Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 04 - 19 Highland Ave - Staff Report Exh.32-33
The purpose of this document is to provide simple , concise , and straight forward responses to the comments, dated August I 0, by Ms. Lisa Roberts. We will respond to additional comments from the other appellants as those documents become available . Additionally, my team and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. RECEIVED Attaclunents: AUG 1 8 2016 1. Neighbor Meetings 2. Neighbor Emails T OWN OF LOS GATOS 3 S f h d · 1 gth Pl · C . . H . PLANNING DIVISION . ummary o c anges rna e smce une annmg ommtsswn eanng 4. Excerpt from Page 3.9, Chapter 3 of Guide lines and Standards for Land Use N ear Streams 5. Colored Rendering 6. Arborist Memo CEQA It is our understanding that the Town has prepared an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, although we have not seen the addendum as of the writing of this letter (8 /17/16). Commission Comments and Direction at June 8th Hearing We agree with the appellants that the primary concerns of the Planning Commission were with regard to the setback from the creek, the length of retaining wall , the amount of encroachment outside the LRDA, the bulk and mass of the home, and CEQA compliance. We differ as to the degree of change expected . We acknowledge that some members of the Planning Commission requested a smaller home , but the discussion of floor area was not a consensus and did not represent the bulk of the conversation. This is not a significantly large home by Los Gatos standards. Moreover, the perceived mass of a home is affected not only by the size of the house itself but also by the design of the home and the size of the lot. The home is located on a large Jot and is tucked into the hillside. The home will not be significantly visible due to its location and topography. The project, as proposed , is appropriate given the constraints and shape of the site (long and narrow). We acknowledge that the building encroaches outside the LRDA. However, the LRDA takes many constraints into account including topography on slopes over 30%, drainage courses, visibility from offsite, and significant ridgelines . This home is not on a ridgeline and is not significantly visible from offsite. We contend that an exception to the LRDA is appropriate because the proposed location best responds to site constraints, providing a larger setback to the creek, reducing the length .of retaining walls, reducing the number of trees to be removed , and reducing the overall mass of the home by lowering the home into the slope and stepping it into the hillside . We feel that we have made significant changes to the project as a whole (Attachment 3). We believe that the creek setback was the most significant area of concern and we have redesigned the home to meet the 20-foot setback recommended by the Town biologist and the Department of Fish and Game. By moving the home further from the creek, we were also able to save several trees that will contribute to the stability of the creek bank. We trust that the CEQA Addendum prepared by the Town satisfies the requirements of CEQA, given that the project as modified does not create any new significant impacts not already mitigated in the Negative Declaration, and in fact reduces impacts to the creek. £Xl:ilBlT 3 2 C reek Setback We acknowledge that there are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un- named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Nea r Streams recommends setbacks for slope stability 1 , ranging from 10-to 15-feet for ephemeral streams and 25-to 20-feet for intermittent streams. Where a range is given, the Local Agency will determine the appropriate setback based on their existing priorities , permitting processes, and on-site conditions. Furthermore, creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below the top of bank will occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In this case , the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previo usly determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10- feet for the driveway would not be significant. Regardless of this flexibility, the home will be setback at least 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. This 20-foot setback is also consistent with the recommendations of the December 8, 2003 draft Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFG for development of the s ubject property (CDFG Notification No. 16000-2003-5246-3). In addition, the driveway and paved surfaces will be setback a minimum 1 0-feet from the top of bank; consistent with regional and state guidelines. Appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed , implemented and maintained. With regard to the cantilevered section of the home and deck , buildings and decks may overhang or encroach into a creek setback but "may not overhang or encroach beyond or within the top of bank" (emphasis added) per the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streaml (Attachment 4). Consistency with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG) The appellants have stated that the project is not consistent with the HDSG. We disagree. Architecturally, the colors and materials h elp blend the home with the natural environment. The home is responsive to site constraints most notably the creek setback. The design reflects the hillside setting by stepping the home into the topography and including natural wood materials. The home is "neighbor friendly" in that the size and topography of the site provide natural privacy. The home will be designed for sustainability and fire safety. The building height is compliant with Town code and the HDSG. Breaks in the fayade through articulation of wall and roof planes help reduce the building 's mass . The rooflines are broken into smaller components and are generally oriented in the same direction as the natural slope of the terrain with the exception of a few shed roofs that are used to reduce height and building mass . Massing is further minimized through the use of neutral tan and brown colors and materials repeated on all sides of the building. Taken together, these design features reduce the perceived massing of the structure, as illustrated by the colored rendering (Attachment 5). 1 Page 3.8, Chapter 3 of Guidelin es and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, August 2005 and revi sed Jul y 2006 2 Page 3.9 , Chapter 3 of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, August 2005 and rev ised July 2006 Neighborhood Input As provided in Attachments 1 and 2 , I have made considerable effort to meet and communicate with the appellant s and incorporate changes requested by the Planning Commission and the neighbors. It is the degree to which those changes have been made that is in conflict. However, I believe that the current proposal before the Planning Commission is fair to all. These changes include increasing the creek setback, reducing the number of trees proposed for removal , reducing the amount of retaining walls , reducing the footprint of the home , stepping the structure down the slope th ereby reducing the height of the home a s seen from th e road, redesigned the 2nd story office massing, reducing the bulk and mass on the creek side elevation, reducing the floor area, increasing the amount of wood siding , and providing more undulation in the driveway. On June 12 1h a few days after the Planning Commission meeting, I met with three of the four 3 appellants on the property to discuss the project. When we asked what an acceptable floor area would be, we were told that it is not the appellant 's job to design the project and to "be creative". Cindy and I then had some time to discuss the neighbor 's feedback as well as our own needs prior to meeting with th e architect on June 25 1h. Following our meeting with the architect , we indicated it would take time to coordinate with the architect, the engineer, and the surveyor4 . While we made a determined effort to get the plans completed sooner, Ms. Roberts has expressed her frustration that draft plans were not available until July I 01 h. As provided below, a complete set of printed5 plans, colored renderings , Arborist Report, etc. were provided to the appellants on July 12'\ giving them nine (9) days to review the plans prior to the July 21 st packet submittal date and just over 2-weeks before the July 27th Hearing date (respectively, 5-to 6- weeks before the August Hearing). Additionally, I made my Arborist available to Ms. Roberts for any questions she had (Attachment 6). In addition to holding meetings with the appellants and my architect, the following items have been provided to the appellants to assist them in reviewing the project: 1) A complete set of architectural plans 2) A complete set of civil plans 3) Colored landscape plan 4) Colored 3D renderings from seven angles 5) Footprint comparison between March 2016 DRC approval and August 24th proposal 6) Arborist Report and follow-up memos 7) Phone call between Lisa Roberts and Arborist 8) Staking of new footprint on subject property 3 A s eparate meetin g was pre vious ly set between Dede Smullen and Cindy earlier in th e day. 4 Re fer ence June 251h e mail on page 2 of20 of Attachment 2 5 We as ked the appellants to re spect th e architect's copyright and were not comfortable providing PDFs until we were confide nt that the plans were final. We provide d a link o nce they were a vailable online and part of th e record . Tree Removal, Retention, and Protection Plan Please also see memo from Arborist (Attachment 6). Per the 2016 Arborist Report , the subject property contains 86 trees6 , including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot. Seventy-nine (79) mature trees (92%) are to be retained. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in accordance with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. The project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal (#s 8, 13, 21 , 27 , 30 , 38, 39, 40 , 62). Preservation of tree #s 27, 30 , 38, 39, and 40 will provide more stability to the creek bank, minimizing potential for erosion and sedimentation into the creek. Twenty-two (22) trees will require tree protection measures during construction. Based on the site survey comparison with the 201 0 Arborist Report, we acknowledge that the previous property owner removed 18 trees including 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24 , 26, 28 , 37 , 64 , 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55, 58 , 67). The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. Although not directly affected by the project, one tree (#56) requires removal; it is infested with ambrosia beetles , is half-dead , and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Six (6) trees (#s 16 , 17 , 21 , 25, 60, 61) will be highly impacted by the project and require removal. Tree # 16 is in poor condition with poor structure and codominant stems . Tree # 17 is in fair health and has a bowed stem. Tree # 21 is in fair health and has poor structure with significant lean . Tree # 25 is in fair health and will be highly impacted by the project. Tree # 60 is also in fair health with a low live crown ratio. Tree # 61 is in poor health with the top removed. 6 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 45 trees previously inventoried (63 minus 18 removed). Neighbor Meetings 1. 3/11/2016-Met with Teres a Spalding and presented project to her. We discus sed project for about 30 minutes. Her only concern was the fire turnaround and if I could screen it with some tree cover. I agreed and said it would be in my final landscape plan. She then gave me a letter dated 3111 /2016 stating her approval and support for the project. 2 . 3112/2016 -Me t with Badame and his wife . Presented project to him, they both looked at it and had no comments . Said they would get back to me in a couple days. Badame sends 12 page opposition letter to town before DRC meeting on 3/29 /2016 . He did not contact me with any feedback whatsoever. 3 . 3/19/2016-Met with Peter Rehon (Lisa Roberts husband) and went over project with him. He thought it was a well-planned project and was an attractive home . He mentioned that he fully supported the past owner Dr. Orphan and his project in 2010 . He stated that he fully supports me being able develop m y site and looks forward to having a new neighbor. Mr. Rehon said his wife Lisa was not home at the time and wanted to setup a time for me to meet with her. Her main concern was the retention and protection of tree #30. We emailed several times during the first week of April2016, that is when she sent me the tree #30 contract. 4. 3/26/2016-Meeting at the smullen 's house. Ofthe four appellants, only Dede Smullen and Lisa Roberts were in attendance. Badame and Spalding did not attend. 5 . 4/6/2016-Meeting with Dede Smullen at her home to discuss issues regarding the easement that runs through my property. The Smullen's use this easement for ingress/egres s to access their home at 25 Highland . We spoke about how the current paved road is not at all where easement states it is. I expressed my concern about this. She said she would look into it. To date, she has not contacted me in any way concerning this issue. 6 . 5/7/2016-Meeting with the four appellants at the Smullen 's house. Of the four appellants, only Dede Smullen attended. Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding were not in attendance . After meeting, sent text to Roberts stating I spent a lot oftime preparing presentation and received no response. At 2:45 on the same day, Anthony Badame sent text saying sorry he missed meeting and would like to meet. I replied at 2:46 saying "I would be happy to show him and his wife my new items anytime . Following the May continuance, and June gth Hearing: 7. 6/12/16 -Cindy met with Dede Smullen 8. 6/12/16-Met with Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding on the property 9 . 7/10116-Met with Dede Smullen, Lisa Roberts , and Anthony Badame at the Smullen's house to discuss the draft plans 10 . 7/16/16--Met with Ded e Smullen, Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding at the Smullen 's house to discuss the submitted plans Emails regarding Meetings and Plans Page 1 of20 On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:03PM, [19 Highland] wrote: I hope thi s group makes it easier to communicate given everyone's bus y schedule. And hopefully it is also a bit more organized than random emails. On Monday, June 13, 2016 9:51 PM, Cindy wrote: Hi all You should receive an email inviting you to a yahoo group. This group allows us to email one address that is dispersed to all. It also retains all of the correspondence in one location for access when you want it. Hopefully this will eliminate lost correspondence. Group home page: Group email address: Cindy Invite Email will look like this : You have been invited to join 19Highland group! Join this group! From: Cindy Sue Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:47 PM To: Lisa Roberts Subject: Yahoo group Hi Lisa Ill send you another link. Calll me if you have any issues. Check your spam folder for "yahoo group" You should be able to just click on the button "to join". Anthony was able to join using hi s "Badame" email account so you shouldn't run into too much of an issue .... Cindy Page 2 of20 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Cindy wrote: P.s. You might also be able to join by clicking on the following link , then requesting to join ... https:/ I groups.yahoo.com/19Highland Cindy On Jun 19, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Hi Cindy: First, I want to ask you if you would please thank Ed for removing the signs facing my pr~perty . I very much appreciate this. Second, I do not believe I have received an invite. I checked my junk mail as well. If you would not mind sending me another invitation I would appreciate it. Thank you, Lisa On Jun 25, 2016, at 2:36PM, [19Bighland] wrote: Anthony, Dede, Lisa, and Teresa, Ed and I met with the architect today. We will be making the following changes to the plans (in no particular order): -Increasing the creek setback -Reducing the length of retaining walls -Reducing the footprint outside the LRDA -Reducing the floor area -Reducing the number of trees proposed for removal The precise numbers are a work in progress . However, we wanted to at least let you know that we are making all o(these changes. The plans need to be drafted by the architect , reviewed by us, revised by the architect, and then coordinated with the engineer. Cheers! Cindy Page 3 of20 On Jul1, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Cindy Sue> wrote: All- Let's find a date after July 6th to get together to discuss the plans. You can assume that you will have the plans no later than July 7th -.so feel free to schedule as needed to give you adequate time to review the plans. I've created a doodle poll to help in this endeavor. I 've included a number of dates and times, so