The URL can be used to link to this page

Staff Report with Exhibits.140 Arroyo Grande Way PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 05/12/2021 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: May 7, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Property Zoned R-1:8 Located at 140 Arroyo Grande Way. APN 424-23-048. Architecture and Site Application S-20-013. Property Owner/Applicant: Yogesh Jhamb. Project Planner: Sean Mullin. BACKGROUND: On March 24, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the application and continued the matter to May 12, 2021. The Planning Commission directed the applicant to consider the comments of the Planning Commission, including: • Incorporate the recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect; • Reduce and lower the mass of the roof; • Meet with the neighbors on either side, behind, and across the street from the property; • Address privacy concerns related to window height and placement; and • Clarify if the front yard will be landscaped. Following the meeting of March 24, 2021, the applicant revised the development plans to incorporate all the recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect and to address the Planning Commission’s comments (Exhibits 13 and 15). The story poles have been updated and an updated project sign has been posted in accordance with Town policy. PAGE 2 OF 6 SUBJECT: 140 Arroyo Grande Way/S-20-013 DATE: May 7, 2021 DISCUSSION: The applicant has revised the development plans in response to the recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect and the comments received from the Planning Commission (Exhibit 15). The applicant has provided a letter outlining the design revisions, efforts to meet with their neighbors, and a preliminary landscape plan (Exhibit 13). A summary of the applicant’s response to the recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect and the comments received from the Planning Commission is provided below. Town’s Consulting Architect Recommendations: 1. Lower the roof eave height as much as possible. The recommendation illustrations show a one-foot decrease in height. The applicant has lowered the plate height and corresponding eave height by one foot. 2. Utilize a hip roof on the garage in lieu of the proposed gable. The applicant has changed the gable-end roofs over the garage and at the rear of the residence to hip roofs. 3. Simplify the window forms and styles and provide wood trim on all façades. The applicant had previously included wood trim on all façades and the revised plans continue to do so. The windows have been revised to eliminate the arched windows on all façades and simplified the window types to include fixed, sliders, and casements. 4. Eliminate the brick in favor of a uniform stucco treatment and add a moulding trim strip. The applicant had previously eliminated the brick on all elevations and had provided uniform stucco treatment as suggested. 5. Substantially recess the garage door and select a garage door color to blend with the main body of the home rather than contrasting with it. The applicant had previously recessed the garage door and specified a dark gray color to match the front door to blend with the residence as recommended. 6. Remove the roof dormer to simplify the roof. The applicant has eliminated the roof dormer. PAGE 3 OF 6 SUBJECT: 140 Arroyo Grande Way/S-20-013 DATE: May 7, 2021 DISCUSSION (continued): Planning Commission Recommendations, March 24, 2021: In addition to the revisions made in response to the recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect, the applicant has responded to the direction of the Planning Commission as follows: • Reduce and lower the mass of the roof; The applicant has lowered the plate height by one foot, reduced the roof pitch from 5/12 to 4/12, and changed the gable-end roofs over the garage and at the rear of the residence to hip roofs. The overall impact of these revisions reduces the maximum height of the residence by five feet, 11 inches and reduces the prominence of the mass of the roof. The applicant has also simplified the roof above the turret bay on the front elevation. • Meet with the neighbors on either side, behind, and across the street from the property; The applicant has indicated that they have discussed the project with their neighbors (Exhibit 13). The public comments included in Exhibit 14 include feedback from the neighbors. • Address privacy concerns related to window height and placement; and The applicant has reduced the top window height by one foot , from nine feet, four inches, to eight feet, four inches. • Clarify if the front yard will be landscaped. The applicant provided a preliminary landscape plan for the front yard. In line with Town Code requirements, staff has included a Condition of Approval that the front yard be landscaped prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (Exhibit 3, Condition 9). The minimum front yard landscape requirement prior to occupancy is for mulch to be spread on areas disturbed by construction. PAGE 4 OF 6 SUBJECT: 140 Arroyo Grande Way/S-20-013 DATE: May 7, 2021 DISCUSSION (continued): A summary of the design revisions made to date is provided in the table below: Summary of Architectural Revisions to Date June 12, 2020 Plans for Consulting Architect March 24, 2021 Plans for PC May 12, 2021 Plans for PC Floor Area, residence 2,127 square feet 2,123 square feet 2,123 square feet Maximum Height 23 feet – 10½ inches 21 feet – 10½ inches 15 feet – 11½ inches Plate Height 11 feet – 4 inches 11 feet – 4 inches 10 feet – 4 inches Height at Top of Windows 9 feet – 4 inches 9 feet – 4 inches 8 feet – 4 inches Roof Pitch (main) 6/12 5/12 4/12 Roof pitch (turret bay) 6/12 to 8/12 5½/12 to 7½/12 4/12 Roof Form Hip with gable ends at garage and rear. Hip with gable ends at garage and rear. Hip at the garage and rear. Window Style Arched top front and rear, and flat top sides. Fixed, slider, double hung, and casement. Arched top front and rear, and flat top sides. Fixed, slider, double hung, and casement. Flat top on all elevations. Fixed, sliders, and casement. Dormer Above front entry. Above front entry. None. STORY POLES: The installed story poles have been updated to reflect the revised design. The updated story poles have been certified by a licensed surveyor who indicated that they accurately reflect the height and location of the revised design of the proposed residence. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Updated story poles and project signage were installed on the site by April 28, 2021, in anticipation of the May 12, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, March 19, 2021, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 7, 2021, are included as Exhibit 14. All comments were forwarded to the applicant upon receipt. PAGE 5 OF 6 SUBJECT: 140 Arroyo Grande Way/S-20-013 DATE: May 7, 2021 CONCLUSION: A. Summary The applicant has submitted revised development plans responding to the recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect and the March 24, 2021 comments of the Planning Commission (Exhibit 15). B. Recommendation Should the Planning Commission determine that the revised project meets the direction provided at the March 24, 2021 meeting, the Commission can take the actions below to approve the Architecture and Site application: 1. Make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmen tal Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction (Exhibit 2); 2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2); 3. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) (Exhibit 2); 4. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2); 5. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and 6. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-20-013 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the revised development plans in Exhibit 15. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the application. PAGE 6 OF 6 SUBJECT: 140 Arroyo Grande Way/S-20-013 DATE: May 7, 2021 EXHIBITS: Previously received with the March 24, 2021 Staff Report: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings and Considerations 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Project Description 5. Letter of Justification 6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated June 29, 2020 7. Applicant’s response to the recommendations of the Consulting Architect 8. Neighborhood exhibit by staff 9. Town Arborist’s Report, dated November 2, 2020 10. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 19, 2021 11. Applicant’s response to public comments 12. Development Plans Received with this Staff Report: 13. Applicant Response Letter 14. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, March 19, 2021 and 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 7, 2021 15. Revised Development Plans, received May 5, 2021 Planning Commission, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030. Date: April 30, 2021 RE: Plan Updates – 140 Arroyo Grande Way (S-20-013) Dear Planning Commissioners: We appreciate your comments and suggestions on our project that were provided during the review meeting on March 24, 2021. We have made significant changes to the plans to address your concerns and incorporate your suggestions. We have also conscientiously worked with our neighbors to address their concerns. 1.Reduce Mass and Bulk of New Home We have changed the design and pitch of the roof to achieve a 6’ reduction in the height of the home. The height of the home has been reduced from 21’-10.5 to 15’-11.5”. The comparison between the design originally submitted and the latest design is depicted in the image below. In addition to reducing the height of the new home, we have also done the following: •Simplified the roof forms by replacing the garage gable roof with a hip roof. •Incorporated consistent window forms of all elevations. •Removed the roof dormer. •Lowered the roof eaves by 1’. We have met all the recommendations of the town’s consultant architect, and these changes are consistent with other homes in the immediate neighborhood. As shown in the image below, the height of our new home is a little less than two homes in the immediate neighborhood that are just across the street. EXHIBIT 13 While the new home is 3’ taller than the original home, the side elevation given below shows that this maximum height is only reached at a certain point and the majority of the roof is at 14’ or less from grade level. This was done primarily to address the sky-view concerns of our neighbors to the right at 124 Arroyo Grande Way. 2. Landscape We are working with a landscape architect to design a garden in the front of our home. The garden in our front-yard will have drought-resistant and low-water usage plants and shrubs with a view towards water conservation. An image of the plan showing the front-yard is given below. 