty • Prevent erosion of topsoil ·Provide protection against risk of landslides ·Counteract pollutants in the air ·Maintain climatic balance ·Alter drainage and run off from hillside ·Contribute significantly to the value of land in the Town ·Canopies provide sanctuary for wildlife -many birds including owls ·Canopies also help shade ground, retaining moisture and helping plant survival This Page Intentionally Left Blank PATRICK K. TILLMAN A fforn ey at l aw April 7 , 2016 RECEIVED APR 7 -2016 T OWN O F L OS GATOS PLANNING DIV ISI ON Sent via e-mail to: MMos elev@losgatosca.gov and p/amiing@josgatos ca.gov Marni Moseley Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos , CA 95030 Re: 339 & 34 l Bella Vista Avenue Applications Applicant : Dan Ross Dear Ms. Moseley: Planning Commission Meeting -04-13-16 Objections to Proposed Construction I live at 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos, with Planning Commission Chairperson, Mary Badame. An application is pending for construction of one (1) single-family home to be built at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, directly above us. The Planning Commjssion Meeting is set for 04-13-16. Please include this letter in the materials to the Commissioners. On 04-06-16, I e-mailed a letter dated 01-17-12. That letter itemized my prior objections to a similar project at this site. Almost all of those objections apply to the most recent proposal of Dan Ross. Herein , I update, restricting my comment to Mr. Ross' 09-16-15 letter of Justification. In sum, his "justification" is inaccurate and , more often than not, nonsense . The infonnation provided by Mr. Ross was difficult to decipher. Many details were omitted. I still resent looking at diagrams that depict a 30° slope, when the slope "averages" 53°. Visually, it makes a world of djfference. 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 615-9670 Fax: (408) 615-9 715 E-mail: pat@pktlawoffice.com Dan Ross and his cousin have been warned for +5 years about ''Bulk and Mass." Still, he persists. Still he injects himself into Town politics to ingratiate himself, hoping personal relationships will trump the General Plan and the Hillside Standards and Guidelines . One (I) Planning Commissioner said: "I personally think that in a way I wish this lot had not been z oned for building. I think it is that bad of a lot. But it is zoned for building and therefore I think what the law would normally allow without any exceptions. " I agree. This Commission should not combine the lots. They are not buildable - separately or together. Combining them fuels the fire for Spec-home builders, like Dan. Each should be designated unbuildable. Keep in mind, it was Dan and his cousin who deliberately separated the lots in the first place -part of their speculative adventure. To organize your thoughts on this wordy letter, the next seven (7) pages are the multiple warnings Dan received directly from the Planning Commission, the Study Session, and Town Counci l. Pages 10 to 13 a ddress Dan's Letter of J us ti fication . This house will take away all privacy to the back end of +4 homes. For us, the proposed project is no different than the previous proposals. 2 HISTORY OF WARNINGS l 0-12-11 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript: Proposal: two (2) homes -2,769 & 2,678 square feet. Dan Ross highlights: "After 2008 , when we met with the neighbors and we met with Staff, we realized that the 145 Bella Vista plan [NOT THIS PROJECT] was probably too big, because it does not have neighbors below, and we realized we should reduce the size of these plans". "The main issue with the property is privacy". "Our goal is to completely block the view. We do not want to have any eye to eye contact between the townhomes and us." "Back then what we heard a lot was mass and scale". "The process that we were going through was to understand this mass and scale". Commission comments: Commissioner #1 "It's a very difficult lot ". Had you not known the history of the lot you would know it 's a very, very, difficult lot. If you knew the history of the lot you'd know it was a really difficult lot." "Access is very, very difficult. That street, somewhat because of the high school kids, can be problematic, and therefore, a driveway that is not well considered could cause you problems and there is a curve. That causes me a great deal of trouble". "I personally think that in a way I wish this lot had not been zoned for building. l think it is that bad of a Jot. But it is zoned for building and therefore I think what the Jaw would normally allow without any exceptions". "I'm having trouble with the cut and fill". 