hopefully we can find something that works for everyone. http :I I doodle.coml po1Vvh9 g4r8 gg8 gzmsqd if you prefer to have the meeting with Town staff, please let us know and we will try and arrange something during the day that works for everyone. **In terms of the design changes, Ed wants this site and the home to be beautiful, like many other projects he has worked on in Los Gatos over the last 20 years . He takes great pride in his work and his attention to detail. Just ask any of the current I recently retired Los Gatos building inspectors . From: Cindy Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 5:04PM To: 19highland; Lisa Roberts Subject: Re: group meeting Hi again Ed and I thought it might be helpful if we had two meetings. We could explain all the changes to you all in the first meeting. Then, you all could take some time to think about the changes before we meet again. So, hopefully we can find a time to meet next weekend to present the changes. And then you all can pick a time after that to meet again. When you go to the doodle poll, be sure to expand the full calendar. There are a number of options available. ***Also -please let us know ASAP if you are ok with us moving/removing the logs that are in the area where we need to stake off the new footprint. Best, Cindy and Ed Page 4 of20 On Jul 3, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Thank you for your emails. I am still unable to join the Yahoo group because my email address is not recognized, and I appreciate your copying me on the emails. Thank you for setting up the poll for meetings, but I would like to suggest an alternative. My experience has been that it takes too much time to set up meetings by poll because there are too many choices over too long a period of time and by the time everyone gets their choices in their calendars have changed. Can you let us know when you and Ed are available so we can go from there? At this point, I am generally available during the days this coming weekend, but I would like to get something on the calendar as soon as possible if we are to meet then. I assume that you are referring to logs from trees that were cut down for the construction and that they are not piled near the creek. If so, this is a very different issue from the clearing that was done recently, and I have no objection to the removal of the logs. Thanks, Lisa From: Cindy Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 8 :28AM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: ed pearson yahoogroups All I still think the doodle poll is the most efficient way to coordinate 5+ schedules. Ive heard what you said about too many choices, so I've created a new poll down with two dates : this Saturday or Sunday with three time-slots each: 1 Oam, 1 pm, or 4pm. Anyone can sign up through the following link : http:// doodle. com/poll/64nxadk4 xcf2 g9yn However, if the group prefers to schedule by email, go ahead and pick or suggest a time that works for everyone. Here are the dates from the poll: \ Saturday 9th at 1 Oam, 1 pm, or 4pm Sunday 1 Otb at 1 Oam , 1 pm, or 4pm PS. We haven't heard from anyone else about the logs so we will leave them for now. Cindy Page 5 of20 On Jul4, 2016, at 8:54AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Thank you Cindy for limiting the days-I'rn easy, currently available any of the three times Saturday or Sunday. On Jul4, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Teresa Spalding wrote: Hi Everyone, I'm away July 8-10 so just an FYI. Thanks, Teresa On Tue, Jul5, 2016 at 4:33PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Let's find something that works for Teresa. How about Monday, July 11th in the evening? Cindy From: Anthony Badame Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 5:14PM To: Cindysuemc Cc: Teresa Spalding; Lisa Roberts; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: Re: group meeting Weekday evenings are difficult for me. Anthony On Jul5, 2016, at 5:36PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Also, I would like to see the plans as soon as possible. If Anthony and/or Dede can make it over the weekend and it is okay with Teresa, perhaps we can go ahead and meet, and, depending on the information and changes, perhaps we can explain to Teresa or another meeting can be set. Thanks, Lisa Page 6 of20 On Jul5, 2016, at 7:05PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: I am free after 1:30pm on Saturday and after 11 am on Sunday; Monday night works as well any time. Yours, Dede On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:30PM, T eresa Spalding wrote: I'm fine if everybody wants to meet this weekend. I can see the plans possibly this week. .... Teresa Sent from my iPad On Jul5, 2016, at 7:54PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Ok. It sounds like Sunday at 4pm works for everyone except Teresa who Ed can meet with later. Please confirm . Where do you want to meet? Cindy On Jul5, 2016, at 7:57PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Smullen pool house works Yours, Dede On Tue, Jul5, 2016 at 9:45PM, Cindy wrote: Great. Thanks! Cindy Page 7 of20 On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 8:30AM, "Anthony Badame [19Highland]" wrote: Hi All , See you at the pool house this Sunday at 4pm. Anthony On Jul7, 2016, at 1:54PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Hi Cindy, The strange email that you received from Yahoo probably was related to me. I have tried everything I can think of to join the group but still have not been successful. Thank you for continuing to copy me on emails. I will be at the meeting on Sunday but I understand that the plans were going to be co~plete by today or tomorrow. I would appreciate an opportunity to review them before the meeting. Can you email them to me? Thank you, Lisa Sent from my iPhone From: Cindysuemc Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:10PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding; Anthony Badame; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: Plans -delayed a few days All We took another look at the neighbor comments and asked the architect and civil engineer to make some additional changes. This has delayed our receipt of the plans by a few days . We hope you understand but this is to everyone's benefit. We still have a goal to meet Sunday with the plans . Cindy Page 8 of20 On Jul8, 2016, at 6:53PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Dear Ed, I am extremely disappointed and concerned that , according to Cindy's email yesterday, we will not receive the plans as promised. We were told we would have them by no later than yesterday. Already, we were being prejudiced by late delivery of the plans, and , now, we will be even further prejudiced. You and your architect have had over 4 weeks to prepare and provide the plans, and your delays are limiting our ability to review and respond. It was your architect that persuaded the Planning Commission to set the next hearing on the earliest available date, and she knew the Commission wanted neighbor input. She must have known her workload at the time-including the fact that she was going to be so busy that she would not even be able to meet with you and start on the revised plans for 2 Yz weeks. Those lost 2 Yz weeks have not harmed you. You have taken and are continuing to take the time you want to revise the plans. The lost time hurts only us and our time for review. Now, you are not even guaranteeing that the plans will be available by Sunday, apparentl y only shooting for that as your "goal." As I told you in my June 23 email, it is imperative that we see the plans as soon as possible. There are four appellants with conflicting work, family, and summer schedules (not to mention additional representatives and experts) who need to review, analyze, and discuss the plans prior to the next hearing. I am sure you are aware of the em ails and efforts that were necessary to set up Sunday's meeting. The meeting was predicated on the assurance that we would have the plans by yesterday. It was also set based on Anthony's medical practice that does not accommodate meetings during the week. If Sunday's meeting does not go forward , the delay will not be simply a day or so but at least a full week or more. Already, the hearing is only 2 Yz weeks away (the same amount of time frittered away by your architect). A further delay would be completely unacceptable, and, if that happens, I would expect that you would request a continuance of the hearing. I am not persuaded by your explanation for the further delay. If, indeed, you are holding the plans while you make additional changes to address neighbor comments, then please provide the plans in their current form and advise us of the specific additional changes that you are making. Otherwise, I have to conclude that the assertion that the delay will benefit us is just a subterfuge to justify your failure to meet your promised deadline. I would also be interested in hearing what prompted you to take another look at the neighbor comments. It is not as if you just received them. You have been well aware of them since the June 8 hearing if not earlier. With a few exceptions, they are precisely the same comments and concerns raised and publicly stated to you by the Commission itself. Dede and I thereafter summarized the Commissioners' comments for you, but that also was weeks ago, plus I am sure that neither you nor your architect were waiting for us to recap the comments. Also, you rejected my recap, and the Commissioners' comments for that matter. You continue to insist that your plans conform to Town requirements. You have been generally dismissive of neighbor comments both before and after the June 8 hearing. I find it unli kel y that, having declined to take much of a first look at our comments, you have decided to take another look and at this late stage. I think it more likely that your architect has simply not timely completed the plans. I hope Page 9 of20 you show otherwise by providing the current plans and list of additional changes a s I have requested . As you know, I was very shocked at the falsehoods leveled by you via your architect at the June 8 hearing. I was willing to accept your explanation of a misunderstanding, but now it seems like you are again trying to set up a fayade. Until I see evidence to the contrary, the plan delay is not the benefit that you assert but simply an excuse for the prejudice being caused the neighbors . In the same way, your response to our objections to your recent damage to the creek seems calculated to make you appear to be responsive and responsible without actually being either. I wholeheartedly agree with Dede 's assessment of that situation. You deliberately had the offending work done without notice to us , and , now, you are equating it with trifles in order to justify your conduct. You assert that, only in hindsight, did you realize that we might be skeptical of your actions, and you are now purporting to advise us of every little thing that goes on at the property including log removal and the presence of your surveyor. That is ridiculous. The work at, on, and affecting the creek was not a matter ofhindsight but foresight. You admit you considered advising us of your planned work, and the reason you considered doing that is obvious. The preservation of the creek and its habitat is front and center in our appeal of your project. It is also of critical importance to the Commission and the town of Los Gatos it represents. It was the main topic of discussion at the June 8 hearing. It was the subject of the majority ofthe Commission's comments. You yourselfretained one or more experts to address the issue. You had every reason to know, and surely did know, that work affecting the creek would be of considerable concern to us, and the only plausible explanation for your failure to advise us of the planned work was to deprive us of an opportunity to stop it. Regarding trifles, please do not attempt to use them to justify further delay. As Dede pointed out, equating damage to the creek with log removal is beyond the pale. Cindy warned in her Jul y 4th email that you will not be able to provide a new site plan unless we tell you it is okay to move the logs. She is also now letting us know such things as when your surveyor will be on the - property, as if we have asked for such information. Our appeal involves the creek, tree removal, construction, and the other issues outlined in our documents and at the hearing. You will recall that log removal and surveyor presence are not among those issues. Your requesting and/or demanding our input on those matters is clearly intended to distract from our actual concerns as well as, apparently, to set up additional justifications for your own delays. We have done nothing to delay you. To the contrary, we have devoted considerable time and resources in an attempt to provide the input specifically requested by the Commission, including providing you with our detailed recaps of the Commission's comments, participating in email communications from you and Cindy, and in setting aside our other responsibilities in anticipation of reviewing the plans and meeting with you. In return, we have received absolutely no meaningful information regarding your revised plans or intended changes on which we can make ariy comment. I set aside time today and this weekend in the expectation of reviewing the plans. I have set aside 4 :00 Sunday afternoon for the meeting. The other appellants have made similar accommodations for this meeting, including Teresa who is out of town tbis weekend but has graciously agreed that the meeting can go forward without her and that she can be updated upon her return. I expect the meeting with plan review to go forward. I also sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position on the plans and provide what you have and what you still intend to do , and that you do so as soon as possible by email or otherwise prior to the meeting. Thank you , Lisa From: Cindy Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:25PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding; Anthony Badame; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: We will see you Sunday All Page 10 of20 We will see you all on Sunday at 4pm. The architect will also be there with the plans. We will have copies of the site plan and renderings for you all. We will explain the reason for the delay when we see you. However, I assure you that the delay was to benefit the setback to the creek. · Ed and Cindy On Jul8, 2016, at 7:27PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Thank you for your prompt response. I will see you on Sunday. On Friday, July 8, 2016 7:47PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: P.s. You (as a group) have criticized us for making changes to the plans after you received them. So , based on that criticism, we decided that it would be best to give you the plans AFTER a major change was made. Now you are criticizing us for not giving you draft plans. We are trying to design a home so that what is accomplished fair to all. We will provide the copies when we see you on Sunday. Everyone is working over the weekend to ensure this happens. Thank you for your understanding. Ed and Cindy Page 11 of 20 On Tue, Jul12, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Cindy Sue wrote: Hi all I want to point out that the plan copies being provided to you are not public record. They have been provided to you as a courtesy before the plans are made part of the public record. If there are any substantive changes, we will let you know. The hard copies are for your personal reference and you should respect the architect's copyright. I also want to point out that the plan copies being provided to you have not been authorized for distribution. Dede -If you want to copy a print copy for Roger Sr. and Mercy Smullen, you are welcome to do so. You will have access to the final plans through the Town once made a part of the public record. If you have questions about that, you could ask Town staff. Lisa is an attorney so m aybe she can fill you in on copyright law once the final plans become part of the public record. To reiterate , you should not distribute these plans to anyone else as they are not part of the public record. Cindy From: Cindy Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:48AM To: Lisa Roberts; yahoogroups ; Subject: Sat 1 pm (July 16) Hi You all should have received (or have access to) the plans by now. I would like to confirm our meeting on Saturday (July 16) at 1 pm at the Smullen pool house. Ed and Cindy From: Lisa Roberts < To: Cindy< yahoogroups < Sent: Wednesday, July 13,2016 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Sat 1 pm (Jul y 16) Cindy: Did you have a response to Anthony's request for the draft 3D renderings? Thanks , Li sa Page 12 of20 On JuJ 13, 2016, at 1:24PM, Cindy McCormick [19Highland] wrote: Hi Lisa- We will ask Bess to attend -she has been putting in a lot ofhours to get these