3. Working with Neighbors We have reached out to all our neighbors in the immediate neighborhood, and also the neighbors at the back who expressed some concerns during the last review meeting. Most of our immediate neighbors have expressed support for our project and some of their comments are given below. “Dear Hema and Yogi, My name is Michael Palaniuk and I am the son of your neighbor, Eva and Sylvester Palaniuk at 120 Arroyo Grande Way. Thank you so much for dropping off your revised building plans. Our family fully supports you building your dream home for your family. Sincerely Michael Palaniuk” “Hello Yogesh, Thanks for sharing the updated plan of your house. Many LG neighborhoods have gone through similar transitions already. Therefore, I support any project that will improve the curb appeal of the neighborhood. Good luck! Ayhan Mutlu Your neighbor from 147 Arroyo Grande Way” “Hi Hema and Yogi, Thank you very much for showing me your site plan for your upcoming remodel. This was a very nice courtesy I haven't ever received from my other neighbors prior to their remodels. I love the turret. It will add a touch of class to the neighborhood! Even though you had to make it lower, it will still be very nice. I studied your plan, and it looks very nice. Best regards, Jane Loomis 109 Arroyo Grande Way” We have worked diligently to address the concerns of our neighbors who did not support the project based on the original design. Our attempt to resolve their concerns is outlined below. a. Sky-view / Sunlight: We have reduced the height of the home by 6’, which addresses the sky-view and sunlight concerns. Even though the new home is 3’ taller than our current home, it should have minimal impact on the neighbors at the back as their home is at a 2’ higher grade level compared to our home. The neighbors to the right at 124 Arroyo Grande Way have asked that the height of the house be 14’ above grade level to get a good sky-view from their side windows. We have explained to them that, as show in the side elevation provided above, only a small fraction of the roof is above 14’ and the vast majority of the roof is 14’ or lower from grade level. We have also explained that lowering the roof any more makes the house-to-roof ratio disproportionate and increases the prominence of the garage, which is not desirable per the Los Gatos design guidelines. b. Privacy: We value the privacy of our neighbors. We have lowered all windows by 1’ to address the privacy concerns of our neighbors. The neighbors at our back are at a 2’ higher grade level, which effectively makes the fence 8’ tall (see image below). We have explained this to our neighbors at the back and they have not raised any more concerns. We have highlighted to our side neighbors that there is no way for us to look over the 7’ fence standing at the floor level, as shown below. We have a 6’ fence on one side, and we are willing to share the cost of increasing the height to 7’. We have limited the number of windows on both the side elevations. The right elevation has only one bedroom window and the remaining two are bathroom windows. The left elevation has 2 garage windows; however, they don’t face a living area and our neighbor has no windows in their garage. There is one media room window and one bathroom window on the right-side elevation. We have also offered to mitigate the privacy concerns of our neighbors on both sides by having screening trees. Unfortunately, we have heard conflictiing statements from our neighbors to the right (Charlene and Ian Land – 124 Arroyo Grande Way), which makes it very difficult to reach a resolution. When we offered to lower the height of all windows by 1’, Charlene and Ian responded that they have mitigated the problem at their end (see excerpt below). Excerpt from email sent by Charlene and Ian Land on 03/21/2021 “Lower windows - we appreciate your reducing your windows, but the fence and our top-down/bottom-up blinds mitigate our privacy concerns if you would like to raise the windows back up.” We still lowered the windows by 1’, and then we got the following response, asking us to lower the windows below 7’. Excerpt from email sent by Charlene and Ian Land on 04/17/2021 “Privacy – top of windows should be lower than top of 7’ fence.” These emails have been forwarded to the city to add to our project file. c. Health / Other Considerations: We have also worked with the neighbor at the back to assuage her health concerns by sharing our plans to begin construction during the winter when windows are closed, mitigating the effect of dust and noise to a large extent. We have also assured all our neighbors that we will keep them informed about the construction timelines and plans to avoid any disruption of their daily routines. To summarize, we have revised the plans to address all comments and suggestions from the planning commission and the town’s consultant architect. We have also worked diligently to address the concerns from a few neighbors. The rest of our immediate neighbors feel that our new home fits well into the neighborhood. We would also like to reiterate our need for living space. We have two grown-up children, a 21- year-old son and a 15-year-old daughter, who live with us. In addition to that, we have visiting grandparents and family that stay with us for extended periods. Hema’s father passed away last year, and her mother intends to visit and stay with us once the COVID situation improves. We appreciate the time and effort that the planning commission and the Los Gatos planning department has spent on our project to help us build our dream home. We hope for a favorable response to our application. Sincerely, Hema and Yogesh Jhamb 140 Arroyo Grande Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032. From: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 11:47 AM To: Ian Land <iland_7@yahoo.com> Cc: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Subject: Re: submission for 140 Arroyo Grande Way Update and Errata to our document “Reply_140ArroyoGrandeJustification_22Dec20a.pdf” submitted on 12/22/2020 mentioned below in this thread. Hello Sean, We would like to provide an update to the data we sent in December. Since the erection of the storyboards, we are now most concerned about the project’s impacts to our sky view and privacy. Please refer to the presentation Ian sent this morning (3/24/21). For the previous chart regarding average home sizes in our neighborhood, the previous calculations wrongly included the garage square footage for 140 Arroyo Grande's new home size. Such was not included for other home data. We now know “percentage of lot size” is referred to as FAR (Floor Area Ratio). Please see the attached updated chart with the project’s actual size of 2123 square feet. The FAR of the proposed construction is 33% (versus incorrect 40%). Please note that 33% FAR exceeds all other single-story homes in the 30 nearest subdivision homes used in our chart, the average of which is 21% for interior parcels. The Los Gatos “Single and Two Family Residential Design Guidelines” focuses on a project site’s “immediate neighborhood.” For the seven homes in the immediate neighborhood of the proposed construction, the average FAR for internal parcels is 23%. None of the applicants’ Justification Letter’s comparison homes are part of project site’s immediate neighborhood. In addition to updating the chart with the project’s actual FAR, the relevant “immediate neighborhood” homes are now marked. Please see the attached updated chart. Thank you, Charlene and Ian Land EXHIBIT 14 From: ANNA HELLMER <ahellmer@comcast.net> Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2021 12:37 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov>; Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Shelley Neis <sneis@losgatosca.gov> Subject: APN 424-23-048 - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Dear Mr. Sean Mullin and Planning Commission et al, This message is to communicate our objection to, and concerns with the proposed project at 140 Arroyo Grande Way. The project is too large and too complex as currently proposed. 140 Arroyo Grande Way is in the middle of a residential block that is ninety-nine percent single story homes. If the proposed project is executed as planned it would create a structure that is inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood--in essence shoe-horning in a structure that does not match in style and size with the rest of the neighborhood. We mostly agree with Cannon Design Group's analysis of the proposed project, with the exception that the structure height is too high. The Jhamb's stated they consulted with their neighbors on either side of them but they failed to show sensitivity and respect for their neighbors behind them. The back of their house has been our view to the east as the sun rises for the last twenty-five years. From our view point, the sheer height and mass of the proposed structure is too much. We love to garden and grow our own food and the amount of sunlight we currently enjoy would be diminished. Sincerely, Mark & Anna Hellmer 147 Las Astas Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 358-6363 From: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 12:18 PM To: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Cc: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Update Plan - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Yogi, Thank you for sending the elevation drawings for our review. We spent some time this morning to clarify our concerns after looking at the modified drawings. We still have the following primary concerns which we have mentioned previously: * The 15' 11.5" roof peak will still have a significant impact on our sky view * The 8' 4" window peaks will be 1' 4" above a 7' fence and will impact our privacy * The 10'4" eves impact the roof height and the bulk from our south-facing windows Given those concerns, we would propose the following targets, priorities and requests: Overarching Targets Sky View and Natural Light - From 124 Arroyo Grande Way - Target 50% or more of existing sky view standing inside at 30” from interior wall, 6’ tall person (please note this is substantial reduction) from all five windows Privacy - No windows over the top of the fence, 7’ fence (6’ solid +1’ lattice) Must-have Lower the roof peak(s) to a maximum of 14’ from finish grade (not floor level). This is 2’ above Immediate Neighborhood Interior Parcels (*INIP) typical and 6” above 124 Arroyo Grande Way's approximately 7’ long Clerestory Peak. Privacy – top of windows should be lower than top of 7’ fence. Lower the eaves to a maximum of 9’4” above finish grade level (INIP typical is 8’6”) All changes in drawings submitted to the city and posted on the website Changes should be reflected in the storyboards before the May 12th Planning Commission hearing Strongly Suggest and Other Items We believe our privacy will be better if you replace the turret and conical roof section with a bay window and hip roof Lessening the side expansion could reduce the bulk and the overall height We are concerned that a 2nd-level or additional rooms will be added after initial permits obtained. We would like reassurances that you will follow the permit process for future changes. *INIP – Immediate Neighborhood Interior Parcel as defined by page 11 of the Los Gatos Residential Guidelines. Please note that we have used all dimensions from finished grade and not floor level, unless stated differently. Also, I copied Sean to make sure it is clear to the city that we are communicating with you in response to statements you made at the hearing that suggested otherwise. Thank you, Ian and Charlene On April 12, 2021 at 6:30 PM, Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> wrote: Charlene / Ian: Please find attached the revised elevations based on the planning commission review feedback. We have lowered the exterior walls from 10’ to 9’. The roof design and pitch has also been updated to decrease the overall height of the proposed home by 6’. We believe that these changes should address your sky-view and privacy concerns. Let us know if you have any other comments or suggestions. Thank you, Hema and Yogi From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 7:56 PM To: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Cc: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Update Plan - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Charlene / Ian: We have discussed your suggestions with our architect and our assessment is presented below. First off, we want to clarify our comment during the last planning commission meeting. We were merely trying to explain that when we made an offer to reduce the height of the proposed home by 3’-4’, you replied that it would not be sufficient, without indicating the reduction you desire. 1. We have made a significant reduction in the height of the new home by lowering the overall height by 6’. We attempted to lower the roof a bit more; however, it makes the house-to-roof ratio disproportionate and increases the prominence of the garage. The Los Gatos Design Guidelines (page 11) explicit states to avoid garages that dominate street frontage. We have attached an image of the side elevation indicating that the maximum height of the home is only attained at a particular point and it is 14’ or lower for the remainder of its length. 