3 "The idea of having a basement and therefore affecting the mass and scale doesn't seem to be discussed much here, and I agree with the speaker who said that's kind of why we have it, encourage basements to reduce mass and scale. I haven't seen that being effected here". "This is goi ng to be a very difficult construction site to stage and which will cause real problems for the neighbors so the construction plan would have to be very, very we ll thought out". "We have to be very careful in comparing what the neighborhood is, because this west side of the street is so different than the east side of the street, so in comparing the size of the lots and the size of the homes, I for one, would discount, if not throw out, the east side and look only to the west side. "These are two very, very bad lots and that is crystal clear to everybody. I would want a dramatic reduction". "I personall y think because the lot is so bad, that I would want a dramatic reduction in s ize". "I'm troubled by all those things .... dramatic reduction in the size and bulk and mass . I am concerned with the cut and fill. I am concerned for safety purposes and so it's therefore perhaps more significant, a lth ough they 're all significant, with the driveway." Comm issi o n e r #2 (To Dan Ross) So the shadow study isn 't correct? Dan Ross -"You are right, that is incorrect". "I haven't seen a privacy concern and iss ue from neighbors that is this extreme". "And so that addresses for me this issue of bulk and mass, because in hillside buildings, we have to be very careful. One of the guidelines is that we have to watch out for the surrounding properties". "Issues with the tree removals and tree s impacted by development". Comm issi o ner #3 "I am very concerned about the children and the use of the street itself'. 4 My second concern is the impact that the mass of the homes will have on the neighbors below ... .the homes are too massive. The homes as they are constructed are larger than they need to be and the impact on the neighbors below as well as the hillside is something that I could not support". "A car backing into Bella Vista or having to park across the street because it's unusable, I'm not sure where they would park across the street , but that 's a main issue for me.". "My main issues are the size of any proposed home and how you have the ingress/egress out of those homes .". Commissioner #4 "The size of the home doesn't seem appropriate for the neighbors and the particular site". "The size of the homes ............... needs to be significantly reduced." Commissioner #S "These lots are terrible lots". "A 60 foot wall plane on adjacent neighbors ............... isn't a liveable situation." More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 1 . 02-08-12 Planning Commission Meeting Transcript: Proposal: two (2) homes -2,643 & 2,760 square feet (reduction of 126' coupled with 82' increase). Dan Ross highlights: "We had a sense that the homes were too big considering we had townhomes below us and 145 Bella Vista Avenue [Again, NOT THIS PROJECT] did not 5 have townhomes below them. So we took that upon ourselves to make that reduction. "We're having a hard time defining "significant" [As in "significant reduction"] to still end up with a home that is livable". Commission comments: Commissioner #1 "Regarding the architecture and site applications, I move to deny ....... bulk and mass". Commissioner #2 "You have a very difficult lot" Commissioner #3 "My position has not changed. I would not approve the bulk and mass for thi s property". "It is massive when you look up at it1'. "It's just too massive ". Commissioner #4 "My concerns are the same as the last time". Number one, it was the mass of the buildings. Second was the safety issue and I'm very concerned about that street period. More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 2. 6 04-02-12 Town Council Appeal Transcript: Proposal: two (2) homes -2,643 & 2,760 square feet. Dan Ross highlights: "I did not get clear information from the Planning Commission what a significant reduction was " ''I did not get clear direction from the Planning Commi ssion" .. Application allows us to s a ve primary tree" Council comments: Councilperson #1 Traffic -"Very concerned about traffic " "Great potential for accidents" "It's clear there are traffi c issues" "Do not want to rep I icate the south side of Bella Vista" '~he Hillside Standards and Guidelines provide for protection of neighbor and there is a pre-existing condition -Maggi Court and we have to protect those individuals on Maggi Court,. '·Need to reduce mass significantly.'' "Issues at the site are not e xclusive of FAR -mass of house, siting, tree removal , houses on West side". Coun cilperso n #2 "Townhome view to hillside view is very powerful" Staff pers on #1 .. Council decides applicable standards as to what can be built,. Staff p e rson #2 'Financial viability is beyond Town ·s ability to regulate or control " (When asked by :XXXXX about build-ability of lot) 7 More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 3. 