drawings to you all . ahead of when they go out to the public. I am trying to be conscientious of her time, but Ed understands its important to you, so we will do our best to get her there. I'm not sure if she is even available -but we will ask. stay tuned .... As for the 3D renderings, Town staff suggested we incorporate the topography (and we agree)- so Bess is doing that now. it will take a little longer to do that. But we will get them to you as soon as possible. Thanks and see you all in a few days. Cindy On Jul13, 2016, at 1:33PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Are you saying these drawings have not been submitted to the City yet? We saw a cover letter dated yesterday. Yours, Dede On Wed, Jul13, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: Dede We turned in the plans and arborist report on Monday (exactly as you received) so that staff can prepare their report. The 3D drawings are not a required submittal so we can take a little more time on those . Cindy On Jul13, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Thank you for the copies, that makes it much easier on us. We really appreciate it. But just to clarify, we did not get this current set of plans ahead of the public as you submitted them to the City on Monday. Thank you again for delivering the copies . Dede Page 13 of20 On Wed, Jul13, 2016 at 2:25PM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: De De They are not online and staff will not give the public a copy because they are copyright material. Most cities honor copyright at the counter including Saratoga and Campbell. You have a copy of something that is not being distributed to the public (or the Planning Commission) until next Thursday or Friday (as far as I know unless Los Gatos does it different) That's all I meant :) Cindy On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:37PM, "Dorothea Smullen [19Highland]" wrote: Once it's submitted to the City its a matter of public record per the Brown Act. Anyone can ask to see it and get copies for a fee. Thank you again for providing us with a copy so we do not have to go to the City. Dede From: Cindy Sue Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:40 AM To: yahoogroups; Anthony Badame; Lisa Roberts; Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding Subject: packet deadlines hi All- I thought you might fmd this informative. I requested this information from Sally: deadline for packet submission: llam on Thursday July 21st. PLANNING COMMISSION-PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINES: Comments received by 11 am the Thursday prior to Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Agenda and Staff Report Distribution Comments received by 11am the Fri-Mon-Tue prior to the Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Addendum and usually distributed by email and hard copies on the dais Comments received by 11am Wednesday/Day of the Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Desk Item and distributed by email and hard copies on the dais Page 14 of20 Presentations/PowerPoints on thumb drives have a lPM deadline the day of the meeting (For security reasons , the Town provides a dedicated laptop that staff will upload your presentation onto) PLANNING COMMISSION-PUBLIC COMMENT/WRITTEN MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT THE MEETING: 15 Copies of written/display materials are needed for the Planning Commission and staff On Fri, Jul15, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy: Thank you for the information. Ed and Cindy: I mentioned weeks ago when we had received nothing while your architect was too busy to work on this matter that I was concerned that we would not be given sufficient time to review the revised plans, have a meaningful dialogue with you regarding them , and, if necessary, prepare for the hearing that was set at the then-earliest available date based on your architect's request (and I would say implied assurance to the Commission and us that she had the time to prepare the plans in a sufficiently timely manner to allow the neighborhood input that the Commission expressly requested). The actions of your architect and you have shown that I was right to be concerned, and , now , with Cindy's email stating that we have less than a week to submit comments for inclusion in the Agenda and Staff Report Distribution, I am extremely alarmed and dismayed. You have failed even to provide us with sufficient information to comment to the Commission, much less engage in any dialogue with you, which of course was the main purpose of the Commission's request for neighbor input-to see if we could reach a resolution on any or all items of concern. As you know , we received no plans from you until last Sunday, after your architect had frittered away weeks at the beginning of the continuance time between hearings , after the date that even you set for providing the plans , and, as far as I can tell, for no good-reason other than to limit our time to review and respond. (As I have said before, I was not persuaded by your last-minute assertion that you suddenly decided to reconsider our comments and rework the plans , and I find the excuse even less credible given your explanation last Sunday that the additional rework was to move the creek setback, which you had already told us weeks ago that you were going to do). Even now, we have not received the information we need and have requested. You refuse even to respond to Anthony's request for a pdf of the plans. You refuse even to commit to a date on which we will receive 3D renderings even though, as I now understand it, they should be already be on your architect's computer program. Nor have you yet confirmed one way or the other whether your architect will be at the meeting tomorrow. You will recall that you told us she would be at the last meeting but she did not show, and , as I have stated, I have questions best answered by her. Page 15 of20 Even as to the new arborist's report, you promi sed last Sunday that I would receive them the next day, but I was not given the report until the day after-and then with copies of a package including cover letter to the Town plaiU1ers that you had delivered to the Town, but not us, the preceding day. The package was quite a surprise to me , given your representations to us the day before that you had not provided anything to the Town planners , that you had not spoken with them, and that you were not going to provide anything to them or speak with them ab out your revised plans because the project was no longer before them but solely in front of the Planning Commission which alone would revi ew the plans and d eci de the matter. Now, Cindy has explained that you provided the documents so Town staff could prepare its report. I can only conclude that your contrary comments on Sunday were to dissuade us from commwlicating with the Town planners ourselves. For the meeting tomorrow, would you please immediately: 1. Confirm that your architect will be at the meeting. 2. Provide u s with the 3D renderings . 3. Provide Anthony (as well , by the way, as Dede) with a pdf of the plans . 4. Respond to our earlier question whether you will or will not be readjusting the story poles. 5. Be prepared to discuss what, if any, further revisions you would consider making to the plans. Additionally, I have a specific question I would like answered at or before the meeting regarding Tree 30 and how you are proposing to protect it during construction. Are you proposing fencing at the recommended 5 times the DBH or the minimum 3 times the DBH or something else and if so what? And even more specifically, how much of the now-20 feet area that you say would lie between the tree and the structure foo tprint would be designated as the tree protection zone? I look forward to your prompt response. Lisa From: Cindy Sue Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:39 PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: yahoogroups; Anthony Badame; Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding ed pearson Subject: Re: packet deadlines All Please be respectful of the time that has been spent putting these plans together. Page 16 of20 here is a link to the plans: http ://www.losgatosca.gov/2216/Pending-Planning-Pro jects I ask again that you respect the architect's copyright, as I have requested in previous emails to everyone. July 1Oth -We met with you and provided preliminary plans to you on Sunday, July 1Oth. Bess spent all day Saturday through the next day Sunday to prepare these plans. Bess and her staff spent all evening Sunday and all day Monday finishing the plans. Yes, she and her staff working overtime to meet the deadline -even when you continue to berate her. The plans were turned in to the Town on Monday July 11th at approximately 5pm. We made copies on Monday evening and notified you on Monday evening that the plans would be available the next day. We dropped off copies to Lisa's house on Tuesday, July 12th. July 12th-July 21st= -8-9 days to review the plans before the Packet deadline. July 12th-July 26th= ~13-14 days to review the plans before the Addendum deadline. July 12th-July 27th= ~14-15 days to review the plans before the Desk Item deadline. July 12th-July 27th=~ 15 days to review the plans before the Hearing begins. July 16th -Ed and Bess will be available to answer other questions you have tomorrow - Saturday at 1 pm at the Smullen pool house. 3D Renderings are not a required submittal. However, Bess is preparing these for you. They will be available soon. We appreciate your respect of the time it takes to prepare these renderings. As for Tree #30, as Ed mentioned to you last Sunday, the structure will be setback in excess of the recommended distance to the tree trunk. Ed is working this evening and can answer_ your questions tomorrow. Ed and Cindy Page 17 of20 On Jul 15, 2016, at 5:32PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Ed and Cindy: Thank you for Cindy's email. I will be attending a memorial service before our meeting tomorrow and will not be able to check the link Cindy gave to the plans, but, unless it will provide Anthony and Dede with pdfs of the plans, you have not responded to the repeated requests for them. I appreciate that your architect and her staff worked overtime last weekend, but had she (and you) started work on the plans promptly after the hearing, the overtime would not have been necessary. Further, I am not aware of any "deadline" that she met as a result oflast weekend's work since, even before the weekend, you had already missed your own unilaterally set deadline of no later than July 7 to provide us with the plans. As admitted by Cindy's email, you have given us only 8-9 days to review the plans before the · packet deadline, and , as you are well aware, the Commission will necessarily have better opportunity to review and consider items included in the packet rather than in later submissions. I am sure that your team is also intent on providing your full submission by the packet deadline . Thank you for confirming that the architect will be there tomorrow. You have repeatedly stated that 3D renderings are not a required submittal, but Ed said on Sunday that he would have them prepared for us, earlier this week Anthony pointed out that they must already be done, and you have never responded to Anthony's point except to repeat that the renderings are not required submittals so you can take extra time to submit them. Even with the meeting set for tomorrow, you are not saying they will be available then but soon. Regardless of whether the renderings are required, we have requested them, you have agreed to provide them, and they are apparently readily available to provide. Please provide them by the meeting. I , for one, am not an architect, and the renderings are essential to my understanding of your revisions and ability to comment on them. Your email did not respond to my question about story poles. Can you respond to it? On Tree 30, I do not know what you mean that the structure will be set back in excess of the recommended distance to the tree trunk. It is not the structure setback that matters (except to the extent that it prevents the tree protection area), but the tree protection area . Are you contemplating a fence around that area, and , if so, by the standard of 5 x diameter or 3 x diameter or something else? As you know , this is an extremely important tree; it is a major concern of mine; and I would appreciate specific information about the proposed protection plan for it. I will not be able between now and the meeting tomorrow to prepare and send you a list of questions, but I am confident that, if you and your architect come prepared with all the plans and other pertinent documents, you and she will have no problem answering my questions. Thank you, Lisa Page 18 of20 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 10:23 AM, "Cindysuemc [19Highland]" wrote: Ed will bring the 3D renderings to today's meeting. As I've stated numerous times , it takes time to produce them and we appreciate your patience. Cindy On Jul19, 2016, at 7:14PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: I got a call from Sally today saying that the City needed more time to review the project and prepare an Addendum to the Initial Study/MND . The possible dates presented for a new hearing were August 24th and September 14th. Please let us know if this is consistent with the information you are getting from the City. Yours, Dede From: Cindy Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:04 AM To: yahoogroups ; Subject: Re: [19Highland] Continuation of 19 Highland All We were informed that the Planning Commission meeting would be continued to August 24th. Also, in addition to meeting with you all on three occasions (June 12 , July 10, July 16) the following items have been provided to each of you, giving you ample documentation to adequately study the modified project: 1. Complete set of Architectural plans 2 . Complete set of Civil plans 3. Full color landscape plan 4. Complete set of color renderings from all angles 5 . Footprint comparison between March 2016 DRC approval and current plan 6 . Complete Arborist report 7 . Arboristlclient agreement letter 8. Phone call from Arborist to Lisa Roberts to discuss report Staking and ribbon outline of the new footprint is complete. Ed and Cindy Page 19 of20 On Thu, Jul21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Thank you very much for letting us know about the continuance. I am very relieved that this gives us more time to look at the plan revisions. It seems to me that Ed was going to provide a couple more things, the parcel map and something else I can't remember, but I will check my notes and let you know ifthere was anything else. Enjoy your day, Lisa On Jul21, 2016, at 1:02PM, Anthony Badame wrote: I requested a plan showing the cut sections with the topo contour elevations. Bess stated she had them but the ink? did not come through. The town's posted plans do not show the contours. Anthony On Fri, Jul22, 2016 at 8:44AM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: Good Morning There are section drawings on pages G6 and A4.1. G6 shows the elevation points. You can also see the topography and the elevation points on the other Civil drawings (pages G2 through G7). Also, there are seven (7) 3D renderings from multiple angles to help you visualize the home's articulation. Only a few of the trees on site are shown for perspective. We do not intend to produce any more drawings at this point, however, if you'd like, Ed can meet with you all to explain the civil drawings, renderings, ribbon staking, etc. Ed and Cindy On Jul 22, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Anthony Badame [19Highland] wrote: Hi Cindy, Thank you for the information. Bess indicated at the July 16 neighborhood meeting that she had the drawings which show the topo contour elev ations for cut sections 2 , 3, and 4. She stated that apparently the ink did not come through with the drawings presented at the meeting and she would provide the drawings with the contour elevations this week. None of the sheets you referenced contain this information. Please have Bess provide the group with these drawings at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Anthony On Saturday, July 23, 2016 12:59 PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: All Page 20 of20 Bess is on vacation for a couple of weeks. She will be back for the meeting in August but we do not intend to ask her for anything else at this point. Ed would be happy to meet with you all again to explain how to read the detailed plan sheets and exhibits that have been provided to you, which include : Complete set of Architectural plans , including sections Complete set of Civil plans including sections, elevation points , and topography Full color landscape plan Footprint comparison Colored 3D renderings from multiple angles to help you visualize the home's articulation. A few trees are shown for perspective. Ed