2. Your email dated 03/21/2021, which is attached, indicates that you have mitigated the privacy concerns at your end, and you indicated that we should move the window top back to 9’-4”. Now you are stating otherwise and want the windows to be even lower. Excerpt from your email: “Lower windows - we appreciate your reducing your windows, but the fence and our top- down/bottom-up blinds mitigate our privacy concerns if you would like to raise the windows back up.” The bedroom window on our side elevation towards your home does not align with any of your windows. The remaining two windows are bathroom windows, which will have no visibility. We have attached an image that indicates how a 4’ window would look with the top of the window at 5’-6” from floor level to be aligned with the top of the fence at 7’. As you can see, this results in the window being too low on the wall. We hope you can understand that we value your privacy and that there is no way for us to look over the fence standing at the floor level. 3. We have lowered the roof eaves by 1’ as recommended by the town’s consultant architect. All new homes have either 9’ or 10’ exterior walls. The current homes have 8’ walls as they were built in the 1950s. We are trying to build a house for the future, not the past. 4. All plan updates and story pole changes have to completed before the planning commission review; otherwise, the city does not schedule the review. 5. Our architect has indicated that the bay window structure does not align with a hip roof, and in any case a hip roof will be taller than a conical roof. If you review the front elevation carefully, you will notice that the top of the garage hip roof is taller than the conical roof. 6. We also don’t believe that lessening the side expansion will reduce the bulk and overall height. In any case, the setback of 8’-3” towards our side is 37% more than the setback of 6’ that you have on the other side. We are unable to provide additional setback. 7. There is no way to make additions or build a second level without going through a permit process. We understand and appreciate your concerns as neighbors, and we have made every effort to address them. We hope that you can understand our feelings as property owners—we want to build for the future, not the past, and in addition to serving our everyday requirements, we want our home to have good curbside appeal. Thank you, Hema and Yogi From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2021 7:56 PM To: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Cc: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Update Plan - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Charlene / Ian: We have discussed your suggestions with our architect and our assessment is presented below. First off, we want to clarify our comment during the last planning commission meeting. We were merely trying to explain that when we made an offer to reduce the height of the proposed home by 3’-4’, you replied that it would not be sufficient, without indicating the reduction you desire. 1. We have made a significant reduction in the height of the new home by lowering the overall height by 6’. We attempted to lower the roof a bit more; however, it makes the house-to-roof ratio disproportionate and increases the prominence of the garage. The Los Gatos Design Guidelines (page 11) explicit states to avoid garages that dominate street frontage. We have attached an image of the side elevation indicating that the maximum height of the home is only attained at a particular point and it is 14’ or lower for the remainder of its length. 2. Your email dated 03/21/2021, which is attached, indicates that you have mitigated the privacy concerns at your end, and you indicated that we should move the window top back to 9’-4”. Now you are stating otherwise and want the windows to be even lower. Excerpt from your email: “Lower windows - we appreciate your reducing your windows, but the fence and our top- down/bottom-up blinds mitigate our privacy concerns if you would like to raise the windows back up.” The bedroom window on our side elevation towards your home does not align with any of your windows. The remaining two windows are bathroom windows, which will have no visibility. We have attached an image that indicates how a 4’ window would look with the top of the window at 5’-6” from floor level to be aligned with the top of the fence at 7’. As you can see, this results in the window being too low on the wall. We hope you can understand that we value your privacy and that there is no way for us to look over the fence standing at the floor level. 3. We have lowered the roof eaves by 1’ as recommended by the town’s consultant architect. All new homes have either 9’ or 10’ exterior walls. The current homes have 8’ walls as they were built in the 1950s. We are trying to build a house for the future, not the past. 4. All plan updates and story pole changes have to completed before the planning commission review; otherwise, the city does not schedule the review. 5. Our architect has indicated that the bay window structure does not align with a hip roof, and in any case a hip roof will be taller than a conical roof. If you review the front elevation carefully, you will notice that the top of the garage hip roof is taller than the conical roof. 6. We also don’t believe that lessening the side expansion will reduce the bulk and overall height. In any case, the setback of 8’-3” towards our side is 37% more than the setback of 6’ that you have on the other side. We are unable to provide additional setback. 7. There is no way to make additions or build a second level without going through a permit process. We understand and appreciate your concerns as neighbors, and we have made every effort to address them. We hope that you can understand our feelings as property owners—we want to build for the future, not the past, and in addition to serving our everyday requirements, we want our home to have good curbside appeal. Thank you, Hema and Yogi From: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 11:25 AM To: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com> Cc: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Subject: Re: Response to comments Dear Yogi and Hema, Thank you for the response, for your willingness to communicate, and for the proposal of changes. First off, Charlene apologizes for her behavior the day she spoke to you in August. This has been very emotional for us and we are sure it is also emotional for you. She had more details on her apology in our first draft, but I removed it. I believe she has flogged herself enough over that day. Second, I would like to address a few items from your recent email. 1. Neither Charlene nor myself communicated with Joe Feng before this email being sent. His words are his own. 2. My March text was not our first time prioritizing our concerns. I listed our priorities in the December note in the first line of paragraph 3. The March text is a clarification of our priorities after the storyboards have gone up. 3. I want to get out of the 'house too big discussion.' We understand and respect your family's need for space. Our concern is that the size of the house on this small lot in the center of the neighborhood that pushes city setbacks on all sides. We believe the changes have an impact on not only the families around you (including us), but also the long-term feel of the neighborhood. As I mentioned in my text, this would not be an issue if we had bigger lot sizes. 4. I was quite offended at your accusation that we have been anything less than truthful. I/we want to avoid a blaming and defensive argument, so we will continue to try to work with you in good faith and will ignore accusations and attribute them to the emotions we are all working through. Third, regarding the proposals, the foremost concern we have today is the roof height and how it impedes our sky view. The responses below reflect that. • Wall height - we appreciate the 1' reduction since it reduces the roof height. • Lower windows - we appreciate your reducing your windows, but the fence and our top- down/bottom-up blinds mitigate our privacy concerns if you would like to raise the windows back up. • Fence - I am glad we can make this change and share the cost for this. • Roof height - we appreciate the proposal. However, it will still have a significant impact on the sky view from our South-facing windows. For example, at the desk I am typing this letter at right now, my sky view will be at best a sliver after proposed changes. Regarding saying nothing at the hearing - unfortunately, it is too late for us to agree to that. Without seeing drawing and story board changes submitted to the city, we feel it is unwise for us to go without expressing our concerns. Thank you again for the communication. I wish it had not been so difficult for all of us and I hope this is all part of learning to work together going forward. Ian On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:56 PM, Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> wrote: Charlene / Ian: This is in response to the text you sent us on March 14th, 2021, in which you stated your concerns about our remodel project. First of all, we would like you to know that we are extremely disappointed at how you have focused on only your concerns as neighbors, completely ignoring or caring for our needs as property owners. It is also surprising that you expect empathy and consideration from us after sending such a strongly worded letter to the city. We also don’t understand why you are assuming that both of you are the only people distressed by this situation. We believe that this is the first time you have listed and prioritized your concerns, and earlier you were not interested in working together to resolve the differences regarding the project. We remember how Charlene invited us to see your new home on a Sunday morning while Ian was away. After a quick tour of the house, Charlene surprised us by listing concerns about our project in front of our children. The ideal way to handle your concerns would have been to give us a heads-up and then the four of us could have gotten together to discuss the project. We tried to address Charlene’s concerns by sending the latest plans and providing our view on the privacy and height concerns. We never got any response from your side, and we believe that you started communicating with Joe Feng, our neighbor on the other side. Joe Feng had sent some initial concerns to the city, but later he started adding other concerns about sunlight / sky-view, which we believe reflected your thinking. We still didn’t get any prioritized list of concerns from you and on Jan 05th, 2021, we received an email from the city planner on the letter dated Dec 22nd, 2020, in which you sent all your concerns to the city. You later dropped a printed copy of the same letter, along with a handwritten note in our mailbox the same day. It seems like you were not aware that the city forwards all concerns to the homeowner and you were hoping to achieve your objectives behind our back. If you were truthful, then you should have sent that letter to us first, checking with us to see if we can reach a resolution. Anyhow, we will attempt to address the concerns you have raised and propose a resolution that seems fair to both sides: 1. First of all, we don’t believe that our house is too big. We have a bigger family, and our needs are different compared to yours. You have a single child, who is away studying in Utah so 1,647 square-foot of living space is sufficient for you. However, we have two grown-up children, who intend to stay at home as long as possible. Nitya still has three more years of high school and is planning to attend college in the Bay Area. Dhruv is planning to attend a graduate program at Stanford in the fall of 2021 and intends to live at home through the graduate program and even while working at a job. Children are increasingly living with their parents well into adulthood to mitigate the problem of high rents in the Bay Area. This is why we require 2,123 square feet of living space for our new home. We never told you how much to build when you remodeled your home, and you built what you felt was appropriate for your family’s size and needs. In the same way, we would like to build what is appropriate for our family within the limits allowed by the city. 2. We also don’t agree that if everyone builds to the maximum allowed setback, then there would be wall-to-wall houses. There will still be a 16’ gap between adjacent homes (8’ setback for each property), and a 30’ gap between back-to-back homes (15’ setback for each property). The land utilization will still be at 40%, and 60% of the land in each parcel will be left for open space. We are not willing to increase the setback to more than 8’ towards your home, as other neighbors may also start asking for additional setback, and then we will have no space to build our home. We also feel that the bay window style at the corner of our home is essential to the selected architecture style. We fail to see how a view of people walking or driving on the street is more important that our need for living space on land that we own. We also believe that you have a clear view of the street from all your front windows, and if you would like, we can provide a photo highlighting that. 3. In regard to the privacy concerns, we are willing to share the cost of increasing the height of the fence to the maximum limit allowed by city. We have only kept windows on both sides when there was no other choice. When placing windows towards the backyard or the street were possible, we avoided placing side windows. The floor level of the new home also remains the same. 4. We believe that the proposed home will not block sunlight or view of the sky. The roof of the proposed home increases gradually and keeping in mind the trajectory of the sun, it will be always be visible over the proposed home. We also don’t believe that you would have insufficient light in the rooms of your house due to the proposed home. Our current home has two bedrooms with south-west facing windows and one bedroom with north- west facing windows, and we get ample light. The bedrooms in the new home are either north facing or south-west facing, and we hope to get ample light. After reviewing your prioritized list of items, we are willing to make the following changes to the plan: 1. Reduce the height of all exterior walls from 10’ down to 9’. 