02-13-13 Study Session Transcript: Proposal: two (2) homes -1,736 & 1,885 square feet. Dan Ross highlights: "mass and scale -not unusual plans in relation to mass and scale of neighbors" "preserving the Oak tree" "reduced deck areas " "less cut and fill" "always had concern for Maggi Court neighbors" "mixed signals from Town" Commission comments: Study Session Commissioner #1 "Two almost unbuildable lots " "Almost unbuildable" "Virtually not a buildable lot" "You are on a steep building area" "You have a problem I can't solve" "Merging the lot and have one (1) big building not going to happen" ·'Comply with the requirements" "Have a fundamental problem" 8 Study Session Commissione r #2 "Have you been down to the townhomes and looked up "? ·'Problem li es be low with your neighbors '' Study Session Commissioner #3 "Difficult lot s -Guidance written in the HDSG'' "Mass from be low due to site" "Bring something meeting all guidelines in place" Study Session Com1nissioner #4 "Ample feedback given from Staff, Planning Commission, Council to determine workability. "Fundamental unde rlying issues -the same" More comments from both sides are provided in Exhibit 4. WARNINGS HEEDED?? Date Square footage 10 -12 -11 2,769 & 2 ,678 square feet 02-08-12 2 ,643 & 2,760 square feet 04-02-12 2 ,643 & 2,760 square feet 02-13-13 I , 736 & 1,88 5 square feet 04-13 -16 2, 739 square feet -Proposed 9 04-13-16 PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING Proposal: one (1) home -2,739 square feet. I. Dan Ross: 09-16-15 Letter of Justification: A. Reasons for prior rejection. Compare Mr. Ross' 5-point explanation with the comments/warnings, above. He was told, in no uncertain terms, that these lot(s) are unbuildable. So he adds another 1,000 sq. ft. to one (1) of them, putting it basically in the same spot as before ... a little to the left. B. CURRENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION. Mr. Ross alleges: 1) "[M)eets FAR." Can't be true. That house is on a +53 ° slope and he eliminated all but 204 feet of the 1,360 sq. ft. bottom floor (~60' x 22' = 1,320), calling it a cellar (a "cellar" with a sliding glass door leading to a patio). The bottom floor is 60' long. That means he eliminated all but the last 3.4' of the 22' wide, 3-bedroon floor with a view ... and a patio (3.4' x 60' = 204'). IT'S ON A 53 ° SLOPE. Using a 45° slope (one for one), eliminates +660 ' from his reduction calculation. 1) "[M]eets ... height." Not according to the MND (figure 9). He exceeds it by +6'. 1) "[M]eets ... front set back." No, he does not. His entire front yard, and most of his driveway, is on a Los Gatos easement. This Town cannot give away community easement rights to a spec-home builder, gifting him a 20' front yard so he can push his abomination down hill into our back yard. This Town has never given away these easement rights , contrary to Dan's representations. All those Bella Vista homes South of this project were built before the road was dedicated to the Town. 2) "[L]essens the impact on multiple adjacent townhouses." Less than what? +4 homes completely lose their backyard privacy and must shutter their sliding glass doors to keep Dan from looking into our 3rd floor bedrooms -from his cellar. 10 2) "[He will use the] existing mature trees to screen the one townhouse immediately to the west." (Emphasis added) He can 't use the mature trees, he's cutting them down. And there are no mature trees between this project and that particular townhome ... or between any of our homes , for that matter. [Note: We call them "Townhomes ." It makes sense that Dan calls them "townhouses."] And what of the others? There can be no screening of this project -physically impossible. Period. 2) "[We] Iocate[d] the driveway in a safer location." No he didn't. Not unless he is knocking down another +300 year old tree and wiping out the 20' tall tree-bushes owned by the Hotel , all of which block the view of North-bound Bella Vista traffic . South-bound traffic is no better with that blind curve, and those High School kids have a good head of steam by the time they reach this area of Bella Vista . AND HE IS BACKING OUT OF A DRIVEWAY GOING UPHILL. He can 't see. 3) "The Town consulting arborist has identified trees 10, 11, 16 and 2 1 to be removed." Again, no they didn 't. Dan did, trying to neutralize his carnage, blame someone else. And his patronizing comments about saving the other trees should be put in perspective: Dan is not cutting down any tree he is not allowed to cut down. He 'd cut them all down if he could. Take a look at his prior proposals. Even the big tree he claimed to be saving was doomed because he was building both homes too close to the root base. 4) " ... minimalist design is common for hillside sites ... " Again, no It Is not. And it's ugly ; at the very least: awkward-looking. It looks like two (2) Eichlers, offset, the top one having a bad back. We are supposed to look at this monstrosity every day! Even when we don't look at it, we'll feel it back there ; like a bad dog in someone else's yard. C . HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: 1) "House is not visible from Viewing Platforms." That ship sailed . The Town said it's visible. And that it's on a ridge. 5) "Existing mature trees will screen impact to adjacent townhome ne ighbor. Additiona l trees/shrubs t o be added, as appropriate." Previously addressed. And might I add: credibility is always an issue. 11 7) "Window type and location sensitive to privacy." Exactly what does that mean? This is a three (3) story house/home, pushed down an embankment. The inhabitants have no way of looking East -they are looking into the hillside, a wall. The street is above them. The house/home is built to focus West to take advantage of the view ... and Dan is going to fog up the windows so they cannot see out? The whole point of building in this location is to take advantage of the view, the elevation above the County flatland . To look out and down on people and the activities going on. It is the only thing that gives these lots any value what-so-ever. I mention that when Dan looks through those fuzzy windows he proposes, any of them -top floor or the "cellar," or opens them up for some fresh air, he will be looking into our 3rd floor bedroom, and that of at least one ( 1) other neighbor. He gets to look into the kitchen of the Townhome furthest South. Backyards are gone. If Dan was referencing his own privacy, I am not interested in hearing it. He certainly said nothing credible about ours. 12) "No perimeter fencing proposed, unless needed for privacy." Even an effective fence, which would have to be +50' tall, would not be a good idea. 13) "House has been moved furthest from adjacent properties." I am trying to think of any comment Dan has made in this Letter of Justification that is, or could possibly be more inaccurate. He moved the house/home down the hill, closer to the only "adjacent" homes there are. The Bella Vista homes are across the street. 14) "Natural features will be preserved on 86°/o of the lot. (13.4°/o lot coverage)." Not for the Townhome owners. All we get to see is that house. D. NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY: The Townhomes below. Dan compares his project with a Townhouse complex, arguing that his large single family home on a 53 ° slope should be treated as an extension of the Townhome complex. Just the opposite. We have limited space, small back yards, and we value each square foot more so than most. 12 Privacy. It is seriously unbelievable what Dan has said in this section about privacy. And consider this, too: those whose privacy is being invaded/taken look at the deprivation differently than those invading it. The same concept/attitude gap exists for trespassers versus prope11y owners . Construction Management. Based on the misrepresentations, the callous disregard for the neighbors, and based on my limited experience with spec- home builders, developers, and contractors, some of whom I have seen in action before assorted Town Councils/Commissions -one ( 1) was just a couple of weeks ago. The owner said he couldn 't remember the name of the contractor he used to do all that un-permitted work - I would not trust Mr. Ross to build this project in accordance with ... Period. Wouldn't trust him to build it, PERIOD. I can see the setting changing immediately after any approval is given. Once anything is approved, the trees will be cut, the lot gutted. This Commission will then be asked to change some of the requirements -after the damage is done. More likely, he will just build it any way he likes . Good luck forcing compliance after the fact. The legal term is "waste." He will be happy to just pay the fine. CONSULTATION WITH NEIGHBORS: I will have nothing to do with Mr. Ross or helping him with his project. He speculated on a hefty profit and has shown absolutely no regard for us. Thank you. Respectfully, Isl Patrick K. Tillman cc: Mary Badame (by e-mail) TownofLosGatos.Planning.0406 16 13 EXHIBIT 1 10-12-11 Planning Commission Da n Ross "After 2008, when we met with the neighbors and we met with Staff, we realized that the 145 Bella Vista plan was probably too big, because it does not have neighbors below, and we realized we should reduce the size of these plans". "The main issue with the property is privacy". "Our goal is to completely block the view. We do not want to have any eye to eye contact between the townhomes and us." "We removed a deck when we front the house and we removed some windows". "No matter where you stand on the lot, you 're going to look right into the Townhomes, whether it 's one level or two levels ." "Our slope averages 30%. The reason we're skewed to 53% partially is the drop-off at the road ." "We spent a lot of time during the escrow period coming in and talking to staff. We weren't going in this willy-nilly. We did take some risk , that is true." "We did spend a lot of time on Code and Guidelines and Variances to educate ourselves, because I don't do this for a living". "Back then what we heard a lot was mass and scale''. "The process that we were going through was to understand this mass and scale". "We met with an architect and with an engineer during the escrow period . We reviewed the slope. We spent a lot of time on this in the initial 60 days before we even took ownership of the lots to understand what these challenges might be". Commissioner #1 "It's a very difficult lot". Had you not known the history of the lot you would know it's a very, very, difficult lot. If you knew the history of the lot you'd know it was a really difficult lot. "A couple of houses on the West side clearly have garages in trouble." 14 "Access is very , very difficult. That street, somewhat because of the high school kids , can be problematic, and therefore, a driveway that is not well considered could cause you problems and there is a curve. That causes me a great deal of trouble". ·'I personally think that in a way I wish this lot had not been zoned for building. I think it is that bad of a lot. But it is zoned for building and therefore I think what the law would normally allow without any exceptions". "I'm having trouble with the cut and fill". "The basis seems to be gosh, if I build a small house there , what, I 'm not going to make as much money or it won't sell? It isn't crystal clear to me what it is , but normally we know that you can sell a small house but you get a smaller price ." "The idea of having a basement and therefore affecting the mass and scale doesn't seem to be discussed much here, and I agree with the speaker who said that's kind of why we have it, encourage basements to reduce mass and scale. I haven't seen that being effected here". "This is going to be a very difficult construction site to stage and which will cause real problems for the neighbors so the construction plan would have to be very, very well thought out". "We have to be very careful in comparing what the neighborhood is, because this west side of the street is so different than the east side of the street, so in comparing the size of the lots and the size of the homes, I for one, would discount, if not throw out, the east side and look only to the west side. "These are two very, very bad lots and that is crystal clear to everybody. I would want a dramatic reduction". "I personally think because the lot is so bad, that I would want a dramatic reduction in size". "I'm troubled by all those things .... dramatic reduction in the size and bulk and mass. I am concerned with the cut and filJ. I am concerned for safety purposes and so it's therefore perhaps more significant, although they're all significant, with the driveway. Commissioner #2 (To Dan Ross) So the shadow study isn't correct? Dan Ross -"You are right, that is incorrect". "I haven't seen a privacy concern and issue from neighbors that is this extreme". "And so that addresses for me this issue of bulk and mass , because in hillside buildings, we have to be very careful. One of the guidelines is that we have to watch out for the surrounding properties". "Issues with the tree removals and trees impacted by development". 15 Co mmi ssi o n e r #3 "I am very concerned about the children and the use of the street itself'. "Cars backing into that street while people are going up and down at the rate of speed that they do .......... .I just want to state straight out that this is one of my concerns. My second concern is the impact that the mass of the homes will have on the neighbors below .... the homes are too massive. The homes as they are constructed are larger than they need to be and the impact on the neighbors below as well as the hillside is something that I could not support". "A car backing into Bella Vista or having to park across the street because it 's unusable, I 'm not sure where they would park across the street, but that's a main issue for me.". "My main issues are the size of any proposed home and how you have the ingress/egress out of those homes.". Commissioner #4 "The size of the home doesn't seem appropriate for the neighbors and the particular site''. "With the topographical restraints and the proximity to the existing residences below, it does create a significant visual and privacy impacts on the resident's below and to the extent that one could both reduce the size and reduce the impact, that's desirable." "The size of the homes ............... needs to be significantly reduced." Commissioner #5 "These lots are terrible lots". "When you purchase a property you at least know the parameters you are expected to follow" . .. A 60 foot wall plane on adjacent neighbors ............... isn't a liveable situation." "I think you did a great job in terms of bl e nding the architectural style". 