and Cindy Emails regarding weed abatement Page 1 of7 On Thursday, June 30, 2016 7 :19 PM, wrote: Dede, None of those things have occurred. We will contact CDFW. Cindy On Jun 29, 2016, at 9:50PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following : • Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; • Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or • Deposit debris , waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (they are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (they flow year round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow . It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. CDFW requires an LSA Agreement when it determines that the activity, as described in a complete LSA Notification, may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources. Yours, Dede On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:26PM, Cindy wrote: We are not aware that you need a RWQCB permit to cut weeds. Where are you getting your information. Please provide a link and phone number? I will foll ow up. Cindy Page 2 of7 On Jun 29, 2016, at 4 :2 0 PM, Cindy Sue wrote: Anthony, Dede, Lisa, and Teresa, Please see Ed's response (below) to Marni regarding the weed abatement that occurred this weekend. We apologize for not telling you before the gardener went out. We were notified by another neighbor that the Badames and Sawyers recently had their weeds cut down so we were simply following suit. We understand how sensitive you are to anything occurring on site -even when it something as necessary as clearing brush for fire safety. As far as Ed parking in front of Teresa's house, he was given permission from the Sawyer's to do so. It is our understanding that the Sawyers own that small piece ofland. At some point, we will also be installing story poles. Hopefully I will have enough heads up to let you know before that happens. But it certainly won't happen until we get the plans back from the engineer. We will try our best to keep you up to date. Cindy On Jun 29, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: I am sure you are aware that this particular action requires a permit from RWQCB. We would appreciate if you would forward your permit to the group. Thanks! Yours, Dede ----------Forwarded message---------- From: ed pearson Date: Wed, Jun 29,2016 at 1:04PM Subject: Re: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory To: Marni Moseley Marni Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Page 3 of7 My Gardner was clearing overgrown weeds, brush, and invasive vinca to eliminate the possibility of a fire hazard . No trees were removed. The work was completed during allowable hours on Saturday. The area is not an understory. It is a large clearing w ith non-native and invasive brush and weeds . This property is located in the Wildland Urban Interface area, a high danger fire area. As you know the Town and County takes weed abatement and fire safety seriously, and will clear weeds for homeowners who do not take action first. Weed abatement needs to occur at least once yearly, if not more often. I considered notifying the neighbors. But, ultimately I felt that it wasn't necessary because others in the immediate neighborhood have recently cleared weeds on their property, without notice. In hindsight, I should have realized that the neighbors are going to be skeptical of any action regarding this property, however good the intention might be. Cindy has set up a yahoo group for the neighbors and will send them this information as well. Here are some links regarding weed abatement and the Wildland Urban Interface area . https://www.sccgov.org/sites/wap/Pages/wap.aspx https://www.sccgov.org/sites/wap/Documents/Program-Guidelines-Brochure.pdf http ://losgatos .granicus.com/Meta Viewer.php?view id=S&clip id=l483&meta id=152026 Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshall, would be happy to speak with the neighbors if they have any questions about weed abatement and fire safety. Doug Harding's phone number is 408-378- 4010. He is also happy to speak to any ofthe neighbors regarding the fire turnaround requirements. Lastly, I have attached a photo of the creek. While it might appear like a pile of mulch, it is merely a change in elevation in the creek bed with a log next to it that I'm sure has been there for years. There is no pile of mulch. If I have misinterpreted the protocol for weed abatement, please let me know so it does not happen again. Thank you and I wish you well at your new job. The Town is losing an excellent Planner. Ed -----Forwarded message----- From: "Mami Moseley" To: "ed pearson Subject: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 8:49AM Ed, can you clarify what occuned on the site this weekend? T hanks. Mami F. Moseley, AICP Associate Plmmer mmosel ey@losgatosca. gov 408-354-6802 Community Development Counter Hours: 8:00 AM-1:00 PM, Monday-Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: July 4 -Independence Day Begin forwarded message: From: "Dorothea Smullen"< To: "Teresa Spalding"< Page 4 of7 Cc: "Joel Paulson"< "Lisa Roberts"< "Anthony Badame" <"Malia Durand">, "Richard Grassetti" < Subject: Re: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Sorry I apologize for getting the dates wrong. Roger and Eliot were there on Sunday but did not mention it to me so I assumed it was done today. Thank you Teresa for clarifying! Page 5 of7 On Mon, Jun 27,2016 at 11:04 PM, Teresa Spalding> wrote : Hi All, This was done on Saturday afternoon from 11 AM to 6PM and I was not notified that this would be happening, nor were any of us. The workers were buzzing noisy saws for hours and my tenant was completely upset that her quiet weekend getaway for was ruined by hours of buzzing saws. This was something Ed really should have mentioned to me since he is at his property daily and I see him in front of my house walking up and down the street He usually parks in front of my place, it seems daily, and walks from my bouse up the street. Malina, Dee's niece who works at the San Jose Planning Dept, wanted Joel Paulson's (planning director) info to email him about this since this is a complete violation and a disruption of the natural habitat. The natural beauty of the landscape has been ruined, hopefully temporarily!!! I'm not sure the commissioners will like this. What happened to the open communication? ..... Cindy just set up email with all of us on Yahoo. Wouldn't it have been easy enough to send out an email letting us know this .... it seems to be a one way here. He has not been open with us , yet has noted how hard we are all to meet with but he continues to do stufflike this. Ed wants to do what Ed wants to do and expects our blessing on it.. .... Teresa Spalding From: Dorothea Smullen Subject: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:06:02-0700 To : jpaul son@losgatosca.gov CC : Ed Pearson was at his site today and completely cleared the understory of the site including the creek; and dumped all the mulch into the creek. My niece Malia was at the site and took these pictures from the easement. This i s a demonstration on what has been occurring on the site by the previous owners wishing to degrade the quality and effect the status of the creek. Yours, Dede Page 6 of7 On Monday, July 4, 2016 3:39PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: All, We are letting you know that the logs are in the area where we need to stake off the new footprint. The logs were there when Ed purchased the property. He will need to move them about 10 feet from their current location in order to stake the new footprint. We are actually moving the home further from the creek which is why we need to stake the new footprint. We also want to let you all know that the surveyor will be there on Tuesday morriing July 5th. This is a necessary step to getting the site plan correct. We will continue to try and communicate any actions taken with regard to the property. Cindy On Jul4, 2016, at 2:25PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: Equating the removal of the logs with the severe degrading of the creek is a bit of a stretch. If you in any way think these are similar actions I am very concerned about the health of the creek throughout the period of construction. It is appearing that you may need to have a biologist on site throughout construction. 1 am hoping that ·you can remove the logs without further harming the creek. Yours , Dede On Jul4, 2016, at 2:05PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Hi Teresa Ed has a friend who would like the logs .... Thanks for the idea though ... Cindy Page 7 of7 On Jul 4, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Teresa Spalding wrote: Hi Cindy, People on Next Door might want your logs for firewood. I can post this for you or you can if you want people to come pick up the wood. It can be posted as "free firewwod" It's a great resource to u se ... FYI Let me know if you'd like me to post it and people can email you To reply about it. Sent from my iPad Summary of Changes The following is an abbreviated list of the changes made in consideration of the comments made by the appellants and the Planning Commission: 1. Building Footprint reduced by 620 sq. ft. 2. Total floor area reduced by 429 sq. ft. 3 . Trees to be removed decreased from 15 to 6, with one additional dead tree to be removed 4. Trees closest to creek will be preserved for creek bank stability 5. Retaining wall length decreased from 653-feet to 210-feet 6. House footprint reduced by 610 sq. ft. (from 2,992 sq. ft. to 2,372 sq . ft.) 7. House has been recessed into hillside as suggested in HDSG (requiring additional grading). 8. Distance from tree #30 to building footprint increased from 15-feet to of20-feet minimum 9. Overall height, massing, and length of home has been reduced 10. Creek setback increased from 15-feet to 20-feet the closest point of the home's footprint I hope that you find these changes to be in keeping with the spirit of the comments given. I have made great strides to modify the design to alleviate the neighbor 's concerns while also maintaining my own desires as the property owner. Sincerely, 011 . IENCROACHMIENTS BIE'II'WEEii' THE TOP Of BANK Related E!e$ource Agency Permits: In addition to t he G&S 's below, any construction activities proposed bet o w the top of bank are s u b ject to review and permit authorization from the Reg ional Water Quality Control Boord, California Department o f Fish and Game, and in most cases, the US Army Corps of Engineers a nd their Federal consulting agencies. Applicants may choose to complete a JARPA (J oint Aquatic R9source Permit Applicatio n) if permits are required from m o re than o ns Resource Agency. III.A Overhang Top of Bank 1 . Decks, pathways, buildings or any other structures (excluding road crossings, outfalls, and bank protection structures) may not overhang or encroach beyond or within the top of bank. 2 . When illegal structures are identified, which cause public health and safety problems and/or damage to stream resources, appropriate jurisdiction should take actions to have them removed or modified. 111.81. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Top of Bank The construction of dear span structures is preferred for new and replacement bridges. Bridge piers may be allowed if length of span makes dear span infeasible as detennined by the local jurisdiction. 111.82. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Top of Bank If a structure must be placed in the active channel due to structural requirements, feasibility, or otherwise, a geomorphic, biological impacts, and/ or hydraulic analysis will be required and will be reviewed by SCVWD and other state and federal agencies . For construction of new bridges, loss of riparian, or aquatic habitat beneath the bridge should be mitigated and located as dose to the new bridge as possible. 111.83. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Topol Bank Have footings and pile caps that are designed based on channel scour to prevent erosion. The appropriate foundation depth should be determined by a licensed engineer and should be at minimum three (3) feet below active channel invert. If depth of waterway allows, clearance under the bridge should be a minimum 12 feet for maintenance access or access to the stream should be provided from rood. 111 .84. Deaign/Construction Related t o Encroachments between the Top of Bank Structures must not reduce the active channel or active floodplains' conveyance area or redirect flow to the detriment of another bank or the river bed. Designs in SCVWD jurisdictional areas must be capable of conveying 1 00-year design flow and meet SCVWD's freeboard requirements explained in Design Guides. USER •'•'\ANUAL GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOP. LAND US E NEAR STREAMS 3.9 19 Highland Avenue Response to Appeal by Roberts August 16, 2016 August 16 , 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consulting Arborists LLC P.O . Box 1010 Felton, CA 9 501 8 831 . 331 . 8982 I reviewed the appeal documents provided by Mrs. Lisa Roberts for Site Application S-15-077 dated August 10,2016 regarding concerns about the trees. On Monday July 18, 2016 I had a lengthy conversation with Mrs. Roberts over the phone, at the property owner's expense, to discuss many of the issues addressed in th e appeal regarding trees and tree protection. I performed my assessment in an independent and objective manner as I am required to do. Arboriculture is an inexact science that combines the practice and study of the care of trees . Much of the criteria evaluated by an arborist on any given site or tree are subjective and individuals will draw different conclusions based on their own observations and experience. I have attempted to define the criteria I used for individual ratings and assessments to disclose how an why I arrived at my conclusions. Many of the terms used in the report including Tree Risk As s essment, Tree Protection Zones, Condition and Influence ratings are defmed within. Deviation or interpretation by the reader may vary but the principles remain the same. My assessment ofthe trees and impacts from the proposed plans were performed in an objective and independent manner based on the conditions present during my inspection and the information provided to me. I would recommend upon approval a final tree protection plan be created prior to any site disturbance to reflect any and all planned changes. I am happy to answer any all questions regarding the trees and my assessment at the meeting on August 24, 2016. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Ri sk Assessor Qualified Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 1 Additional Safety Recommendations • Trees 18-feet or taller should be limbed up 6-feet from the ground. Provide additional vertical clearance when trees have vegetation beneath it. • Stack woodpiles a miiUmum of 30-feet from buildings, fences and other combustible materials. • Clear vegetation and other flammable material from underne ath decks. Enclose elevated decks with fire-resistive materials. • If you have any trees near power lines please contact PG&E at 1-800-PGE-5000 for a free inspection. State Law requires vegetation clearance from electrical lines. For more information please visit www.PGE .com. In most cases PG&E will trim or remove the tree at no cost to you. • The Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council offers Defensible Space Chipping Programs to assist homeowners, including special programs for qualified low-income, seniors and disabled homeowners. For more information visit www .sccfiresafe .or ~ For ornamental shrubs and bushes adjacent to your home, we recommend planting a fire- retardant variety. If there is a possibility that erosion may occur, any native vegetation that is removed should be replaced with fire-retardant vegetation. Please complete and return the enclosed postcard on or before April1, 2016. Beginning the first week of April, County Fire personnel will conduct inspections to advise property owners who have not implemented the fire hazard abatement measures what work is necessary in order to be in compliance with the applicable regulations. If you are unable to complete the required work due to late season rains or other hardship, please contact our office as soon as possible. You may complete the brush clearance work yourself, hire your own contractor, or request to schedule our authorized contractor to perform the work. If you would like this service, please check the appropriate box on the postcard or call (408) 378-4010 prior to April1, 2016. If you choose this option, the charges for this work will appear on your next property tax bill. Please note: Follow-up inspections will be conducted starting June 1, 2016 of properties that did not have the Enforced Safety Regulations implemented at the time of the fit:~t inspection. If you do not comply with items A, B, C and D of the Enforced Safety Regulations, the compliance work will be completed by the authorized contractor of the Town of Los Gatos and the charges for this service will appear on your next property tax bill. If you would like to schedule a courtesy inspection with one of our inspectors or have questions regarding the safety compliance of your property, ple ase contact our Fire Prevention Division at (408) 378-4010 or 1-800-800-1793. Thank you for your cooperation in helping to establish a fire-safe community. Sincerely, /~-:~, KenKehrnna Fire Chief RE: Los Gatos site -ed pearson Page 1 of 1 ' RE: Los Gatos site Blinn, Brenda@Wildlife Tue 7/19/201612:36 PM In box To:e d pearson <epearso nz@outlook.com >; Ed : Based on our phone conversation this morning, you indicated that you will not be conducting any future work within the creek channel, creek banks or riparian zone on your property. If you will not be removing vegetation within the creek or bank area, or any other activity in these areas, you do not need to send in a Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification. If you have any further <yuestions, please gf\'e me a can. Regards, Brenda Brenda Blinn-Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) California Department of Fish and Wildlife -Bay Delta Region Habitat Conservation Program ?