2. Lower all windows so that the top of the window is at 7’. 3. Share the cost to increase the height of the fence to 7’, which is allowed by the city. We are willing to share the cost and effort to obtain a permit to increase the height more than 7’, if that is what you desire. 4. Decrease the height of the home by an additional 2’-3’, either by reducing the slope of the roof, or by changing the roof design. The above changes will reduce the overall height of the proposed home to the 17’-18’ range, which is in line with other homes in neighborhood—the home across the street (143 Arroyo Grande Way) has a height of 16’-17’ and Jim and Lynne’s home (115 La Cienega) stands around 15’-16’. These changes will address your concerns regarding the sunlight and privacy. If you agree to these changes, then we are willing to make them even if the city doesn’t ask us to do so. However, we would require assurance that you will not request any other changes and not raise any other concerns to the city, either in writing or at the planning commission review. We are unable to reduce the living area as we require space for a bigger family and we also have family visiting us from India for extended periods. Hema’s mother intends to visit and stay with us once the Covid situation improves. The fact is that we no longer live in 1958, the period when these homes were built. With the increased cost of housing, people are building to maximize the living area. Note that even with a living area of 2,123 square-feet, we are only utilizing 33% of the available land. We believe that we have proposed a fair and just resolution to your concerns regarding the project. If you don’t agree to this proposal, then let us both put our case in front of the planning commission and let them make a decision. Thank you, Hema and Yogi From: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, April 24, 2021 11:29 AM To: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Cc: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Update Plan - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Yogi and Hema, We are having trouble with formatting of our response, so we turned it into a PDF. It is attached. Thank you, Ian and Charlene From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 6:33 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: FW: Thank you for sharing the updated house plan Sean: We met many of our neighbors in the immediate neighborhood today. All of them expressed support for our project and one of them even complimented our bay window and turret design saying that “it brings a feeling of richness to the neighborhood”. One of our immediate neighbors at 147 Arroyo Grande Way has sent an email supporting our project. Please include this email in our project file for review by the planning commission. Thank you, -Yogi From: Ayhan Mutlu <ayhan.amutlu@gmail.com> Date: Sunday, April 25, 2021 at 5:24 PM To: "jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com" <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Subject: Thank you for sharing the updated house plan Hello Yogesh, Thanks for sharing the updated plan of your house. Many LG neighborhoods have gone through similar transitions already. Therefore, I support any project that will improve the curb appeal of the neighborhood. Good luck! Ayhan Mutlu Your neighbor from 147 Arroyo Grande Way From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 11:01 AM To: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Cc: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Update Plan - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Charlene / Ian: We have reviewed the document attached to your email and our response is given below. We have also spent many hours trying to address your concerns by working with the architect and communicating with you. In addition to that, we are also in correspondence with the other neighbors, with the city for plan review and approval, with the story pole contractor and surveyor to coordinate the story pole adjustments and certification. We have already expressed our requirements for living space and certain architectural elements in our new home. Moving forward, we would like to focus our communication on just your sky- view and privacy concerns as this is both mentally and physically exhausting for us. 1. It doesn’t seem to us that you have acquiesced to our expansion as you keep asking for more setback towards your home. As we stated, we are providing a setback of 8’-3”, which is 3” more than what is required by the city. 2. The town’s consultant architect had initially reported an increase of 9’ in height for the new home. Since we have made a 6’ reduction in height, the new home will be 3’ taller than the current home, and not 4’ as you stated. As depicted in the side elevation, 90% or more of the roof is at or below the 14’ height that you have asked. It is unfortunate that you are not willing to compromise with only a very small portion of the roof being above 14’. 3. We also want to point out that a 100% increase of a 1,150 s.f. home is 2,300 s.f., not 2,123 s.f. Therefore, we don’t have a 100% square footage increase as you stated, and we are disappointed at the way you continue to exaggerate your claims and concerns. 4. As we previously stated in our email, there is only 1 bedroom window on the side elevation towards your home. This is the same as the existing bedroom window that we currently have. The remaining two windows in the new home are bathroom windows that would have no visibility. we can mitigate this issue by having a screening tree or other landscape option. 5. As far as privacy is concerned, we have heard two different contradictory statements from you. We fail to understand the logic of conveniently choosing to supersede one over another. Again, we are talking about a single bedroom window, and we can mitigate this issue by having a screening tree or other landscape option. We have already reduced the top of the windows by 1’. 6. We have also explained that all new homes have either 9’ or 10’ exterior walls, which results in 10’- 4” or 11’-4” roof eaves. We have already lowered the roof eaves from 11’-4” to 10’-4” and you are not willing to compromise. 7. We have already expressed our desire to keep certain architectural elements in our new home, which have been approved by the town’s consultant architect. Therefore, we wish to retain the bay window structure with the conical roof. 8. We are repeating ourselves that all changes for additions and expansions will be done following the city’s permit process. 9. As far as the recommendations on reducing the height are concerned: a. We already have coffered ceilings, which raise the ceiling height to 10’ inside the house. As we stated earlier, all new homes (even in Los Gatos), are being built with 9’ or 10’ exterior walls. b. The floor level of 1’-4” is to provide for crawl space, which is required by the building code for all new homes. This guideline may not have been there in the 1950s when these homes were originally built. c. The roof pitch of 4”-12” has been selected to maintain the appropriate house-to-roof proportion. As we stated before, lowering the roof any further impacts this ratio and increases the prominence of the garage. We understand that the city wants us to work together; however, this entails accommodations on both sides. If we have decreased the height of the new home by 6’, then you should be willing to accept an increase of 3’ from the existing home on only a small portion of the roof. The same way, lowering the exterior walls and windows from the proposed 2’ increase to 1’ is a reasonable compromise for both sides. Thank you, Hema and Yogi From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 8:02 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: FW: Building Sean: Here is another email from our immediate neighbor at 120 Arroyo Grande Way expressing support for our project. Please include this in our project file for review by the planning commission. Thank you, -Yogi On 4/26/21, 6:48 AM, "Michael Palaniuk" <michael.palaniuk@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Hema and Yogi, My name is Michael Palaniuk and I am the son of your neighbor, Eva and Sylvester Palaniuk at 120 Arroyo Grande Way. Thank you so much for dropping off your revised building plans. Our family fully supports you building your dream home for your family. There are numerous two story homes in this tract and I think it’s wrong that someone tells you that you can’t build a multi story home. Especially when so many families in this tract are remodeling their homes lately. We wish you all the best in your endeavors to build your new home. All the best. Sincerely Michael Palaniuk From: Jiuhua Feng <joe_feng@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 3:29 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: My Neighbor’s Remodel Sean, Thanks for your assistant trying to find my house’s record. The plan of 140 shows that my house is 14’ for roof and 9’ (8’ + 1’) for side wall. But my measurements are 12’ for roof and 8’ for side wall. May I obtain current 140’s record? I think that houses of 144 and 140 are originally built with same heights of roof and side wall. Thanks again. Joe On Apr 26, 2021, at 3:12 PM, Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> wrote: Hi Joe, I checked through the Town records and did not find any plans on file for your house. This is not uncommon for homes built in tracts in the 50s and 60s. Thank you, Sean Sean Mullin, AICP ● Associate Planner Community Development Department ● 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6823 ● smullin@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov ● https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca From: Jiuhua Feng <joe_feng@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 12:10 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: My Neighbor’s Remodel Sean, May I get my house’s records of roof and side wall height from city building apartment? The numbers showed in the plan of 140 Arroyo is quite different from what I measured (attached image) Thanks. Joe From: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2021 6:00 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: quick question(s) Thanks, Sean. I appreciate your continued help and guidance. Best Regards Ian On April 26, 2021 at 2:45 PM, Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> wrote: Hi Ian, I have responded to your questions below. Thankyou, Sean From: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 10:06 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com>; IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Subject: quick question(s) Sean, My apologies for including you on the previous email regarding 140 Arroyo Grande Way - I don't mean to disrespect your time and I understand you are not our arbitrator. I just wanted to start to set the record straight after the statements Yogi made in the last hearing that implied we were not working with him. I will take you off my next response as we negotiate the changes. No problem at all. I will include all correspondence received as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report for May 12th. The key question I have is what the code for the floor is. Their floor is raised to 1'4" above finish grade. Other homes that are immediate neighborhood interior parcel have floors that are 4" above ground. Is this part of the code for new homes or is this something they are doing for another reason? There is not a requirement from Planning relative to the height of the finished floor. This may be a design choice of the applicant. The 2nd question I have is how much the city wants me to solve this problem. I am trying to focus on the concerns of my family, direct neighbors and the neighborhood and he keeps countering with his design preferences. For example, if he were to lower the floor, use coffered ceilings, and change the roof pitch to the 3/12 in immediate neighborhood interior parcels, I suspect we would be pretty close. I would expect he and his designer could figure this out on their own, but that clearly has not happened since our original discussions last August. I would appreciate your guidance here on expectations of us as neighbors. We neighbors have all spent a crazy amount of time on these changes. You are welcome to continue to discuss your concerns and preferences with your neighbor. You may also continue to submit comments to me via email that I will include as an attachment to the Planning Commission staff report for May 12th. Thanks in advance Ian From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 6:08 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: FW: your building plan Sean: Attached is another email from an immediate neighbor. We would really like all these comments to be added to our project file. Please let us know if you can do so based on my forwarding them to you, or do they need to come directly to you from the neighbor. We will be highlighting these emails during our presentation, so it would be great to have them on file. Thank you, -Yogi From: JANE LOOMIS <janeloomis@comcast.net> Date: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 at 4:08 PM To: Hema and Yogi Yogesh <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Subject: Re: your building plan Hi Hema and Yogi, Thank you very much for showing me your site plan for your upcoming remodel. This was a very nice courtesy I haven't ever received from my other neighbors prior to their remodels. I love the turret. It will add a touch of class to the neighborhood! Even though you had to make it lower, it will still be very nice. I studied your plan, and it looks very nice. If ever you want to contact me for any reason, please feel free. I am retired from the semiconductor world and am almost always at home. I am the current president of the Los Gatos Art Association, and this keeps me extremely busy. Next year I too plan to build an addition, so I would welcome any advice. Even if you or your architect make any mistakes, I could learn a lot from knowing those things if you would ever care to share them with me! Best regards, Jane Loomis 109 Arroyo Grande Way 408 391-1850 cell janeloomis@comcast.net From: Jiuhua Feng <joe_feng@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2021 10:46 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: My Neighbor’s Remodel Sean, Thank you very much for your assistant to check through the city database for my house records. Now, my question is where did the plan of 140 Arroyo obtain my house’s roof and side wall heights? These data are important because the plan of 140 Arroyo makes comparisons between my house and 140 of Arroyo. According to my measurements, the charts in the plan of 140 Arroyo raises my roof 2’ and side wall 1’, respectively. I hope that these incorrect charts of the plan of 140 Arroyo can be revised before the next conference. Let me know if you have any questions. Joe From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2021 12:24 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Privacy Comments from Neighbors Sean: I have attached two emails from our neighbors to the right, Charlene and Ian Land, who live at 124 Arroyo Grande Way. These two emails contain two different contradictory statements with regard to privacy, which are highlighted below. When we offered to lower the windows by 1’, they wrote the following: Excerpt from email dated 03/21/2021: “Lower windows - we appreciate your reducing your windows, but the fence and our top-down/bottom- up blinds mitigate our privacy concerns if you would like to raise the windows back up.” In spite of their comment to raise the windows back up, we still updated the plans to lower all windows by 1’. We sent them the updated plans and they responded with the second email: Excerpt from email dated 04/17/2021: “Privacy – top of windows should be lower than top of 7’ fence.” We would like this information to be added to our project file, as we intend to present this information during the review on May 12th. Thank you, -Yogi From: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2021 11:25 AM To: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com> Cc: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Subject: Re: Response to comments Dear Yogi and Hema, Thank you for the response, for your willingness to communicate, and for the proposal of changes. First off, Charlene apologizes for her behavior the day she spoke to you in August. This has been very emotional for us and we are sure it is also emotional for you. She had more details on her apology in our first draft, but I removed it. I believe she has flogged herself enough over that day. Second, I would like to address a few items from your recent email. 1. Neither Charlene nor myself communicated with Joe Feng before this email being sent. His words are his own. 2. My March text was not our first time prioritizing our concerns. I listed our priorities in the December note in the first line of paragraph 3. The March text is a clarification of our priorities after the storyboards have gone up. 3. I want to get out of the 'house too big discussion.' We understand and respect your family's need for space. Our concern is that the size of the house on this small lot in the center of the neighborhood that pushes city setbacks on all sides. We believe the changes have an impact on not only the families around you (including us), but also the long-term feel of the neighborhood. As I mentioned in my text, this would not be an issue if we had bigger lot sizes. 4. I was quite offended at your accusation that we have been anything less than truthful. I/we want to avoid a blaming and defensive argument, so we will continue to try to work with you in good faith and will ignore accusations and attribute them to the emotions we are all working through. Third, regarding the proposals, the foremost concern we have today is the roof height and how it impedes our sky view. The responses below reflect that. • Wall height - we appreciate the 1' reduction since it reduces the roof height. • Lower windows - we appreciate your reducing your windows, but the fence and our top- down/bottom-up blinds mitigate our privacy concerns if you would like to raise the windows back up. • Fence - I am glad we can make this change and share the cost for this. • Roof height - we appreciate the proposal. However, it will still have a significant impact on the sky view from our South-facing windows. For example, at the desk I am typing this letter at right now, my sky view will be at best a sliver after proposed changes. Regarding saying nothing at the hearing - unfortunately, it is too late for us to agree to that. Without seeing drawing and story board changes submitted to the city, we feel it is unwise for us to go without expressing our concerns. Thank you again for the communication. I wish it had not been so difficult for all of us and I hope this is all part of learning to work together going forward. Ian On Mar 15, 2021, at 9:56 PM, Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> wrote: Charlene / Ian: This is in response to the text you sent us on March 14th, 2021, in which you stated your concerns about our remodel project. First of all, we would like you to know that we are extremely disappointed at how you have focused on only your concerns as neighbors, completely ignoring or caring for our needs as property owners. It is also surprising that you expect empathy and consideration from us after sending such a strongly worded letter to the city. We also don’t understand why you are assuming that both of you are the only people distressed by this situation. We believe that this is the first time you have listed and prioritized your concerns, and earlier you were not interested in working together to resolve the differences regarding the project. We remember how Charlene invited us to see your new home on a Sunday morning while Ian was away. After a quick tour of the house, Charlene surprised us by listing concerns about our project in front of our children. The ideal way to handle your concerns would have been to give us a heads-up and then the four of us could have gotten together to discuss the project. We tried to address Charlene’s concerns by sending the latest plans and providing our view on the privacy and height concerns. We never got any response from your side, and we believe that you started communicating with Joe Feng, our neighbor on the other side. Joe Feng had sent some initial concerns to the city, but later he started adding other concerns about sunlight / sky-view, which we believe reflected your thinking. We still didn’t get any prioritized list of concerns from you and on Jan 05th, 2021, we received an email from the city planner on the letter dated Dec 22nd, 2020, in which you sent all your concerns to the city. You later dropped a printed copy of the same letter, along with a handwritten note in our mailbox the same day. It seems like you were not aware that the city forwards all concerns to the homeowner and you were hoping to achieve your objectives behind our back. If you were truthful, then you should have sent that letter to us first, checking with us to see if we can reach a resolution. Anyhow, we will attempt to address the concerns you have raised and propose a resolution that seems fair to both sides: 1. First of all, we don’t believe that our house is too big. We have a bigger family, and our needs are different compared to yours. You have a single child, who is away studying in Utah so 1,647 square-foot of living space is sufficient for you. However, we have two grown-up children, who intend to stay at home as long as possible. Nitya still has three more years of high school and is planning to attend college in the Bay Area. Dhruv is planning to attend a graduate program at Stanford in the fall of 2021 and intends to live at home through the graduate program and even while working at a job. Children are increasingly living with their parents well into adulthood to mitigate the problem of high rents in the Bay Area. This is why we require 2,123 square feet of living space for our new home. We never told you how much to build when you remodeled your home, and you built what you felt was appropriate for your family’s size and needs. In the same way, we would like to build what is appropriate for our family within the limits allowed by the city. 2. We also don’t agree that if everyone builds to the maximum allowed setback, then there would be wall-to-wall houses. There will still be a 16’ gap between adjacent homes (8’ setback for each property), and a 30’ gap between back-to-back homes (15’ setback for each property). The land utilization will still be at 40%, and 60% of the land in each parcel will be left for open space. We are not willing to increase the setback to more than 8’ towards your home, as other neighbors may also start asking for additional setback, and then we will have no space to build our home. We also feel that the bay window style at the corner of our home is essential to the selected architecture style. We fail to see how a view of people walking or driving on the street is more important that our need for living space on land that we own. We also believe that you have a clear view of the street from all your front windows, and if you would like, we can provide a photo highlighting that. 3. In regard to the privacy concerns, we are willing to share the cost of increasing the height of the fence to the maximum limit allowed by city. We have only kept windows on both sides when there was no other choice. When placing windows towards the backyard or the street were possible, we avoided placing side windows. The floor level of the new home also remains the same. 4. We believe that the proposed home will not block sunlight or view of the sky. The roof of the proposed home increases gradually and keeping in mind the trajectory of the sun, it will be always be visible over the proposed home. We also don’t believe that you would have insufficient light in the rooms of your house due to the proposed home. Our current home has two bedrooms with south-west facing windows and one bedroom with north- west facing windows, and we get ample light. The bedrooms in the new home are either north facing or south-west facing, and we hope to get ample light. After reviewing your prioritized list of items, we are willing to make the following changes to the plan: 1. Reduce the height of all exterior walls from 10’ down to 9’. 2. Lower all windows so that the top of the window is at 7’. 3. Share the cost to increase the height of the fence to 7’, which is allowed by the city. We are willing to share the cost and effort to obtain a permit to increase the height more than 7’, if that is what you desire. 4. Decrease the height of the home by an additional 2’-3’, either by reducing the slope of the roof, or by changing the roof design. The above changes will reduce the overall height of the proposed home to the 17’-18’ range, which is in line with other homes in neighborhood—the home across the street (143 Arroyo Grande Way) has a height of 16’-17’ and Jim and Lynne’s home (115 La Cienega) stands around 15’-16’. These changes will address your concerns regarding the sunlight and privacy. If you agree to these changes, then we are willing to make them even if the city doesn’t ask us to do so. However, we would require assurance that you will not request any other changes and not raise any other concerns to the city, either in writing or at the planning commission review. We are unable to reduce the living area as we require space for a bigger family and we also have family visiting us from India for extended periods. Hema’s mother intends to visit and stay with us once the Covid situation improves. The fact is that we no longer live in 1958, the period when these homes were built. With the increased cost of housing, people are building to maximize the living area. Note that even with a living area of 2,123 square-feet, we are only utilizing 33% of the available land. We believe that we have proposed a fair and just resolution to your concerns regarding the project. If you don’t agree to this proposal, then let us both put our case in front of the planning commission and let them make a decision. Thank you, Hema and Yogi From: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2021 12:18 PM To: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Cc: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com>; smullin@losgatosca.gov Subject: Re: Update Plan - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Yogi, Thank you for sending the elevation drawings for our review. We spent some time this morning to clarify our concerns after looking at the modified drawings. We still have the following primary concerns which we have mentioned previously: * The 15' 11.5" roof peak will still have a significant impact on our sky view * The 8' 4" window peaks will be 1' 4" above a 7' fence and will impact our privacy * The 10'4" eves impact the roof height and the bulk from our south-facing windows Given those concerns, we would propose the following targets, priorities and requests: Overarching Targets Sky View and Natural Light - From 124 Arroyo Grande Way - Target 50% or more of existing sky view standing inside at 30” from interior wall, 6’ tall person (please note this is substantial reduction) from all five windows Privacy - No windows over the top of the fence, 7’ fence (6’ solid +1’ lattice) Must-have Lower the roof peak(s) to a maximum of 14’ from finish grade (not floor level). This is 2’ above Immediate Neighborhood Interior Parcels (*INIP) typical and 6” above 124 Arroyo Grande Way's approximately 7’ long Clerestory Peak. Privacy – top of windows should be lower than top of 7’ fence. Lower the eaves to a maximum of 9’4” above finish grade level (INIP typical is 8’6”) All changes in drawings submitted to the city and posted on the website Changes should be reflected in the storyboards before the May 12th Planning Commission hearing Strongly Suggest and Other Items We believe our privacy will be better if you replace the turret and conical roof section with a bay window and hip roof Lessening the side expansion could reduce the bulk and the overall height We are concerned that a 2nd-level or additional rooms will be added after initial permits obtained. We would like reassurances that you will follow the permit process for future changes. *INIP – Immediate Neighborhood Interior Parcel as defined by page 11 of the Los Gatos Residential Guidelines. Please note that we have used all dimensions from finished grade and not floor level, unless stated differently. Also, I copied Sean to make sure it is clear to the city that we are communicating with you in response to statements you made at the hearing that suggested otherwise. Thank you, Ian and Charlene On April 12, 2021 at 6:30 PM, Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> wrote: Charlene / Ian: Please find attached the revised elevations based on the planning commission review feedback. We have lowered the exterior walls from 10’ to 9’. The roof design and pitch has also been updated to decrease the overall height of the proposed home by 6’. We believe that these changes should address your sky-view and privacy concerns. Let us know if you have any other comments or suggestions. Thank you, Hema and Yogi From: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 10:41 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Ian Land <iland_7@yahoo.com>; joe_feng@yahoo.com; ramya.rasipuram@gmail.com; chakkamuralimohan@gmail.com; ANNA HELLMER <ahellmer@comcast.net> Subject: Adjacent Neighbors' Response to 140 Arroyo Grande project Hello Sean, This is a follow-up to the planning session meeting regarding the proposed new construction for 140 Arroyo Grande Way. As you know, in that meeting the planning commission suggested that the Jhambs and their designer meet with concerned neighbors to review and address their feedback, essentially a request to work together to find some common ground. The Lands never received an invitation to a meeting. We also did not receive a request for feedback on whether the updated design (now posted on the web and stoyboarded) mitigated our concerns. On April 25, one full month after the planning meeting, adjacent concerned neighbors met together to discuss the project. The results of that meeting and later discussions is the PDF attached to this email. Each concerned adjacent neighbor will be sending a copy of this same PDF to you. We are each sending it to show that it is indeed our common response to the original design and other correspondence from and experiences with the Jhambs. We appreciate your ongoing support of the community practice for citizens to voice their feedback on proposed new construction in the Town. Thank you, Charlene and Ian Land From: ANNA HELLMER <ahellmer@comcast.net> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 11:35 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>; Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov>; Clerk <Clerk@losgatosca.gov>; Shelley Neis <sneis@losgatosca.gov>; csland@garlic.com; iland_7@yahoo.com; joe_feng@yahoo.com; ramya.rasipuram@gmail.com; chakkamuralimohan@gmail.com Subject: Adjacent Neighbors Response 140 Arroyo Grande Way Project Dear Mr. Mullin and Planning Commission et al, My husband Mark and I are part of the concerned neighbors adjacent to 140 Arroyo Grande, and this communication is to forward a joint letter regarding our collective concerns from us and the adjacent neighbors. Mark and I received a letter from Mr. Jhamb, delivered in person, on 4/20/2021. It was not opened by us until 4/22 (Friday) because I was sick and Mark was on a business trip and did not return home until the evening of 4/22. We opened Mr. Jhambs' communication with the full expectation that there would be an offering of a few dates for the Jhambs to meet with us concerned neighbors adjacent to them. There was nothing of the sort in the letter. Instead, we were told the proposed height of the roof would be reduced and the story poles would be adjusted. There was no date given for when the poles would be adjusted, so we had to just keep looking every day. Honestly, it was off-putting to not even see the Jhambs mention having a round-table discussion with the adjacent concerned neighbors. We did not contact the Jhambs, thinking that they might still reach out to us for a gathering date and time to discuss our collective concerns. Then we learned that the Jhambs plans were revised again and sent to the Planning Commission with a statement from the Jhambs that they were working diligently with the neighbors. In our opinion, if the Jhambs were as diligent with us concerned adjacent neighbors as they have been in seeking out other neighbors who appear to agree with them, then we would not be in this quagmire. We are sympathetic to the need and desire to improve ones living space. We just ask that it be done in a manner that is mindful to the immediate neighbors and the neighborhood in general in size and style. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Anna & Mark Hellmer 147 Las Astas Drive From: Murali Mohan Chakka <chakkamuralimohan@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 11:43 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Ian Land <iland_7@yahoo.com>; joe_feng@yahoo.com; ramya.rasipuram@gmail.com; chakkamuralimohan@gmail.com; ANNA HELLMER <ahellmer@comcast.net> Subject: Adjacent Neighbors' Response to 140 Arroyo Grande project Dear Sean, Me and my wife Ramya are the neighbors right behind 140 Arroyo Grande Project. Attached document combinedly created by all adjacent neighbors' of 140 Arroyo Grande project, clearly captures our concerns too. We kindly request your support in getting these concerns resolved. Thanks & Regards, Murali & Ramya. From: Jiuhua Feng <joe_feng@icloud.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 4, 2021 1:24 PM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: My Neighbor’s Remodel Sean, Attached PDF file is a joint letter by four adjacent neighbors of 140 Arroyo. It expresses the common concerns on their plan. Thanks. Joe Attachment to the Land and Hellmer emails received May 3, 2021, and the Chakka and Feng emails received May 4, 2021 above: From: Charlene Land <csland@garlic.com> Sent: Monday, May 3, 2021 9:43 PM To: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Cc: IAN LAND <iland8@icloud.com>; Hema Jhamb <hemajhamb@gmail.com>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Re: Update Plan - 140 Arroyo Grande Way Hello Yogi and Hema, Attached is our response to the below email. Sincerely, Charlene and Ian On Apr 25, 2021, at 11:01 AM, Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> wrote: Charlene / Ian: We have reviewed the document attached to your email and our response is given below. We have also spent many hours trying to address your concerns by working with the architect and communicating with you. In addition to that, we are also in correspondence with the other neighbors, with the city for plan review and approval, with the story pole contractor and surveyor to coordinate the story pole adjustments and certification. We have already expressed our requirements for living space and certain architectural elements in our new home. Moving forward, we would like to focus our communication on just your sky- view and privacy concerns as this is both mentally and physically exhausting for us. 1. It doesn’t seem to us that you have acquiesced to our expansion as you keep asking for more setback towards your home. As we stated, we are providing a setback of 8’-3”, which is 3” more than what is required by the city. 2. The town’s consultant architect had initially reported an increase of 9’ in height for the new home. Since we have made a 6’ reduction in height, the new home will be 3’ taller than the current home, and not 4’ as you stated. As depicted in the side elevation, 90% or more of the roof is at or below the 14’ height that you have asked. It is unfortunate that you are not willing to compromise with only a very small portion of the roof being above 14’. 3. We also want to point out that a 100% increase of a 1,150 s.f. home is 2,300 s.f., not 2,123 s.f. Therefore, we don’t have a 100% square footage increase as you stated, and we are disappointed at the way you continue to exaggerate your claims and concerns. 4. As we previously stated in our email, there is only 1 bedroom window on the side elevation towards your home. This is the same as the existing bedroom window that we currently have. The remaining two windows in the new home are bathroom windows that would have no visibility. we can mitigate this issue by having a screening tree or other landscape option. 5. As far as privacy is concerned, we have heard two different contradictory statements from you. We fail to understand the logic of conveniently choosing to supersede one over another. Again, we are talking about a single bedroom window, and we can mitigate this issue by having a screening tree or other landscape option. We have already reduced the top of the windows by 1’. 6. We have also explained that all new homes have either 9’ or 10’ exterior walls, which results in 10’-4” or 11’-4” roof eaves. We have already lowered the roof eaves from 11’-4” to 10’-4” and you are not willing to compromise. 7. We have already expressed our desire to keep certain architectural elements in our new home, which have been approved by the town’s consultant architect. Therefore, we wish to retain the bay window structure with the conical roof. 8. We are repeating ourselves that all changes for additions and expansions will be done following the city’s permit process. 9. As far as the recommendations on reducing the height are concerned: a. We already have coffered ceilings, which raise the ceiling height to 10’ inside the house. As we stated earlier, all new homes (even in Los Gatos), are being built with 9’ or 10’ exterior walls. b. The floor level of 1’-4” is to provide for crawl space, which is required by the building code for all new homes. This guideline may not have been there in the 1950s when these homes were originally built. c. The roof pitch of 4”-12” has been selected to maintain the appropriate house-to-roof proportion. As we stated before, lowering the roof any further impacts this ratio and increases the prominence of the garage. We understand that the city wants us to work together; however, this entails accommodations on both sides. If we have decreased the height of the new home by 6’, then you should be willing to accept an increase of 3’ from the existing home on only a small portion of the roof. The same way, lowering the exterior walls and windows from the proposed 2’ increase to 1’ is a reasonable compromise for both sides. Thank you, Hema and Yogi Attachment to the May 3, 2021 Land email above: From: Yogesh Jhamb <jhamb.yogesh@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 6, 2021 9:59 AM To: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Response Letters Good Morning, Sean! I have attached the following three documents: 1. 140Arroyo-Adj-Neighbor-Response.pdf: Response to the joint letter sent by our adjacent neighbors. 2. 140Arroyo-Back-Neighbor.pdf: Letter hand-delivered to our neighbors at the back with a copy of the elevations plan. This is referenced in the neighborhood response letter. 3. Jhamb-To-Land-Response-May06.pdf: Response to the email sent by Charlene and Ian Land. Please add them to our project file for review by the planning commission. Thank you, -Yogi EXHIBIT 15 GreenPoint Rated Checklist: Single Family 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 5 6 9 Single Family New Home 4.0 / 2008 Title 24 Notes A. SITE Enter Project Name Possible Points Possible Points The GreenPoint Rated checklist tracks green features incorporated into the home. A home is only GreenPoint Rated if all features are verified by a Certified GreenPoint Rater through Build It Green. GreenPoint Rated is provided as a public service by Build It Green, a professional non-profit whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource efficient buildings in California. The minimum requirements of GreenPoint Rated are: verification of 50 or more points; Earn the following minimum points per category: Energy (30), Indoor Air Quality/Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (9); and meet the prerequisites A.2.a, H10a., J.2, K7., and N.1. Projects meeting measure J4. Obtain EPA Indoor airPLUS Certification should automatically meet the requirements of 29 other measures; when J4 is chosen, these 29 measures will be highlighted in blue for your convenience. The criteria for the green building practices listed below are described in the GreenPoint Rated Single Family Rating Manual. For more information please visit www.bui lditgreen.org/greenpointrated Total Points Targeted: 0 0 0 0 00 30 5 6 9 A. SITE 1. Protect Topsoil and Minimize Disruption of Existing Plants & Trees TBD a. Protect Topsoil and Reuse after Construction 0 1 1 TBD b. Limit and Delineate Construction Footprint for Maximum Protection 0 1 2. Divert/Recycle Job Site Construction Waste (Including Green Waste and Existing Structures) TBD a.Required:Divert 50% (by weight) of All Construction and Demolition Waste (Recycling or Reuse) N R TBD b. Divert 100% of Asphalt and Concrete and 65% (by weight) of Remaining Materials 0 2 TBD c. Divert 100% of Asphalt and Concrete and 80% (by weight) of Remaining Materials 0 2 3. Use Recycled Content Aggregate (Minimum 25%) TBD a. Walkway and Driveway Base 0 1 TBD b. Roadway Base 0 1 TBD 4. Cool Site: Reduce Heat Island Effect On Site 0 1 TBD 5. Construction Environmental Quality Management Plan, Duct Sealing, and Pre-Occupancy Flush-Out [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP] 0 2 Total Points Available in Site = 12 0 B. FOUNDATION TBD 1. Replace Portland Cement in Concrete with Recycled Fly Ash and/or Slag (Minimum 20%)0 2 TBD 2. Use Frost-Protected Shallow Foundation in Cold Areas (CEC Climate Zone 16)0 2 TBD 3. Use Radon Resistant Construction [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 2 Possible Points Possible Points © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 1 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name TBD 4. Install a Foundation Drainage System [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 2 TBD 5. Moisture Controlled Crawlspace [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 2 6. Design and Build Structural Pest Controls TBD a. Install Termite Shields & Separate All Exterior Wood-to-Concrete Connections 0 1 TBD b. All Plants Have Trunk, Base, or Stem Located At Least 36 Inches from Foundation 0 1 Total Points Available in Foundation = 12 0 C. LANDSCAPE 0% Enter in the % of landscape area. (Projects with less than 15% of the total site area (i.e. total lot size) as landscape area are capped at 6 points for the following measures: C1 through C7 and C9 through C11. TBD 1. Group Plants by Water Needs (Hydrozoning)0 2 TBD 2. Mulch All Planting Beds to the Greater of 3 Inches or Local Water Ordinance Requirement 0 2 3. Construct Resource-Efficient Landscapes TBD a. No Invasive Species Listed by Cal-IPC Are Planted 0 1 TBD b. No Plant Species Will Require Shearing 0 1 TBD c. 75% of Plants Are Drought Tolerant, California Natives or Mediterranean Species or Other Appropriate Species 0 3 Possible Points TBD or Other Appropriate Species 0 3 4. Minimize Turf in Landscape Installed by Builder TBD a. Turf Shall Not Be Installed on Slopes Exceeding 10% and No Overhead Sprinklers Installed in Areas Less t han 8 Feet Wide 0 2 TBD b. Turf is Small Percentage of Landscaped Area (2 Points for ≤33%, 4 Points for ≤10%)0 4 TBD 5. Plant Shade Trees 0 1 1 1 6. Install High-Efficiency Irrigation Systems TBD a. System Uses Only Low-Flow Drip, Bubblers, or Sprinklers 0 2 TBD b. System Has Smart (Weather-Based) Controller 0 3 TBD 7. Incorporate Two Inches of Compost in the Top 6 to 12 Inches of Soil 0 3 8. Rain Water Harvesting System TBD a. Cistern(s) is Less Than 750 Gallons 0 1 TBD b. Cistern(s) is 750 to 2,500 Gallons 0 1 TBD c. Cistern(s) is Greater Than 2,500 Gallons 0 1 TBD 9. Irrigation System Uses Recycled Wastewater 0 1 TBD 10. Submetering for Landscape Irrigation 0 1 11. Design Landscape to Meet Water Budget TBD a. Install Irrigation System That Will Be Operated at ≤70% Reference ET (Prerequisites for Credit are C1. and C2.)0 1 TBD b. Install Irrigation System That Will Be Operated at ≤50% Reference ET (Prerequisites for Credit are C1, C2, and C6a or C6b.)0 1 © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 2 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name TBD 12. Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for 70% of Non-Plant Landscape Elements and Fencing A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed, C) Rapidly Renewable, D) Recycled-Content E) Finger-Jointed or F) Local 0 1 TBD 13. Reduce Light Pollution by Shielding Fixtures and Directing Light Downward 0 1 Total Points Available in Landscape = 35 0 D. STRUCTURAL FRAME & BUILDING ENVELOPE 1. Apply Optimal Value Engineering TBD a. Place Joists, Rafters and Studs at 24-Inch On Center 0 3 TBD b. Door and Window Headers are Sized for Load 0 1 TBD c. Use Only Cripple Studs Required for Load 0 1 2. Construction Material Efficiencies TBD a. Wall and Floor Assemblies (Excluding Solid Wall Assemblies) are Delivered Panelized from Supplier (Minimum of 80% Square Feet)0 2 TBD b. Modular Components Are Delivered Assembled to the Project (Minimum 25%)0 6 3. Use Engineered Lumber TBD a. Engineered Beams and Headers 0 1 TBD b. Wood I-Joists or Web Trusses for Floors 0 1 TBD c. Engineered Lumber for Ro f Rafters 0 1 Possible Points TBD c. Engineered Lumber for Roof Rafters 0 1 TBD d. Engineered or Finger-Jointed Studs for Vertical Applications 0 1 TBD e. Oriented Strand Board for Subfloor 0 1 TBD f. Oriented Strand Board for Wall and Roof Sheathing 0 1 TBD 4. Insulated Headers 0 1 5. Use FSC-Certified Wood TBD a. Dimensional Lumber, Studs and Timber (Minimum 40%)0 6 TBD b. Panel Products (Minimum 40%)0 3 6. Use Solid Wall Systems (Includes SIPS, ICFs, & Any Non-Stick Frame Assembly) TBD a. Floors 0 2 TBD b. Walls 0 2 TBD c. Roofs 0 1 TBD 7. Energy Heels on Roof Trusses (75% of Attic Insulation Height at Outside Edge of Exterior Wall)0 1 8. Install Overhangs and Gutters TBD a. Minimum 16-Inch Overhangs and Gutters 0 1 TBD b. Minimum 24-Inch Overhangs and Gutters 0 1 9. Reduce Pollution Entering the Home from the Garage [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP] TBD a. Install Garage Exhaust Fan OR Build a Detached Garage 0 1 TBD b. Tightly Seal the Air Barrier between Garage and Living Area (Performance Test Required)0 1 Total Points Available in Structural Frame and Building Envelope = 39 0 © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 3 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name E. EXTERIOR TBD 1. Use Environmentally Preferable Decking 0 2 TBD 2. Flashing Installation Techniques Specified and Third-Party Verified [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD 3. Install a Rain Screen Wall System 0 2 TBD 4. Use Durable and Non-Combustible Siding Materials 0 1 TBD 5. Use Durable and Fire Resistant Roofing Materials or Assembly 0 2 Total Points Available in Exterior = 8 0 F. INSULATION 1. Install Insulation with 75% Recycled Content TBD a. Walls 0 1 TBD b. Ceilings 0 1 TBD c. Floors 0 1 Total Points Available in Insulation = 3 0 G. PLUMBING 1. Distribute Domestic Hot Water Efficiently (Max. 5 points, G1a. is a Prerequisite for G1b-e) TBD a. Insulate All Hot Water Pipes [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 1 TBD b. Use Engineered Parallel Plumbing 0 1 Possible Points Possible Points Possible Points TBD b. Use Engineered Parallel Plumbing 0 1 TBD c. Use Engineered Parallel Plumbing with Demand Controlled Circulation Loop(s)0 1 TBD d. Use Traditional Trunk, Branch and Twig Plumbing with Demand Controlled Circulation Loop(s)0 1 2 TBD e. Use Central Core Plumbing 0 1 1 1 2. Water Efficient Fixtures TBD a. High Efficiency Showerheads ≤2.0 Gallons Per Minute (gpm) at 80 psi 0 3 TBD b. High Efficiency Bathroom Faucets ≤ 1.5 gpm at 60psi 0 1 TBD c. High Efficiency Kitchen and Utility Faucets ≤2.0 gpm 0 1 TBD 3. Install Only High Efficiency Toilets (Dual-Flush or ≤1.28 Gallons Per Flush (gpf))0 2 Total Points Available in Plumbing = 12 0 H. HEATING, VENTILATION & AIR CONDITIONING 1. Properly Design HVAC System and Perform Diagnostic Testing TBD a. Design and Install HVAC System to ACCA Manual J, D, and S Recommendations [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 4 TBD b. Test Total Supply Air Flow Rates [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD c. Third Party Testing of Mechanical Ventilation Rates for IAQ (meet ASHRAE 62.2)0 1 2. Install Sealed Combustion Units [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP] TBD a. Furnaces 0 2 TBD b. Water Heaters 0 2 TBD 3. Install High Performing Zoned Hydronic Radiant Heating 0 1 1 Possible Points © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 4 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name TBD 4. Install High Efficiency Air Conditioning with Environmentally Preferable Refrigerants 0 1 5. Design and Install Effective Ductwork TBD a. Install HVAC Unit and Ductwork within Conditioned Space 0 1 TBD b. Use Duct Mastic on All Duct Joints and Seams [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD c. Pressure Relieve the Ductwork System [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD 6. Install High Efficiency HVAC Filter (MERV 6+) [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD 7. No Fireplace OR Install Sealed Gas Fireplace(s) with Efficiency Rating >60% using CSA Standards [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP] 0 1 TBD 8. Install ENERGY STAR Bathroom Fans on Timer or Humidistat 0 1 9. Install Mechanical Ventilation System for Cooling (Max. 4 Points) TBD a. Install ENERGY STAR Ceiling Fans & Light Kits in Living Areas & All Bedrooms 0 1 TBD b. Install Whole House Fan with Variable Speeds (Credit Not Available if H9c Chosen)0 1 TBD c. Automatically Controlled Integrated System with Variable Speed Control 0 3 10. Advanced Mechanical Ventilation for IAQ10. Advanced Mechanical Ventilation for IAQ TBD a.Required:Compliance with ASHRAE 62.2 Mechanical Ventilation Standards (as adopted in Title 24 Part 6) [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]N R TBD b. Advanced Ventilation Practices (Continuous Operation, Sone Limit, Minimum Efficiency, Minimum Ventilation Rate, Homeowner Instructions)0 1 TBD c. Outdoor Air Ducted to Bedroom and Living Areas of Home 0 2 TBD 11. Install Carbon Monoxide Alarm(s) (or No Combustion Appliances in Living Space and No Attached Garage) [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP] 0 1 Total Points Available in Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning = 27 0 I. RENEWABLE ENERGY TBD 1. Pre-Plumb for Solar Water Heating 0 1 TBD 2. Install Wiring Conduit for Future Photovoltaic Installation & Provide 200 ft2 of South-Facing Roof 0 1 0.0% 3. Offset Energy Consumption with Onsite Renewable Generation (Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Wind) Enter % total energy consumption offset, 1 point per 4% offset 0 25 Total Available Points in Renewable Energy = 27 0 Possible Points © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 5 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name J. BUILDING PERFORMANCE 1. Building Envelope Diagnostic Evaluations TBD a. Verify Quality of Insulation Installation & Thermal Bypass Checklist before Drywall [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD b. House Passes Blower Door Test [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD c. Blower Door Results are Max 2.5 ACH50 for Unbalanced Systems (Supply or Exhaust) or Max 1.0 ACH50 for Balanced Systems (2 Total Points for J1b. and J1c.)0 1 TBD d. House Passes Combustion Safety Backdraft Test 0 1 0%2.Required:Building Performance Exceeds Title 24 (Minimum 15%) (Enter the Percent Better Than Title 24, Points for Every 1% Better Than Title 24)0 ≥30 TBD 3. Design and Build Near Zero Energy Homes (Enter number of points, minimum of 2 and maximum of 6 points)0 6 TBD 4. Obtain EPA Indoor airPlus Certification (Total 42 points, not including Title 24 performance; read comment)0 2 TBD 5. Title 24 Prepared and Signed by a CABEC Certified Energy Plans Examiner (CEPE)0 1 6. Participation in Utility Program with Third Party Plan Review Possible Points TBD a. Energy Efficiency Program [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD b. Renewable Energy Program with Min. 30% Better Than Title 24 (High Performing Home)0 1 Total Available Points in Building Performance = 45+ 0 K. FINISHES TBD 1. Design Entryways to Reduce Tracked-In Contaminants 0 1 2. Use Low-VOC or Zero-VOC Paint (Maximum 3 Points) TBD a. Low-VOC Interior Wall/Ceiling Paints (<50 Grams Per Liter (gpl) VOCs Regardless of Sheen) [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP] 0 1 TBD b. Zero-VOC: Interior Wall/Ceiling Paints (<5 gpl VOCs Regardless of Sheen)0 2 TBD 3. Use Low-VOC Coatings that Meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 2 TBD 4. Use Low-VOC Caulks, Construction Adhesives and Sealants that Meet SCAQMD Rule 1168 0 2 TBD 5. Use Recycled-Content Paint 0 1 Possible Points © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 6 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name G. Plumbing TBD 1. Greywater Pre-Plumbing (Includes Clothes Washer at Minimum)0 1 TBD 2. Greywater System Operational (Includes Clothes Washer at Minimum)0 2 TBD 3. Innovative Wastewater Technology (Constructed Wetland, Sand Filter, Aerobic System)0 1 TBD 4. Composting or Waterless Toilet 0 2 TBD 5. Install Drain Water Heat-Recovery System 0 1 TBD 6. Install a Hot Water Desuperheater 0 2 H. Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning TBD 1. Humidity Control Systems (Only in California Humid/Marine Climate Zones 1,3,5,6,7) [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 TBD 2. Design HVAC System to Manual T for Register Design 0 1 K. Finishes TBD 1. Materials Meet SMaRT Criteria (Select the number of points, up to 5 points)0 5 N. Other TBD 1. Detailed Durability Plan and Third-Party Verification of Plan Implementation 0 2 2. Educational Signage of Project's Green Features TBD a. Promotion of Green Building Practices 0 1 TBD b. Installed Green Building Educational Signage 0 1 3. Innovation: List innovative measures that meet green building objectives. Enter in the number of points in each category for a maximum of 4 points for the measure in the blue cells. Points achieved column will be automatically fill in based on the sum of the points in each category. Points and measures will be evaluated by Build It Green. TBD Innovation: Enter up to 4 Points at right. Enter description here 0 TBD Innovation: Enter up to 4 Points at right. Enter description here 0 TBD Innovation: Enter up to 4 Points at right. Enter description here 0 TBD Innovation: Enter up to 4 Points at right. Enter description here 0 TBD Innovation: Enter up to 4 Points at right. Enter description here 0 Total Achievable Points in Innovation = 33+ 0 Summary Total Available Points in Specific Categories 35 96+44 110 56 Minimum Points Required in Specific Categories 50 0 30 5 6 9 Total Points Achieved 0 0 0 0 0 0 © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 10 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name 4. Install Built-In Recycling Center or Composting Center TBD a. Built-In Recycling Center 0 1 TBD b. Built-In Composting Center 0 1 5. Install High-Efficacy Lighting and Design Lighting System TBD a. Install High-Efficacy Lighting 0 1 TBD b. Install a Lighting System to IESNA Footcandle Standards or Hire Lighting Consultant 0 1 Total Available Points in Appliances and Lighting = 13 0 N. OTHER TBD 1.Required:Incorporate GreenPoint Rated Checklist in Blueprints [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]N R TBD 2. Pre-Construction Kick-Off Meeting with Rater and Subs 0 1 TBD 3. Homebuilder's Management Staff are Certified Green Building Professionals 0 1 TBD 4. Develop Homeowner Manual of Green Features/Benefits and Conduct Walkthroughs [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 1 1 1 TBD 5. Install a Home System Monitor OR Participate in a Time-of-Use Pricing Program 0 1 Total Available Points in Other = 6 0 O. COMMUNITY DESIGN & PLANNING Possible Points Possible Points O. COMMUNITY DESIGN & PLANNING 1. Develop Infill Sites TBD a. Project is an Urban Infill Development 0 1 1 TBD b. Home(s)/Development is Located within 1/2 Mile of a Major Transit Stop 0 2 TBD 2. Build on Designated Brownfield Site 0 3 3. Cluster Homes & Keep Size in Check TBD a. Cluster Homes for Land Preservation 0 1 1 TBD b. Conserve Resources by Increasing Density (10 Units per Acre or Greater)0 2 2 c. Home Size Efficiency 0 9 0 i. Enter Average Unit Square Footage 0 ii. Enter Average Number of Bedrooms/Unit 4. Design for Walking & Bicycling 0 a. Site Has Pedestrian Access W ithin 1/2 Mile of Community Services: TIER 1: Enter Number of Services Within 1/2 Mile 1) Day Care 2) Community Center 3) Public Park 4) Drug Store 5) Restaurant 6) School 7) Library 8) Farmer's Market 9) Aft er School Programs 10) Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold 0 TIER 2: Enter Number of Services W ithin 1/2 Mile 1) Bank 2) Place of Worship 3) Laundry/Cleaners 4) Hardware 5) Theater/Entertainment 6) Fitness/Gym 7) Post Office 8) Senior Care Facility 9) Medical/Dental 10) Hair Care 11) Commercial Office or Major Employer 12) Full Scale Supermarket i. 5 Services Listed Above (Tier 2 Services Count as 1/2 Service Value)0 1 ii. 10 Services Listed Above (Tier 2 Services Count as 1/2 Service Value)0 1 Possible Points © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 8 of 11 Notes Enter Project Name 6. Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed, C) Rapidly Renewable, D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed F) Local TBD a. Cabinets (50% Minimum)0 3 TBD b. Interior Trim (50% Minimum )0 2 TBD c. Shelving (50% Minimum)0 2 TBD d. Doors (50% Minimum)0 2 TBD e. Countertops (50% Minimum)0 2 TBD 7. Required:Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish – Meet Current CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Composite Wood Formaldehyde Limits by Mandatory Compliance Dates [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP] N R 8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish - Exceed Current CARB ATCM for Composite Wood Formaldehyde Limits Prior to Mandatory Compliance Dates TBD a. Doors (90% Minimum)0 1 TBD b. Cabinets & Countertops (90% Minimum)0 2 TBD c. Interior Trim and Shelving (90% Minimum)0 1 9. After Installation of Finishes, Test of Indoor Air Sho s Formaldeh de TBD 9. After Installation of Finishes, Test of Indoor Air Shows Formaldehyde Level <27ppb 0 3 Total Available Points in Finishes = 27 0 L. FLOORING TBD 1. Use Environmentally Preferable Flooring ( Minimum 15% Floor Area) A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed or Refinished, C) Rapidly Renewable, D) Recycled-Content, E) Exposed Concrete, F) Local. Flooring Adhesives Must Meet SCAQMD Rule 1168 for VOCs. 0 4 TBD 2. Thermal Mass Floors (Minimum 50%)0 1 TBD 3. Low Emitting Flooring (Section 01350, CRI Green Label Plus, Floorscore [*This credit is a requirement associated with J4: EPA IAP]0 3 Total Available Points in Flooring = 8 0 M. APPLIANCES AND LIGHTING TBD 1. Install ENERGY STAR Dishwasher (Must Meet Current Specifications)0 1 1 2. Install ENERGY STAR Clothes Washer TBD a. Meets ENERGY STAR and CEE Tier 2 Requirements (Modified Energy Factor 2.0, Water Factor 6.0 or less)0 1 2 TBD b. Meets ENERGY STAR and CEE Tier 3 Requirements (Modified Energy Factor 2.2, Water Factor 4.5 or less) 0 2 3. Install ENERGY STAR Refrigerator TBD a. ENERGY STAR Qualified & < 25 Cubic Feet Capacity 0 1 TBD b. ENERGY STAR Qualified & < 20 Cubic Feet Capacity 0 1 Possible Points Possible Points © Build It Green Single Family Checklist New Home Version 4.0 Page 7 of 11