16 EXHIBIT 2 02-08-12 CONTINUED HEARING FROM 10-12-11 Dan Ross - "We would like input from neighbors and Commission". "We had a sense that the homes were too big considering we had townhomes below us and 145 Bella Vista Avenue did not have townhomes below them. So we took that upon ourselves to make that reduction. "We're having a hard time defining significant to still end up with a home that is liveable''. (When asked by [Commissioner] if he studied the previous owner's application that was denied) "Yes, we studied those minutes". Commission e r #1 "Three story e le vations are prohibited" "Regarding the architecture and site applications, I move to deny ....... bulk and mass". Commissioner #2 "You have a very difficult lot'' Commi ss ion e r #3 "My position has not changed. I would not approve the bulk and mass for this property". "It is massive when you look up at it". "It 's just too massive". Commis s ioner #4 "My concerns are the same as the last time". Number one, it was the mass of the buildings. Second was the safety issue and I'm very concerned about that street period. 17 EXHIBIT 3 April 2, 2012 TOWN COUNCIL APPEAL Dan Ross "I got approval from Town Staff' "I did not get clear information from the Planning Commission what a significant reduction was" "I did not get clear direction from the Planning Commission" "Application allows us to save primary tree" "want to meet with neighbors to solve challenges" "I'm not an experienced developer'' "I don't have a development record" "I can now make improvements to the floor plan" Councilperson #1 Traffic -"Very concerned about traffic" "Great potential for accidents" "It 's clear there are traffic issues" "Do not want to replicate the south side of Bella Vista" "The Hillside Standards and Guidelines provide for protection of neighbor and there is a pre- existing condition -Maggi Court and we have to protect those individuals on Maggi Court" Bulk and Mass -"Need to reduce mass significantly" "Issues at the site are not exclusive of FAR -mass of house, setting, tree removal , houses on West side". Councilperson #2 "Townhome view to hillside view is very powerful" Staff per son # 1 "Council decides applicable standards as to what can be built" Staff person #2 "Financial viability is beyond Town's ability to regulate or control " (When asked by XXXXXX about build-ability oflot) 18 EXHIBIT4 02-13-13-Study Session Dan Ross "mass and scale -not unusual plans in relation to mass and scale of neighbors" "need guidance if new plans satisfy guidance of prior Planning Commission hearings" "preserving the Oak tree" "reduced deck areas" "less cut and fill " "less impervious coverage" "always had concern for Maggi Court neighbors" "mixed signals from Town" "removed half of the rear facing windows" "complicated site" "Disagree that the house is massive'' Study ses s i o n pe rson #1 "Very bad lots" ''Two almost unbuildable lots" "Almost unbuildable" ·'Virtually not a buildable lot" "Very, very difficult lots" "You are on a steep building area" 19 "Lot of look to this thing -especially from downhill" "Don 't know how to solve your problem" "You have a problem I can't solve'' "Merging the lot and have one (1) big building not going to happen" "Does not need tweaking from a study session "Buildings are big -they are on a side of a hill" "Three stories" "Not our job to solve design issues -applicants problem" "You are on a steep building area" "Comply with the requirements" "Have a fundamental problem" Study session person #2 "Have you been down to the townhomes and looked up"? "Problem lies below with your neighbors" Study sessi on person #3 "Difficult lots -Gu idance written in the HDSG" "Mass from below due to site" ·'Bring something meeting all guidelines in place" "Views to block Maggi -what have you done" Study session person #4 "Ample feedback given from Staff, Planning Commission, Town Council to determine workability. "Fundamental underlying issues -the same" "Concern with safety -driveway, curb" 20 April 6 , 2016 Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos Timothy S. and Judith A. Coughlin 320 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 356-8092 LGVision@Comcast.Net Community Development Department 11 O 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: RECE\VED APR 7 -2016 TOWN Of LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISlON 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. • 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. Th is is a significant hazard as the driveway is steep. • How will increased traffic be mitigated? How will the safety for bicyclists be ensured? How will fire-engine access be assured? We urge you to deny the application . Thank you. Sincerely, Tim and Judy Coughlin The Town 's Tree Protection Ordinance states : Sec. 29 .10.0950. Intent. This division is adopted because the Town of Los Gatos is forested by many native and non- native trees, and contains individual trees of great beauty. The health and welfare of the citizens of the Town require that these trees be saved in order to preserve the scenic beauty of the Town, prevent erosion of topsoil , provide protection against flood hazards and risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. Trees contri bute significantly to the value of land in the Town . It is the intent of this division to regulate the removal of trees within the Town in order to reta in as many trees as possible consistent with the purpose of this section and the reasonable use of private property. It is the intent of this d ivision to preserve as many protected trees as possible throughout the Town through staff review and the development review process. Special provisions regarding hillsides are included in Section 29.10 .0987 of this d ivision in recognition of the unique biological and environmental differences between the hillside and non-hillside areas of the Town . This section does not supersede the provisions of Chapter 26 of this Code . (Ord. No . 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.0987 . Special Provisions-Hillsides The Town of Los Gatos recognizes its hillsides as an important natural resource and sensitive habitat which is also a key component of the Town's identity, character and charm . In order to maintain and encourage restoration of the hillside environment to its natural state, the Town has established the following special provisions for tree removal and replacement in the hillsides : (1) All protected trees located 30 or more feet from the primary residence that are removed shall be replaced with native trees listed in Appendix A Recommended Native Trees for Hillside Areas of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). (2) All protected trees located within 30 feet of the primary residence that are removed shall be replaced as follows: (a) If the removed tree is a native tree listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G, it shall only be replaced with a native tree listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G. (b) If the removed tree is not listed in Appendix A, it may be replaced with a tree listed in Appendix A, or replaced with another species of tree as approved by the Director. (c) Replacement trees listed in Appendix A may be planted anywhere on the property. (d) Replacement trees not listed in Appendix A may only be planted within 30 feet of the primary residence. (3) Replacement requirements shall comply with the requirements in Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement Standard of this Code. ( 4) Property owners should be encouraged to retain dead or declining trees where they do not pose a safety or fire hazard , in order to foster wildlife habitat and the natural renewal of the hillside environment. Sec. 29.10.0960. Scope of protected trees . This division shall apply to every property owner and to every person, corporation, partnership, sole proprietorship or other entity responsible for removing, maintaining or protecting a tree . The trees protected by this division are : (1) All trees wh ich have a twelve-inch or greater diame ter (thirty-seven and one-half-inch circumference) of any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eighteen inches or greater diameter (fifty-six and one-half inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed residential property. (2) All trees which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five-inch circumference) of . any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees , a total of eight inches or greater diameter (twenty- five-inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed Hillside residential property. (3) All trees of the following species which have an eight-inch or greater diameter (twenty-five- inch circumference) located on developed residential property: a . Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii) b. Black Oak (Quercus kellogii) c. California Buckeye (Aesculus californica) d . Pacific Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) (4) All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. Page 5 (5) Any tree that existed at the time of a zoning approval or subdivision approval and was a specific subject of such approval or otherwise covered by subsection (6) of this section (e.g ., landscape or site plans). (6) Any tree that was required by the Town to be planted or retained by the terms and conditions of a development application , building permit or subdivision approval in all zoning districts, tree removal permit or code enforcement action . (7) All trees, which have a four-i nch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk and are located on property other than developed residential property. (8) All publicly owned trees growing on Town lands, public places or in a public right-of-way easement, which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk. (9) A protected tree shall also include a stand of trees, the nature of which makes each dependent upon the other for the survival of the stand. (10) The following trees shall also be considered protected trees and shall be subject to the pruning permit requirements set forth in Section 29.10.0982 and the public noticing procedures set forth in Section 20.10.0994: a . Heritage trees b . Large protected trees (Ord . No. 2114, §§I, II , 8-4-03) This Page 1 ntentionally Left Blank