_?_~~.?!I~::~~~_!.~.~!.~.?.P..~!-f!: .. ~-~.?.?._~ V: 707-944-5541 f: 707-944-5553 Brenda.Biinn@wildlife.ca.gov Every Californian should conserve water. Find out how at: SaveOurWater.com · Drought.CA.gov https://outlook.live.com/owal?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&ItemiD=AOMkADAwAT... 7/24/2016 July 19,2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 19 Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Pearson: H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants In regards to vegetation on the property along the reach of the drainage directly adjacent to the proposed house location, the vegetation comprises grasses, forbs and shrubs that are either native or have become naturalized in this part of Santa Clara County. Based upon a prior topographic survey from 1996 it appears that a small portion of the creek has been moved sometime between 1996 and 2015; this reach of the creek is in relatively very good ecological condition and appears to be geomorphically stable under the current hydrological co nditions. From a floristic, soils and hydrological condition, this small reach of the creek is indistinguishable from the upstream and downstream reaches. In terms of potential bat species on site, this issue was covered under our 2016 biological report. That information is provided below: • The Townsend's big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendit), a State candidate for listing, historically occurred in the Project region. Unlike other bat species which seek refuge in crevices, the Townsend's big-eared bat normally roos ts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the top of a natural cavity, or in the top corner of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this specie s is easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). A focused survey for suitable bat habitat on the Project site did not detect any large cavities suitable for roosting Townsend's big-eared bats. Therefore this species is not expected to occur on the Project si te. • The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, historically occurred in the Project region. However, a focused search for bat roosting habitat during the site visit located no suitable habitat for pallid bat maternity roosts or large day roosts in trees within the Project site. Therefore. this species is not expected to occur on the Project site. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D . Principal 983 University Avenue, Building D • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 • F: 408.458.3210 UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY Eng in eering Geology • Geotechnical Eng in eering Mr. Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 a a vis1o C2 RTH 18 July 2016 Document ld. 15193C-O 1 L3 Serial No. 17681 SUBJECT: PLAN REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PEARSON PROPERTY 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Pearson: As you reque sted, we have reviewed the revised proposed Site Plan (Sheet G2 with revision date July 20 16) by Peoples Associates for the proposed residential development of your property at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos , California. We previously conducted a limited geotechnical study for the development of the site and presented the results of that study in our Limited Geotechnical Study report dated 22 November 2013 (Document ld. 13050C-01R1). Subsequently, we provided updated seismic design criteria in our Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update letter dated 22 December 2015 (Document I d. 15193C-O 1 L1 ). Additionally, we provided a response to geotechnical peer review comments in our letter dated 17 February 2016 . We understand that questions have been raised by neighbors and by the Los Gatos Planning Commiss ion regarding the location of the creek and the s etback requirements from the creek bank. In response to these and other comments, we understand that Peoples Associates have surveyed the location of the creek within the eastern portion of the property. Based on the recent survey, sometime between 1996 (when the former site survey was performed) and 2015 (when you purchased the property), it was determined that a small portion of the creek within the eastern part of the site was artificially relocated from the adjacent property onto the subject site. The former creek channel was filled , and a new creek channel and creek bank in the present creek location were excavated. The revised site plan shows the current location of the creek channel, creek bank, and a 20-foot setback line from the top of the current creek bank. Also in response to comments raised by the Planning Commission, we understand that the building footprint for the proposed house and garage has been reduced. The proposed foundation elements for the reduced building footprint are beyond the 20-foot setback from the top of the current creek bank. In addition, the plan shows a significant reduction in the number and length of site retaining walls. Based on our site observations, the current creek bank is densely vegetated, and shows no evidence of recent grading or significant erosion. The creek banks are about 3 feet tall or less . Typically, we would recommend a setback from th e t op of the creek bank of 2 times the height of Copyright - C2Earth, Inc. r • I • .I i Jj( ~I ·I ~ 9"0 I . ' ' I 1- 15 July 2016 TO: Town of los Gatos I Community Deve lopment Departme nt, attention Sally Zarnowitz RE : 19 Highland Avenue I Pearson Home Dear Sally, Ed (property owner) has dropped off the 16 sets for the Planning Commission inclusive of new floor plans, elevations, and sections; new renderings from all sides of the home; new landscape plan; and diagrams showi ng the lRDA and footprint analysis. Ed has made several changes accommodating many of the comments from our recent Planning Comm ission. He has also taken into cons ideration the add itional feedback and concerns of the neighbors, and ada pted the plans accordingly. Ed has made efforts to socialize the plans with the neighbors as well, and even set up a yahoo-group email account so that everyone may be privy to all communications together. The following is a summary of the modifications made: ~ Tree rem o va l and protection: The new proposal, with the shift on t he site plan of the footprint, rework of the driveway and fire turn around area and rework of the staggered retaining walls allowed for more trees to be maintai ned. There are only 7 trees being removed now (one is currently dead) rather than 15. All t r ee and site protection will be per the arborists recommendations, and conditioned for the project. • Retaining w alls: With the re-s iting of the house, adjustment to the driveway and t urnaround, retaining walls have been reduced from 653' to 210'. Note that the house has been further buried into the grade at the str eet si de as well, and the floor plan now steps down 18" from the ent ry to the rear yard, along the long axis, following the natural grade mor e. This is in keeping with the Hills ide Design Standards and Guidelines. • Building Footprint : Please see the d iagram t itled "Footprint Comparison Exhibit''. The diagram clearly shows the reduction in footprints on the site from the original approved scheme through today. Great attention has been gi ven to reduce the footprint architecturally with all levels of the floor plans. Subtle floor plan changes, as well as a cantilever concept at a portion of the creek side have been incorporated into the new design. The footprint reduced from 2992 SF to 2372 SF (a 620 SF red u ction). • Creek Setback : The new design increases the creek setback to the 20' preferred by the neighbors, utilizing the cantilever concept in only a couple areas. Otherwise, the body of the home now sits a minimum of 20' away from the top of bank at its closest location. As a reminder, all reporti ng specialists (geotech, biologists, a r borists, Fish and Game, etc.) were satisfied with the originally proposed and approved 15', including the Town's peer reviewers. The top of bank has also been surveyed and marked in the field. The updated footprint has also been marked in the field. S TUDICJTHREE DE S GN • LRDA and building placement: Please refer to the diagram titled "Regulatory Constraints Exhibit". The larger creek setback, typical property line setbacks and the available LRDA lines have all been superimposed to show the "buildable" lot area (further highlighted in green). The lot is unique in shape and character, and these setbacks further limit the best buildable area . The proposal shows that further distancing the home from the creek requires building outside the LRDA. The previous and current proposals both exceed the LRDA as minimally as possible to fit the program of the home (note that according to Town policies, the LRDA is a guideline, and not a specific rule such as a property line setback). Based upon the site restraints, it requires that the building exceed the LRDA . • Bulk and Mass: The redesign took into consideration comments surrounding the bulk and mass of the home. The shape of the lot and its constraints require a design that is long and narrow in nature. The overall length of the main level has been reduced by 2.5' (an additional 3' if you count eave overhangs), and t he upper floor has been reduced by 12' in overall length (the most visible portion). The home has also been further set into the hillside on the street side. The square footage has been reduced by 429 SF (approximately 10%), significantly under the allowable FAR, even with the slope reduction calculations and is not the largest home in the neighborhood. Please refer to the previously submitted Neighborhood Analysis and FAR I Slope Study. The new design also modifies the footprints of each floor plate to allow for more movement along the fa~ades as well as cantilevers and steps at certain points to navigate the creek setback but also to create architectural interest. Roof lines have been modified, and in some cases also lowered to further break up the massing. The new shifts also allow for increased stained wood siding (versus stucco), and help to create a pleasing mix of materials in natural earth tones. The placement of the home is barely visible to most neighbors, and presents no privacy issues-and in fact looks like a si ngle story home along the private drive side property line. Please see the new 30 renderings provided viewing the home from all angles. Be st Regards, Bess Wiersema , principal, studio3 design inc. STUD I D 'TtiREE DES GN , .. _,,,_, __ ~ .. ~··-·--·~•••••••-•••• ---g N ONNOO 0 ·---~--UNNN --g N ---~UNN UN---U-NNONO ON---------UN --~-UNNONO ___________ ----~-------------------·----NN --NNN-NNN ______________ -------, Robert Schultz, Esq. Town Attorney, Town ofLos Gatos July 11, 2Q16 Page 2 Here is the applicable CEQA Guideline, with my highlighti"ng in bold: 15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negatiYe declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent .Em or negatiYe declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EJR or adopted negatiYe declaration. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on tbe project. (c) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section I S I 62 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record . The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code Section 21083; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code; Bowman v. CityofPetaluma(I986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065; and Bentun v. Board ofSupen•isors (199 1) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467. Discussion: This section is designed to provide clear authority for: an addendum as a way of making minor corrections in EIRs and negative declarations without recirculating the EIR or negative declaration. Section 15162 is referenced in Section 15164. Here is Section 15162 (with my highlights in bold). As indicated by my italicized comments, it appears that none of these circumstances apply to the revisions Mr. Pearson has made to the plan that was approved with the MND in 2010 : 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations ·(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: i . ! ! Robert Schultz, Esq. Town Attorney, Town of Los Gatos July 11, 2016 Page3 (I) Substantial changes .are proposed in the project which wilJ require major revisions of the previous Em or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of.previously identified significant effects; Compared to the home studied in the MND, the currently proposed home has reduced environmental effects due to the increased setback from the creek and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Em or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or There are no changes to the circumstances of this vacant parcel or the surrounding area since approval of the MND, other than the environmentally beneficial changes of increased creek setback and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. (3) New information of substantial importance. which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence .at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: No such information has been provided or exists. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negatiVe declaration ; There has been no evidence submitted showing any significant effect not discussed in the MND. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Effi; There has been no evidence submitted showing that any effect previously ·studied in the MND will be substantially more severe than previously show. {C) Mitigation measures or alternati~·es previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more· significant effects o.fthe project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;.or There were no mitigation measures found to not be feasible in the MND. ~ ---·--________________ , _________________________________________ _ -------------------------, Robert Schultz, Esq. July 11 , 2016 Town Attorney, Town of Los Gatos Page 4 (D) MitigatiQn measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those 1 1 analyzed in the previous Em would substantially reduce one or more significant effects oo the environment, but the project proponents decli ne to adopt the mitigation m -easure ' or alternative. I There were no mitigation measures found to not be feasible in the MND.j' (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes avai !able i after adoption of a negative declaration , the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prt>pare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documenta tion. The only changes to the project since adoption of the MND are the environmentally beneficial change$ of increasing the creek setback and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. An addendum is appropriate, though not mandated by CEQA. (c) Once a project has been approved. the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless· further discretional)' approval on that project is _required . Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval . If after the project is approved, any of the conditions d~scribed in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative dec laration shall o nly be prepared by the public agency which grants the next di screti o nary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall gram an approval for the project until the subsequent EJR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072 . A subsequent EfR or negative declaration shall state where the previ o us docume nt is available and can be reviewed. l'\ote: Authority cited: Public Reso urces Code Section 2 1083 ; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code ; Bowman v. City of P~ttulumu (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065; Benton v. Board ofSupen•isors ( 199 1) 226 Cai.App.3d 1467; and Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Culifurnia Department of Health Services et al. ( 1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574 . Grassetti Environmental Consulting ("GECO") has submitted a letter dated June 1, 2016, raising certain CEQA issues related to the proposed Pearson home. The author misapplies CEQA in a number of respects . GECO contends that because the 201 0 house approvals have lapsed and the applicant has changed , the proposed Pearson home "is clearly a new project" which triggers a new CEQA review. GECO is incorrect. A change in ownership is Robert Schultz, Esq . Town Attomey, Town of Los Gatos July 11 , 2016 PageS irrelevant to CEQA because CEQA is concerned only with environmental impacts and a transfer of ownersh ip does not cause any environmental impact. More importantly, GECO's entire premise is flawed because even though Pearson has submitted a new application to the Town , for CEQA purposes the proposed Pearson home is not a new project, but rather reflects a change in a previously approved project. Th is distinction is significant because CEQA requires a full review for new projects compared to a limited review for changes in previously approved projects. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cai.App.41h 1359, 1401.) The limited review is, as stated above, the analysis required by Section 15164, includ ing a review of the considerations described in Section 15162. According to the authors of Guide to CEQA, where the earlier analysis studied "a particular site ~specific development project," then · a later proposed modified version of an earlier project falls within the "change to a previously approved project" category, with the resulting limited CEQA review. (/d. at p. 669.) The 2010 MND studied a site-specific development for 19 Highland Avenue . The · Pearson home proposal is a modified version of that earlier stud ied and approved home. CEQA review is therefore limited to Section 15164. It is not a new project, and cannot be st udied like a new project. The CEQA Guidelines referenced by GECO, Sections 15150, 15063, 15072, 15073 and 15074, all regard and apply to new projects . They do 110t apply to changes to a previously approved project. Similarly, Section 15153 has no application to the proposed Pearson home. That section regards use of an earlier EIR from an earlier project for a new, different project. Here . the proposed Pearson home is not a new project, and Section 15153 appl ies only to prior EIRs, not prior MNDs-where the CEQA Guidelines intend to state a requirement for MNOs, they state so specifically (compa re, e.g., Section 15164(a) which states a mandatory addendum required for an EIR , with Section 15164(b) which states a non -mandatory addendum opportunity for an MND). GECO's substantive analysis , including the biological analysis prepared by Pacific Biology which is attached as an exhibit to the ·GECO letter, is the kind of wo rk that might be appropriate for a new project. And indeed , analyses of a similar nature were prepared for and considered in the 2010 MND . That MND was approved by the Town in 2010 , and became immune from legal challenge or potentially conflicting environmenta l cla ims 30 days later. Because the proposed Pearson home constitutes a change in a previously approved project, substantive environmental analysis is essentially lim ited to the current changes to the previously ap·proved project. GECO's letter does not analyze these changes . Consequently, its analys is is outside the scope of review allowed by Section 15164 , and shou ld be disregarded From: Ed Pearson To: Sally Zamowitz Date: July 11, 2016 Re: Architecture and Site Application (S-15-077) Dear Sally, The purpose of this document is to describe the differences between the original project that was described and analyzed in the adopted 2010 IS /MND and approved on December 8, 2010, and the modified project currently before the Town. The 2010 IS /MND found that although the original project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect because the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration were made a condition of project approval , mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed modifications to the original project have been designed such that the modified project would not cause new significant effects not already mitigated in the 2010 ISIMND . Please reference the letter dated July 11 , 2016 from our land use Attorney, Barton G . Hechtman requesting that the Town of Los Gatos, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, prepare an Addendum for the modified project. In addition to designing the modified project so that it would not cause new significant effects not already mitigated in the 2010 ISIMND , I was required to submit additional studies for the modified project. These additional studies included: • Geotechnical Memo by UPP Geotechnology, a division of C2 Earth Inc ., dated February 24 , 2016. • Top of Bank Study prepared by H . T. Harvey & Associates, dated March 22, 2016. • Biological Report prepared by H. T . Harvey & Associates, dated March 31,2016. • Revised Biological Report prepared by H . T. Harvey & Associates dated May 13, 2016. • Arborist Report dated May 10 , 2016. • Revised Arborist Report dated July 10 , 2016. In addition, the Town required the following studies: • Peer Review of the Biological Report by the Town's consulting biologist, Live Oak Associates dated May 5, 2016. • Peer Review of the Geotechnical Memo by the Town's consulting geologist, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. • Design Review by the Town's consulting architect Cannon Design Group, dated February 24,2016. We also referenced the following documents when designing the modified project: the Town of Los Gatos General Plan, the Town Code and Tree Ordinance, the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Summary of modified project (2016) The IS /MND indicated that design changes would be reviewed during the architectural and site review process. The modified project is a result of input from adjacent neighbors and the Planning Commission. Similar to the original project, the modified project would consist of the development of a new two-story split level single-family residence located at 19 Highland A venue in the Town of Los Gatos. Additional information on the modified project is further described in this memo. Floor area and Lot Coverage: The modified project would include a 4,031 square foot residence (2 ,3 79 plus 1 ,652) and 617 square foot attached two-car garage and storage room for a total of 4,642 gross square feet , or 4,242 square feet when deducting the 400 square foot garage credit allowed by the Town. The residence footprint would be 2,372 square feet, covering approximately 5.2% percent of the site. The modified project's total site coverage would be 6,384 square feet or approximately 14.1% of the site. Height and Property Setbacks: The residence would step up the slope over three levels, with no more than two stories at any single location. The residence would be 25-feet in height from natural grade with a maximum elevation height of 35-feet. Access to the proposed residence would be provided by a 12-foot wide pervious paver driveway , approximately 180 feet in length, extending parallel to and north of the existing private roadway easement. The fire truck turnaround would be located approximately 125 feet west of the residence, while a smaller, parking area/pullout is proposed on the south side of the driveway just west of the residence. The modified project would have a front yard setback of 185-feet, a north/left side yard setback of 21-feet, a south/right side yard setback of 25-feet and a rear yard setback of 65-feet. Grading and Retaining Walls: The modified projc;:ct would require 439 cubic yards of cut and 429 cubic yards of fill . There would be zero export of earthwork due to shrinkage from compaction. The modified project would require 210 feet of retaining walls (total length) where 1 06-feet of the retaining walls would be less than three (3) feet in height and 1 04-feet of the retaining walls would be three-to-six feet (3-6') in height. Creek Setbacks and Trees: The residence will have a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of the creek bank while the driveway will have a minimum setback of 10-feet from the top of the creek bank. Six (6) trees (#s 16, 17, 21, 25 , 60, 61) will be highly impacted by the modified project and require removal. Although not directly affected by the modified project, one additional tree (#56) requires removal ; it is infested with ambrosia beetles, is half-dead, and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Comparison of original and modified project The modified project has minor technical differences from the original project in that the modified project will have a slightly higher floor area (~211 SF), fewer trees to be removed, increased setback from the creek, fewer feet I lower height of retaining walls , and increased grading quantities due to recessing the home into the hillside. Architectural changes: Although the modified floor area is approximately 2 11 square feet more than the original project, the proposed floor area is consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Moreover, the modified footprint of the home is 270 square feet less than the original project. The maximum proposed height is the same as the original project. Similar to the original project, the modified residence has been designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours. The modified project includes non-reflective colors and materials. The colors and materials of the modified project residence (dark and light brown tones) are more compatible with the natural surroundings than the original project's colors and materials which included taupe , "ochre" (yellowish or orangey brown), and "terra cotta" (brownish red). The modified project also uses stone and wood, a more natural element, where the original project residence was all stucco (with the exception of the stone wall covering the crawl space). The modified project was also reviewed by the Town's Consulting Archite<;t who made two recommendations. In addition to making design changes to reduce bulk, mass and floor area, my design team implemented both of the consulting architects ' recommendations ; extend the landscaping westward along the driveway easement roadway to buffer the two-story tall tower element and choose one roofing material for the entire house . All exterior light fixtures will be Dark-Sky compliant. The modified project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare beyond what would have been created by the original project. Grading and Retaining Walls Changes: The original project proposed a total cut of 342 cubic yards and total fill of 188 cubic yards , resulting in the need to export approximately 154 cubic yard s of material. The modified project proposes a total cut of 439 cubic yards and total fill of 429 cubic yards . No export of earthwork would be needed due to shrinkage from compaction . The additional grading was necessary to recess the home into the hillside in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Creek Setback Changes: Creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below th e top of bank will occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water Di strict or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un-named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams recommends setbacks for slope stability', ranging from 10-to 15-feet for ephemeral streams and 25-to 20-feet for intermittent streams. Where a range is given, the Local Agency will determine the appropriate setback based on their existing priorities , permitting processes , and on-site conditions. In this case, the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previously determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10- feet for the driveway would not be significant. However, the modified project will provide a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. This 20-foot setback is also consistent with the recommendations of the December 8, 2003 draft Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFG for development of the subject property (CDFG Notification No. 16000-2003-5246-3). In addition , establishment of a 1 0-foot wide setback between the top of bank and paved surfaces is also co nsistent with 1 Page 3 .8, Chapter 3 of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Nea r Streams, August 2005 and revised July 2006 regional and state guidelines, provided appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed, implemented and maintained. Creek Location: Upon redesigning the house per the Planning Commission's suggestions, the licensed surveyor surveyed a portion of the site, east of the bend in the creek that had not recently been surveyed, in. order to show the recommended 20ft. setback from the creek. The 2010 map was taken from the map completed by Westfall Engineers in 1996. As previously evidenced in the public record, the top of bank markers were set by HT Harvey on March 21st 2016 and were surveyed from the existing bend in the creek (area closest to proposed home) and then west towards the proposed fire turnaround. This survey confirmed that the creek location, westward from the bend in creek, was accurate on the 201 0 map. After the surveyor was instructed to study the location of the creek bank eastward from the bend in creek, it revealed that at some time between 1996 and 2015, a small portion of the creek was moved . The current condition of the area that was moved is undetectable today (please see submitted site plans and current photograph). It looks completely natural and heavily vegetated with different shrubs and trees . I contacted Brenda Blinn, Senior Supervisory Environmental Scientist, with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region, Habitat Conservation Program. Ms. Blinn stated that at the time any illegal grading is taking place, a written complaint must be filed with her office that fully documents the violation. She also stated that there is a 12 month statute of limitation on this type of activity. Ms. Blinn is located in the Napa office and can be reached at 707-944-5541 for any needed clarification. Tree Removal Changes: As described below, the modified project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010 . Comprehensive Tree Inventory Table(s) and Arborist Report(s) were prepared for the subject property in 2010 and in 2016. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried "protected" trees in proximity to the original project's proposed development and located on the subject site or overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried 68 "protected" trees of six various species. Under the "review of potential tree impacts" the 2010 Arborist Report identified 29 trees that "would either be removed or considered a loss" (#3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22 , 24-28 , 30, 37-40, 60-62 , 64 and 68). The 2010 Arborist Report recommended that an additional two (2) trees be removed due to their failing health (#s 10 , 46) for a total of 31 trees. Based on a site survey comparison with the 2010 ArboristReport, it appears that the property owner of the original project removed 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28, 37, 64, 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55 , 58, 67), for a total of 18 trees . The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. An updated Arborist Report was prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC on May 10, 2016 and then revised on July 10, 2016 for the modified project. Per the 2016 Arborist Report, the subject property contains a total of 86 trees2, including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot that were not previously considered. 2 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 4 5 trees previously inventoried ( 63 minus 18 removed). The modified project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010 (#s 8 , 13, 21, 27, 30, 38 , 39, 40, 62). Preservation of tree #s 27 , 30, 38, 39, and 40 will provide more stability to the creek bank, minimizing potential for erosion and sedimentation into the creek. Six (6) trees (#s 16 , 17, 21 , 25, 60 , 61) will be highly impacted by the modified project and require removal. Tree # 16 is in poor condition with poor structure and codominant stems. Tree # 17 is in fair health and has a bowed stem. Tree # 21 is in fair health and has poor structure with significant lean. Tree # 25 is in fair health and will be highly impacted by the project. Tree # 60 is also in fair health with a low live crown ratio. Tree # 61 is in poor health with the top removed. Although not directly affected by the modified project, one additional tree (#56) requires removal; it is infested with ambrosia beetles, is half-dead, and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Twenty-two (22) trees will be moderately affected and require tree protection measures during construction. Seventy-nine (79) existing mature trees (92%) are to be retained while seven (7) trees will need to be removed as described above. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in . accordance with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. Pallid bat: Numerous biological studies have been prepared for the subject property between 1997 and 2016, finding that there is no candidate, sensitive, or special status species habitat existing on the subject property and that the site does not support any wetland or riparian vegetation. Appellants to the modified project have hired a biologist who states that tree #56 (described above), which is of compromised health and with numerous cavities, could be used as a roost by bats , including special-status bats species such as pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); however no evidence of pallid bat existing on site has been provided. However, the diseased and dying tree is dropping large limbs and should be removed to avoid risk to life and property. In conclusion , the changes between the original project and the modified project would not trigger any of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. While new information regarding the creek location has become available, the modified project will have a 20-foot setback from the top of the creek bank, such that there would be no significant environmental effects not already mitigated in. the 2010 ISIMND. Overall, the modified project would result in fewer environmental impacts than the original project, due to the increased setback from the creek (from 15-feet in the original project to 20-feet in the modified project). The conclusions in the 2010 IS/MND remain current and valid. The mitigation measures included in the 2010 ISIMND remain applicable and would be applied to the modified project. Therefore, an Addendum prepared by the Town of Los Gatos would satisfy the requirements of CEQ A. 2010 Original Project 2016 Modified Project Floor Area: Main Level: 2,310 square feet 2,3 79 square feet Upper Level: 1,535 square feet 1 ,652 square feet Garage/Storage: 592 square feet 61 7 square feet Subtotal : 4 ,437 square feet 4,648 square feet (garage credit) -400 sguare feet -400 sguare feet Total Floor Area: 4,037 square feet 4,248 square feet Maximum Height 25-feet 25-feet Maximum Elevation: 35-feet 35-feet Lot Coverage -Residence ~ 2,642 square feet 2,3 72 square feet -Driveway ~ 2,880 square feet 3 ,583 square feet -Deck/Patios ~ 1 ,927 sguare feet ~ 429 sguare feet Total Lot Coverage 7,449 square feet 6,384 square feet Property Setbacks -Front: 190.0-feet 185.0-feet -North (left) Side: 20.0-feet 21.0 feet -South (right) Side: 24.0-feet 25.0 feet -Rear 63.5-feet 65.0 feet Creek Setbacks: -Residence/Garage: Minimum 10-feet Minimum 20-feet -Driveway: Minimum 1-foot Minimum 1 0-feet Area outside LRDA: ~ 1,363 square feet 1,182 square feet 342 cubic yards cut 439 cubic yards cut Grading: 188 cubic yards fill 429 cubic yards fill 154 cubic yards of export 0 cubic yards of export3 Retaining Wall < 3 feet height: 0 feet < 3 feet height: 1 06-feet 3-6 feet height: 394-feet 3-6 feet height: 1 04-feet Height: > 6 feet height: 63-feet > 6 feet height: 0-feet Retaining Wall ~457-feet ~210-feet Length: Proposed: 31 trees Tree Removal Removed: 15 trees Proposed: 7 trees Remaining to Remove : 16 trees (one of which is half-dead) 3 The difference in earthwork would be zero due to shrinkage from impaction. Tree Inventory, Assessment, And Protection 19 Highland Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 P.O. B o x 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831. 331. 8982 Prepared for: Ed Pearson July 10, 2016 Prepared By: ConsuHing Arborists LLC Richard Gessner ASCA -Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA -Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-434/B ISA -Tree Risk Assessor Qualified CA-Qualified Applicators License QL-104230 ©Copyri ght Monarch ConsultingArborists LLC, 2016 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 Int roduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 Assignment ............................................................................................................. 1 Limits of the assignment ......................................................................................... 1 Purpose and use of the report ................................................................................ 2 Observati ons ......................................................................................................... 2 Plans ....................................................................................................................... 2 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 3 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 3 Condition Rating ..................................................................................................... 4 Influence Level ........................................................................................................ 5 Tree Protection ....................................................................................................... 7 Critical Root Zone ................................................................................................... 8 Bridging with Mulch ................................................................................................ 9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 1 0 Recommendati ons ............................................................................................... 11 Protection during demolition/grading .................................................................... 11 Construction Phase ............................................................................................... 11 Post-Construction Phase ...................................................................................... 12 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 12 G lossary of Terms .............................................................................................. 13 Appendix A: S ite Map ......................................................................................... 14 Appendix 8: Tree Inventory, Assessment and Disposition Tables ................ 15 B1: Inventory and Assessment Table .................................................................... 15 B2: Disposition Table ...................................................... : ..................................... 19 *indicates tree to be removed due to disease ...................................................... 22 Appendix C: Photographs ................................................................................. 23 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines .......................................................... 28 Section 29 .10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction ............................ 28 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications ................................................. 28 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 19 Highland Ave nue Arborist A ssess me nt July 10, 2016 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions ...................................... 28 Additional tree protection measures: .................................................................... 29 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 29 Root Pruning ......................................................................................................... 29 Boring or Tunneling ............................................................................................... 29 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations ................................................................ 29 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ................................................................... 30 E1 : English ............................................................................................................ 30 E2: Spanish .......................................................................................................... 31 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Li miting Conditions .................................. 32 Certification of Performance ............................................................................. 33 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Summary The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (Umbelluaria californica) (37 percent) and coast live oak (Qu ercus agrifolia) (47 percent) making up the majority of trees. Most of the trees (77) are in fair condition while five are poor, three are in good shape, and one is unstable . Six (6) trees will be highly impacted and require removal while an additional twenty-two will be moderately affected and require tree protection measures during construction. The remaining 58 trees will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Introduction Background Ed Pearson asked me to assess the site, trees , and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my fmdings and recommendations. Assignment 1. Provide an arborist's report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. 2. Provide tree protection specifications and influence ratings for trees that will be affected by the project. Limits of the assignment 1. The information in this report is limited to the condition of the site and trees during my inspections on April22 and 26, 2016. No tree risk assessments were performed. No tree appraisals were performed. Trees on adjacent site are not accounted for. 2. The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows: A site plan with the residence , driveway, and retaining walls not dated or labeled. No grading, drainage , utility, or landscape plans were reviewed. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 1 0 , 2016 Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by Ed Pearson and his agents as a reference for existing tree and site conditions. Observations The site is located along Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property has a seasonal creek running through it and hills on both the east and west sides. There is a level area at the bottom of the drainage and currently there are story poles to indicate the proposed location of the site improvements. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks (Quercus lobata), and California bay laurels. Plans The plans indicate a driveway extending from the northern part of Highland Avenue and the structure set back farther to the south. Within the plan area there are thirty trees and six within the footprint of the proposed structure. • Six (6) trees are within the footprint of the proposed improvements. • Twenty-two (22) trees are in close proximity to the proposed improvements. • Fifty-eight (58) trees are not near any proposed improvements . • Four (4) trees are near the driveway. • Coast live oak #56 is in irreversible decline/unstable and has signs and symptoms consistent with ambrosia beetle (Monarthrum scutellare) attacks on its trunk. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 2 of33 19 H ighland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 D iscussio n Tr ee Inventory The tree inventory consists of trees protected by the Town ofLos Gatos located on the site. The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees with a trunk diameters greater than (4) four inches at (54) fifty-four inches above grade on vacant or underdeveloped lots (Appendix A and B). Aluminum tree tags have been affixed to all trees listed in the inventory except for those on the ea stern hillside which are arbitrarily numbered from south to north for the purposes of this report. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (37 percent) and coast live oak (47 percent) making up the majority of trees with 72 specimens total. Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) California b.Jckeye (Aesculus californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) Plum (Prunus sp.) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 0 Chart 1 : Species Distribution • Quantity 8 16 24 32 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 40 3 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Condition Rating A tree's condition is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects : Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. The assessment considered both the health and structure of the trees for a combined condition rating. • Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • Good = No appar ent p r oblems, good structure and health, good longevity for the site . • Fair= Minor problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems can be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or a plant health care program. • Poor = Major problems with multiple structural defects or declining health, not a good candidate for retention. • Dead/Unstable = Extreme problems , irreversible decline, failing structure, or dead. Most of the trees are in fair condition which is typical of an unmaintained woodland. Five .trees are in poor condition and three are in good shape. Trees in poor condition include bay tree 46 has some decay at the base, blue gum 44 has codominant stems and a defective stem about 40 feet above grade. Coast live oak 56 is unstable, has ambrosia beetle attacks on its trunk, and is half dead. Coast live oak 66 has been repeatedly hit by vehicles along the existing driveway and has trunk damage. 0 Exceptional Chart 2: Condition Rating • Quantity 20 40 60 I f I I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 80 4 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Influence Level Influence level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defmes the impact rating: • Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. • High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Six trees will be highly impacted and will require removal because they are within the footprint of the proposed structure. An additional twenty-two trees will be moderately impacted and require tree protection of either fence, bridging, and/or hand digging for footings and foundations nearby. The remaining 58 frees on the property will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. The charts below indicate the quantity of trees for each construction impact category (Chart 3). 0 High Moderate Low Chart 3: Impact Ratings • Quantity 12 24 ~ 48 60 Chart 4: Construction Impact Percentages e High e Low Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 5 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arbor ist Assessment July 10, 2016 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots , trunk , or scaffold branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defmed area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species tolerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) or as the drip line in some instances (Figure 1 ). Tree protection zones and type of tree protection will vary depending on what may be impacting the trees. Fence locations will may change as different phases of construction occur. The most critical exclusion from the TPZ must occur during the grading process . Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle. Preventing mechanical damage to the main stems from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished by wrapping the main stem with straw wattle (Figure 2). The wattle will create a porous barrier around the trunk and prevent damage to the bark and vascular tissues underneath. Sturdy TPZ Fencing 8 ft. high Figure 1: Tree protection distances Wrap trunks with atr.w wattle up to 8 feet Figure 2: Trunk protection with straw wattle Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com Straw Wattle 7 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Conclusion The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks, and California bay laurels. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species. The majority of trees consist ofbay laurel (37 percent) and coast live oak (47 percent) account for 84 percent of all assessed. Most of the trees (77) are in fair condition typical of trees growing within a stand in an unmaintained woodland setting. Five trees are in poor condition, three are in good shape, and one unstable (#56). Six trees will be highly impacted and require removal while an additional twenty-two will be moderately affected and require some protection measures. The remaining 58 trees will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle and may require monitoring and hand digging nearby. Because most of the trees will only be influenced on one side the CRZ will in effect be the TPZ for many trees. When fence is impractical for protection I recommend bridging with mulch and wrapping trunks with wattle to prevent compaction and mechanical damage to stems. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 10 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Recommendations Obtain all necessary permits from the Town of Los Gatos prior to removing or significantly altering any tree. Remove Coast live oak #56 due to its current diseased condition. Refer to Appendix D of this document for general protection guidelines and specifications. Protection during demolition/grading 1. Wrap moderately influenced trees with straw wattle to help prevent mechanical damage to the trunks where fence is impractical. Trees 8, 9, 11 , 13, 14 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 29, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 47 , 59 , 62 , 63, and 65. 2. Place tree protection fence along the lower portion of the site adjacent to the building area to protect trees 27, 29 , 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 34, 38, 39, and 41. Construction Phase 1. Remove all trees to be removed prior to demolition of the existing structures . 2 . Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 3. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. 4 . Tree Pruning: If tree pruning for overhead clearance is required or necessary pruning specifications shall be in writing prior to any cutting. Cutting shall be performed by a qualified tree care professional or supervised by the project arborist. No limbs greater than four inches ( 4") in diameter shall be removed. 5 . Arrange for the project arborist to monitor and document initial grading activity and no grading is to occur within five times the trunk diameter distances. 6. Trees 27, 29, 38 and 40: Create a working platform with mulch and three quarter inch plywood around the trees to help reduce root zone impact. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 11 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 7. Utility Trenching: Where possible trenches shall be dug under existing roots and utilities should be "snaked" under the roots . When large roots , greater than 4 inches in diameter, are encountered they shall be excavated by hand or with pneumatic excavating tools such as an Air Spade® or Hydrovac®. 8 . Root removal near trees 9, 11, 13, 14 18, 22, 23, 59, 62, 63 , and 65: Prior to remov ing roots greater than two inches (2") in diameter each tree shall be evaluated by the project arborist to help determine its likelihood of failure after root loss. If roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. No roots shall be cut within six times the trunk diameter distance in feet on one side without arborist approval. Post-Construction Phase 1. Monitor the health and structure of all trees for any changes in condition and have the trees assessed for risk. 2. Perform any other mitigation measures to help ensure long term survival. Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print. Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones . Oaks in th e urban landscap e: selection, c are, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. ISA. Glossary of Arboricultural Te rms. Champaign: International Society ofArboriculture, 2011. Print. Matheny, Nelda P. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998 . Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tre e Risk Manage m ent. 2nd ed. Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007 . Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 12 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Glossary of Terms Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees d efects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United States , Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture . Drip Line: Imaginary line defmed by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. Mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs , straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials, and have an average weight of 35 pounds. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defmed area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is , and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. Trunk: Stem of a tree. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 13 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 fr ree Species Number I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia4 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) i ' ' Trunk Condition Diameter 1105 1 Fair 1505 Fair Suitability for Influence Preservation Level ! Fair i Moderate : Fair 1 Moderate l Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) J 65 8 ! Fair i Poor 0 Moderate -~ j Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) J 66 : 1205 Fair I Poor Low I r-~--..----+-------,------t-----1 I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) i 101 ! 8 Fair 1 Fair Low : ~I --------------~-----~------~--------~----------------~ I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) 102 12 Fair : Fair Low I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 03 ! 12 j Fair ; Fair ! Low Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 04 ; 4 i Fair 1 Fair ! Low I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 05 ! 4 1 Fair : Fair :_L_o_w--------1j I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 06 1 12 ~ Fair ____ -~-_ 0--+-Low _ j Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) 1 107 i 8 . Fair j Fair :Low l ~---------------------+--·-------------+ i Fair 1 Bay laurel ( Umbellularia 108 : 4 and 4 1 Fair Low I I I I ~alifornica) ~~-o_a_st_l_iv_e_o_a_k _(_Q_u_e,.,_c_u_s _a_gr._i(l_o_lia_)----1-----1-0~ 1 0 I Fair I l Fair I ____j Low I I __, 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 110 ' 21 1 Fair ; Fair 0 Low I Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia I californica) ~ Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 111 . I 112 ' 113 l I 114 1 8 ; Fair I i ! Fair I Low I ! I 4 1 Fair I Fair Low I I I 12 1 Fair i Fair :Low _j 12 I Fair i Fair ! Low I I -1 I Bay laurel (Umbellularia 115 1 5 I, Fair i Fair I Low 1 I I II I californica) l c tl k(Q &f) ! 120 ' 24 1 F I F 1 L I 1 oas 1ve oa uercus agn,o 1a I a1r 1 a1r : ow ~~ 1 1 Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia 121 : 1 .. 8 and 8 I Fair I Fair Low j californica) L---------------------~------~--------·~----~ Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-PoO Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 033108982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 17 of 33 19 Highland Ave nue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 --,.-...-,---.. .. ~-...--------------~----~..._, Tree Species Number Trunk Condition Influence Diameter Level Retain or Remove Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) + 34 ! 16, 10, 6 Fair j Moderate i Retain I Bay laurel (Umbel/ularia ~---3-5-1r--1 ---1-1 -t~-F-a-ir----+! -Lo_w ____ -+1 -R-e-ta-in-~ j californica) i I ! I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 36 1 11 l Good ! Low I Reta in I I I 38 i i I Retain I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ; Moderate I californica) . ! 71 Fair ' I I I I -j Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria 39 ' 20 1 Poor Moderate 1 Retain ' californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia I callformca) Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) ! I I I I I ' 40 : 10.5 Fair I 41 i 20 Fair 42 ~ 10, 8 .5 I Fair 43 1 20, 11 i Fair I I I I I ' i I I j Moderate :Retain I Low ! Retain I I ' I I ' I i Low i I /Retain I I I I i 'Low I I Retain I I I Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) California buckeye (Aesculus californica) 44 i _ 46 1 Fair 45 l 8 , 7, 5 .5 , I Fair 1 Low I - Retain ~ ! Low ' Retain I I I I I i 4.5 l Retarn I I I I · Bay laurel ( Umbel/ulana i 46 ! 15, 8 Farr : Low I I I I ~~rn~ I i I ~----------------------~------~i. ___ , ____ ~----·-:------~---~ I 47 : Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ! i 50 I I I 54 ! 7,4 56 57 15 Fair I I 7.51 Fair I Good 32 i Unstable 15 Fair :Moderate I I : 'Low I Moderate l I ! Retain I I ! Retain I Retain ! i Moderate i *Remove I ' I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 59 14 I Fair I Low I Retain ! Moderate ! Reta i;-1 60 i 12 Fair Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) i High I Remove I I 61 : 12 Poor I High I Remove I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 62 ! 11 .5 Fa ir I Moderate i Retain Valley oak (Quercus lobata) =t---~~-__ 1_5::_l_:air I Moderate I Retain Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 65 I 8 j F-a-ir---~Modercrt~----, Retain Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 20 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix C: Photographs Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 23 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick @monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 24 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist As sessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @ monarcharborist.com July 10 , 2016 25 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com July 1 0, 2016 26 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 27 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines Section 29.10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications 1. Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2. Area type to be fenced: Type 1: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall b e wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3. Duration of Type I, II, III fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone-This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E). All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 1. Prior to the commencement of construction, in stall the fence at the drip line, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2. Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drip line of the tree unle ss approved by the Director. 3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drip line of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the drip line of a protected tree. 4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5 . Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 28 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 7 . The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Additional tree protection measures: Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Root Pruning Roots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom . Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneli ng Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone . Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified according to ANSI A-300A standards and limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices, and adhere to ANSI 2133 .1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick @monarc harborist.com 29 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: English CD ~ 0 N C)~ ~ .2 ·-.... ~ u '-CD ca ... ==~ D. CD CD '-t- ~ '""CO') Q) c > ·-O'""C E '-Q)8~ a:~~ Q) ~o (ll+-' -~ +-' ctS . Ocm ZQ)C\J =O..Q) ctSo-o .!:FO (/)+-'() Q) ~ c (.) ........ ::::> c .c > Q)::l~ U..(/) en en ·--.!:'""C 1-c <( Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 July 10, 2016 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 30 of 33 19 Highland Avenue E2: Spanish Arborist Assessment 0 , ·-.Q). ... Q) l-oa. ,_ ca o -c.c ·-1-:::J<( OQ) c ca c 0 N en 0 -c co (.) co en CD '"'C cl.(') :Q N uo c~ ~0 ~ Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 31 of 33 19 HighlandAvenue Arborist Assessment July 1 0, 2016 Quali f ications, Ass um pt io ns, and Limiting Condit io n s Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings , hearings, conferences, mediations, arb itration , or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services . This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers , or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference . Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee , expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 32 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my fmdings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subj ect of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis , opinions, and conclusions were de veloped and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results , or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arbori sts LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses s tated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 33 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Re sponse to Tree Number Discrepanc ies July 10, 2016 July 9, 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consulting Arborists LLC P.O . Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831 . 331. 8982 Regarding the discrepancy between the tree inventory quantities and the number of trees on the property from the inventory provided on May 10,2016. I was asked by Mr. Pearson to help explain why the number of trees provided in the tree inventory (91) contained at least five more trees than were counted on the si te by another party or on the plans themselves. The original report and inventory provided by Davi d Babby for the Town of Los Gatos included trees #48, #49, #51, #52, and #53 which are located near the property boundary on the adjacent parcel. I also included these trees in my assessment for consistency and they were indicated on the plans as well. In addition to these trees I recorded all the trees on the hillside that were not on any of the original documents. At least one tree , a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), is located within the fenced yard of an adjacent site. However the boundary survey I was u sing indicated this tree as actually on the 19 Highland site and not on the adjacent property as the fence alignment would indicate. Whenever trees are located near the property boundary or their crowns extend over the property boundary they are typically included in an inventory or assessment of this type . The "American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management : Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site D evelopment, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH· Secretariat, Tre e Care Indus try Association, 2012" section 53.3.1.1 recommends tree tree care professionals performing this type of inventory and assessment include tho se on adjacent sites if they could be impacted. Because the Babby report contained the adjacent trees and I also include those trees there is a discrepancy between the number of trees inventoried/assessed and the number of trees actually located within the property boundary. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Response to Tree Number Discrepancies July 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report , and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J . Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced , s tored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means , electronic, mec hanical, recording, or otherwise without th e ex press, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982 -r ick@monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION: JUNE 8, 2016 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 19 Highland A venue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family res idence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Y:!. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Ed Pearson FINDINGS: CEQA: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and adopted in 2010 for a similar single-family development application. The proposed application is in compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subjected to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010. No additional CEQA findings are required. Compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • Exceptions to the LRDA are required to locate the resi dence away from the creek. This exception was supported by the Planning Commission in 20 10 . The project is otherwise in compliance with applicable Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a s ing le-family res idence being developed on an existing parcel. The proposed development is consistent with the development criteria included in the specific plan . CONSIDERATIONS: Considerations in review ofArchitecture & 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. The house is an appropriate size for the property, the proposed project i s compatible with development on s urrounding residential properties, and exterior colors and materials will help blend the new building into the s ite. There is limited visibility into the s ite from surrounding homes and existing and proposed vegetation will aid in screening the new residence , and outdoor spaces. N :\DEV\FI N DI NGS\2 0 I 6\Highlandl 9.doc EXHIBIT 3 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank