Loading...
Attach 3 cont 4ARBOR RESOURCES profe551onal consulting arbormts and tree care February 24, 2011 Suzanne Davis Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: Proposed New Residences at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Applications #: 5 -06 -46 & 5 -06 -64 (respectively) Dear Suzanne: As requested, I have reviewed the revised architectural (dated 5110) and civil drawings (dated 7/22/10) of the proposed development at the above - referenced site. My comments are as follows: 1. The architectural drawings propose removal of the following six trees of regulated status (i.e. "protected trees "): #1, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 21. Based on their size and /or condition, the removal of each seemingly conforms to Town Code. Please note that I am informed in an email by the project applicant that the architectural drawings, and not civil, identify the proposed removals (the civil plans identify ten trees of regulated status, namely 41, 3, 5 -10, 19 and 21). 2. Tree #2, the large live oak between the two lots, will be impacted by implementation of the proposed design. To reduce impacts and increase the opportunity for tree survival and longevity, I recommend the storm and subdrains within 20 feet from the tree's trunk are established no farther than 24 inches beyond the retaining walls. The sections of the lines extending uphill and downhill from the retaining walls should be realigned to be parallel to the homes' walls until they are 20 to 30 feet from the tree's trunk (this may also require shifting the inlets and overflow pumpwells farther away). p.o. box 25295, san mateo, california 94402 ■ email: arborresources @comcast.net phone: 650.654.335 I ■ fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763 EXHIBIT 9 ARBOR RESOURCES im W profe55i con5ulting arbori5t5 and tree care February 24, 2011 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue page 2 of 5 3. Although indicated on the architectural plans for retention, the following six additional trees would be severely impacted and predisposed to premature decline and instability: #8, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 15. A discussion of these trees, anticipated impacts, and recommended measures for each tree are as follows: a. Tree #8 : This is a relatively young oak that grows upslope, away from the proposed home at 339 Bella Vista. The impact of primary concern is the proposed walkway at roughly three feet downhill from the trunk. When considering overexcavation needed to construct the walk, a cut within one to two feet from the trunk can be expected. To minimize excavation and impacts, I recommend the walkway is constructed on top of grade (including base materials, edging and forms) with a maximum soil cut of four inches, and overexcavation limited to 12 inches beyond the walkway edge. One potential option is for the walkway to be super - reinforced and base material omitted from the design. b. Tree #9 : This oak is situated at the street and appears in reasonably good health, however, its structure is formed by four relatively equally -sized trunks with very weals attachments. Removal of this tree is recommended in the applicant's arborist report, and I concur regardless of the proposed project. Based on its structural condition, I do not suggest design revisions are warranted. However, if project - related impacts are to be reduced, they should include omitting any grading beyond the proposed driveway and wall, and restricting overexcavation beyond the driveway and wall to 12 inches. Removal of one of the four trunks is necessary due to its low clearance and being directed towards the drive. p.o. box 25295, San mateo, california 94402 ■ email: arborre5ource5@comca5t.net phone: 650.654.335 I n fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763 ARBOR RESOURCES profe551onal consulting arbo ri5t5 and tree care February 24, 2011 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue page 3 of 5 c. Tree #10: This moderately -sized oak is situated near the road and would sustain potentially severe root loss during trenching for the proposed joint trench in close proximity to the trunk. The trench route is radial to the trunk, a factor that reduces potential root loss; however, as it meets the existing power pole, it extends along and reaches about one -foot from the trunk. The extent of root loss will be dictated by the amount of attentiveness during trenching to retain and not damage roots >_two inches in diameter. All trenching within ten feet form the trunk must be manually performed. d. Tree #12 This large oak is situated near the road on the neighboring southern property. It would sustain significant impacts during digging for the joint trench within only about five feet from its trunk, constructing the driveway at about three feet away, and grading within a few feet. If a reasonable (although still aggressive) potential for its survival and stability if expected, the following minimum design revisions are suggested: [1] The proposed driveway should be shifted to achieve a minimum eight -foot setback from the trunk. [2] Overcut, fill, trenching and compaction must not extent beyond the proposed driveway. [3] Soil cuts necessary for constructing the driveway, curb and approach within 14 feet from the trunk must be minimized and manually performed (e.g. a maximum cut of four to six inches, including any base material, curb, gutter, edging and forms). t p.o. box 25295, San mateo, california 94402 email: arborre5ource5 @comca5t.net phone: 650.654.335 I m fax: 650.240.0777 ■ licen5ed contractor #796763 Ow ARBOR RESOURCES profe55ional consulting ar bo ri 5t5 and tree care February 24, 2011 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue page 4 of 5 [4] The proposed joint trench must be established no closer than 14 feet from the tree's trunk. [5] The section of retaining wall, drain lines and inlet /junction box within 14 feet of the tree's trunk must be manually dug. e. Tree #13 This moderately -sized oak on the neighboring southern property would sustain root damage during trenching for the storm and subdrains. To lessen the impacts, they lines should be established within 18 to 24 inches from the retaining wall (as close to the wall as possible), and they should be manually dug where within ten feet from the trunk. f. Tree #15 This multi -trunk oak forms weak attachments and would be severely impacted during digging of a inlet /junction box and trenching for a storm drain. To minimize the impacts, I recommend the following: [1] The proposed storm drain and inlet /junction box is shifted uphill to be at least eight feet from the trunk. [2] No soil compaction, trenching or grading within eight feet from its trunk. [3] Where within the eight -foot distance, holes for the posts are manually dug using a post -hole digger, and any hole shifted if a root >_two inches in diameter is encountered. p.o. box 25295, San mateo, california 94402 ■ email: arborresourcc5Qcomca5t.net phone: 650.654.3351 ■ fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763 ARBOR RESOURCES pro consulting arbori5t5 and tree care February 24, 2011 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue page 5 of 5 4. Where beneath and within ten feet from canopies of retained trees, shoring is necessary to minimize root loss and avoid overcut beyond the proposed retaining walls. Also, prior to excavation, one -foot wide trenches must be manually dug to a three -foot depth along the edges of where trenching or soil cuts will occur closest to the trees' trunks, and all roots >_one -inch in diameter cleanly severed against the tree side of the trench. Sincerely, AM 6. �,/ David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist" #399 Board- Certified Master Arborist ME-4001B p.o. box 25295, San mateo, california 94402 email: arborre5ource5 @comca5t.net phone: 650.654.3351 ■ fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763 This Page Intentionally Left Blank % I rift/ 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 408.354.6224 408.354.6514 (fax) www.Bdft-Rowe.com Dmbdft02@hotmall.com 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S -06 -64 Subdivision Application M -06-09 LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION RECEIVED S E P 12 2007 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Below is a detailed descriptionrJustification of the proposed homes located at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue. Applicants, as neighbors, have decided to work together as it might streamline the planning process, a benefit to them and the Town. We have worked collaboratively with the Town's Staff and Consultants to come up with a plan that best addresses the opportunities and constraints of the site. We have implemented the recommendations from Larry Cannon, Town Consulting Architect, Town Arborist, Geotechnical. Consultant and Town Engineering Department 1.) PROPOSED PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD: Our submission is similar to 145 Bella Vista, the most recently approved and constructed home on our side of Bella Vista. Our homes are similar to 145 Bella Vista in square footage, lot size, slope, mass and scale. Mr. Larry Cannon comments include, "The two houses are very well designed, with good materials and interesting details ", and "their exterior appearance is quite successful in giving each its own unique identity." The overall concept of the residences; front porch, rear balconies, and garage at front is consistent with other homes on the sloping side of Bella Vista. The surrounding residential neighborhood consists of single and multi- family homes with varying lot sizes and architectural styles. There are non- conforming lots in the immediate neighborhood and throughout Town that support this type of home development. The proposed project is compatible in that it is a historically referenced "shingle- style" design that incorporates natural wood and stone finish materials. It will blend well with existing residences on Bella Vista, the Town homes below and the wooded site. EXHIBIT 1 0 The plan considers and addresses the views of homes on Bella Vista. With guidance and landscape planning under the direction of David Fox, landscape screening will address privacy of Town homes below. 2.) Proposed project complies with the Hillside Design Guidelines: The homes "step with the hill" to respond to natural grade. There is no view of the site from Downtown, Hwy 9 corridor, Hwy 17 or other view points given its location. Average building height does not exceed 25 and total elevation height is less than 35. 3.) Proposed project complies with the General Plan: The proposed project is a single family residence on which the property is currently zoned. 4.) Applicants have agreed to and are requesting a lot line adjustment. This allows us to save the large Heritage Oak in the middle of the parcels. Also, this adjustment establishes lot sizes and home sizes consistent with nearby properties, in the mid range of FAR and home size. 5) We have provided Slope information for the building area. Our overall slope numbers appear more severe due to a man made cut at the bottom of our lot, creating a walking path and /or emergency access. Also, please note the top of the parcels near Bella Vista Avenue have an initial drop -off, and then the topography is less sloped in the building pad area. Sincerely; David M. Britt . Britt/Rowe July 21, 2008 Bud Lortz Director of Community Development 110 Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Re: Building plans for 342 & 339 Bella Vista Avenue AUG 0 5 2008 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Dear Mr. Lortz, We are the residents and homeowners of 152 Maggi Court, Los Gatos, CA 95032. A month ago we have noticed the "story poles" on the hillside directly behind our house. With a little research we found out that there is a construction plans in place for building two (2) 33 -foot tall 2800 sq.ft. homes on the 60% slope right behind 148 —164 Maggi court. We are very upset and ask you to help us to cancel this project as soon as possible. Among other different problems with this construction, our major concern is landslides. Landslides can be triggered by gradual progress such as weathering, or by external mechanisms including: 1. Shocks or vibrations caused by earthquakes; 2. Intense or prolonged storms and rainfall; 3. Undercutting of a slope and vibrations caused by construction activity; 4. A combination of these and other factors. We are "lucky" enough to have first two factors against us. We're afraid that removing old trees with their roots, heavy construction work, and weight of big houses on a 60% hillside in a close proximity of our home will be dangerous to us. Please won't let these reasons to add to the list of the natural factors causing landslides we already have. Moreover with these houses directly facing our bedroom and living room we won't have any privacy. We don't have a fancy backyard, but with this project completed we will have somebody else's windows right above our small patio taking away the only private outdoor space we have. We strongly believe that besides safety, privacy and aesthetical implications this project will have a significant negative impact on the market value of properties in our complex and on our particular townhome. Please take all ours concerns and worries into consideration and help us to close this development before it begins. Sincerely, Vitaliy and Natallia Stulski 152 Maggi ct Los Gatos CA 95032 650.391.4033 U ROB D. MacDONALD STEVEN M. WHITE JAMES P. HILLMAN WHITE & MacDONALD, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD SUITE 1050 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -1601 (408) 345 -4000 August 4, 2008 Bud Lortz Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos Los Gatos Town Hall 110 E, Main Street Los Gatos, CA, 95030 Re: 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue Dear Mr. Lortz and Mr, .Larson; Greg Larson Town Manager Town of Los Gatos Los Gatos Town Hall 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA. 95030 FACSIMILE (408) 345 -4020 RECEIVED AUG 0 6 2008 TOWN MANAGER Our office represents the Bella Vista Village Homeowners Association (the "Association "), a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation formed for the purpose of managing the common interest development commonly known as Bella Vista Village, located near Alberto Way and Bella Vista Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos. The development consists of common area and 46 individually owned townhouses constructed in approximately 1996 and 1997. The residences in Bella Vista Village are located on Cuesta De Los Gatos Way, Treseder Court and Maggi Court. We have been asked to write on behalf of the Association regarding the proposed development of two parcels of land which adjoin, but are not part of, Bella Vista Village. The Association has been informed that efforts are underway to obtain approval from the Town of Los. Gatos for the construction of two homes at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos. The properties would be adjacent to Bella Vista Village residences located on Maggi Court, The Association was expressly formed to provide for management, administration, maintenance, preservation and architectural control of the Residential Lots and Common Area within the Bella Vista Village development and to promote the health and welfare of the residents within the property. Members of the Association have expressed concern that the development of the adjoining property may affect the privacy, market value, aesthetic value and appearance of properties in Bella Vista Village and result in the loss of trees and vegetation to the hillside which is the subject of the development efforts. In addition to the concerns of its Members, due to the fact that the area under consideration for development includes relatively steep slopes the Association has a legitimate concern regarding the stability of the slopes above Bella Vista Village if disturbed by construction or removal of trees and other vegetation. Slope erosion or stability problems at that location have occurred in the past resulting in debris and damage'in Bella Vista Village. The Association would like to ascertain whether. adequate safeguards are being implemented to prevent slope instability and to control drainage and erosion'that would adversely affect the Common Area or Separate Interests in Bella Vista Village. Town of Los Gatos August 4, 2008 Page 2 If any additional information is needed in order to evaluate the site conditions at, or the potential impact of the proposed development on Bella Vista Village, please do not hesitate to contact me. The Association would appreciate any information you can provide regarding the proposed development and the requirements being imposed to address the privacy and other concerns of the Association's Members and the Association's concerns regarding slope instability and erosion that could be detrimental to the Common Area and residences in Bella Vista Village. Very truly yours, ? ROB �D RDM/tdw cc; Bella Vista Village Board of Directors WABella VNIMCorrespWown 8- 4- 08,doc RECEIVED AUG 1 8 2008 'a 0 Nd , V*r To: L TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION LwO CA 05030 no an a FTgjlb sypt as ca, gov 'Los'.G.6 s CA #5630 , M.K.LoWl CA 930,10 N46 u L6s. Qo.464. CA '95030 Roy A 'pticadons W B4441 P A .4-2, VIM Is 33 9: &0.44* Ficlu. Vislo, Avome, Los.:Gomos pvav� . Persons 11to ' si nait was mode. rgjwa dum. !!zoos, AP RO M: t r mr s i t �y 9wa h fax pwar °��� �r �� � �� �� �� �� �. U lm.. x a �� cd the Tb *W IM" a9 aent Min r: OfAmll Me �� , L4tix;:C tits t a� aIMP . arm :o rs m ata� a lL ei is I[a V wor. w � t la a t fit: aka �'f ` Mhob A. Mm try h�aaarl� t '''"'� "`a.:. Al tho X6`0 41uop and 1 bom -;r W'. PUM��� 1 a� t � ��i� V i a a , atraa T60u :C�- It to �ta� � P I S I Ii"at � aa,�+'a ! a:�I xa� ak as as rl a � as as :. fes 1�s�raaa, Iw�h m two to -pwm anr... au icc qr 7'Tui4�— -4 Ow: Tpk. Town of Los Gatos p. 1 August 19th, 2008 Kenneth A. Lown 156 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 To: Barbara Spector, Mayor bspector @losgatosca.gov Greg Larson, Town Manager manager @losgatosca.gov D. Michael Kane, Chair Planning Commission dmichaelkane @aol.com RECx AUG 2 o 2008 TOw�F OF LOS GATOS PANNING DIVISION Bud Lortz, Director Community Development planning @losgatosca.gov 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 94030 RE: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos Madam Mayor and Sirs, I am a resident of Bella Vista Village in one of the units whose small yard, living room, and bedroom face the hillside toward Bella Vista Avenue where the two housing projects are being proposed. I am a proponent of development for the mutual benefit of the developers, home owners, community and town or city. I fail to see, however, how the proposed homes on 339 and 341 Bella Vista are to the mutual benefit of the immediate community or the preservation of Los Gatos' values which, for development purposes, are in the Hillside Developmental Standard and Guideline for the town of Los Gatos. It is my understand that the development plans violate many (some people of said most) of the guidelines within this document. How is it that so many variances would be approved? These are small lots .. the homes themselves will have fundamentally no front yard or rear yard (I am assuming this is the reason the homes are being designed with five balconies directly facing Bella Vista Village below). These balconies will have direct line of sight into my yard and bedroom, along with several of my neighbors, and our community pool below. Only a full hedge perhaps 20 feet high or taller on the proposed property would actual block this view. It would also be only several feet from the balconies of the proposed homes and I find it difficult to understand how that would be desirable. I consider this a complete violation of my and my wife's privacy. Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos pg 1 of 2 I do not oppose development on this property but I adamantly oppose the development that is currently being planned (and apparently supported) by the elected officials of the Town of Los Gatos as it violates our town's own building standards and violates my privacy. Regards, Ken Lown 156 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 408.888.0611 ken.lown @gmail.com Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos pg 2 of 2 Page 1 of 2 Suzanne Davis - Incoming Email from Town Website From: "Victoria Copeland" <vcopeland @mindspring.com> RC® To: <planning @losgatosca.gov> Date: 08/20/2008 5:12 PM AUG � 0 2008 Subject: Incoming Email from Town Website CC: <manager @losgatosca.gov >, <bspector @losgatosca.gov >, TOWN Or 'LOS GATOS <mwasserman @losgatosca.gov >, < sglickman @losgatosca.goV LANNING DIVISION <dmcnutt @losgatosca.gov >, <jpirzynski @losgatosca.gov >, <dmichaelkane @aol.com >, <SANDYDECKERinLG @aol.com >, <mary@badaminsurance.com >, <Igvision @comcast.net >, "Kathy Lima" <klima95032 @earthlink.net >, <debrachin@aol.com> Dear Town Services and Elected Members of Los Gatos, My husband and I are homeowners who reside at 338 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos. I just recently became aware of the efforts that are currently underway to obtain approval from the Town of Los Gatos for the development and construction of two homes at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos. It is my understanding that previous efforts to obtain approval to develop and build on this property have been denied. Most of the homeowners on Bella Vista Avenue are unaware and/or have not been notified of these plans. I wonder why we as homeowners have not been informed or given an opportunity to learn more about this project. Our neighbors on Bella Vista Avenue and Bella Vista C ourt have appreciated opportunity to work . closely with Mark. Robson and the .Town of Los Gatos on the proposed housing development that will replace the existing property of Emmanuel Convalescent Hospital at Caldwell Avenue and Los Gatos Boulevard. We were not given a similar opportunity to understand the scope and impact of the proposed development at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue. I found it curious that this project has been moving forward in spite of previous denials by the town to develop this property. I would like to request that homeowners on Bella Vista Avenue and surrounding area residents be given an opportunity to discuss the proposed project, the environmental /wildlife impact and a chance to voice our concerns about a variety of issues that affect our lives with regard to this development. This is particularly critical since our neighborhood will all be affected by traffic congestion with the new Robson development construction on Caldwell Avenue and now we are just learning of the proposed development project on Bella Vista Avenue. I would like to request that town officials and service members look more closely at this proposed development and appreciate my concerns and those of my neighbors. Minimally, it is my hope that homeowners will be notified of any intention to build or develop properties that will affect the quality of life in Los Gatos. I appreciate your time and consideration. I look forward to your reply. Sincerely, Victoria Copeland vcopeland(aD-mindspring.com file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \sdavis.LOSGATOSCA\Local Settings \Temp\XPGrpWi... 08/20/2008 William Schweickert & Renee Stratulate 144 Maggi Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 Barbara Spector Mayor Bud Lortz Director of Community Development Mike Kane Chairperson, Los Gatos Planning Commission 110 Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Sir: RE: 341 & 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE, LOS GATOS Architecture and Site Application S -06 -64 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 LETTER OF OBJECTION The proposed project is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. RECEIVED AUG 2 2 2008 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION It does not blend well with existing residences on Bella Visa Avenue, the town homes below on Maggi Court and the wooded site. The plan does not consider or address the views of the Maggi Court Town homes. Each residence proposed is approximately 30 feet away from the town homes and faces directly into the bedrooms of the existing residents. The proposed 341 & 339 Bella Vista Avenue homes will be a "nuisance" consistent with California Civil Code sections 3479 et seq. The view of Bella Vista Avenue residents across from the proposed development is negatively impacted by a significant reduction in green - space on the parcel, replaced with rooftop and garage views. The proposed project is in violation of the Hillside Design Guidelines. The construction plans being proposed are in violation of multiple mandatory provisions of the Town Building Code and Hillside Development plan, e.g. height, Floor to Area Ratio ( "FAR "), minimum lot size, maximum building size, and setbacks. 3. Proposed project eliminates two Heritage Oaks. The proposed project eliminates two of three Heritage Oaks within the parcel. Independent arborist analysis suggests that all oak trees within the parcel are viable and can thrive for many years if adequate protection is provided. Removal of these trees would be in violation of Town Code. Sincerely, William Schweickert & Renee Stratulate t September 29th, 2008 Kenneth A. Lown 156 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 To: Barbara Spector, Mayor bspector @losgatosca.gov Mike Wasswerman, Vice Mayor mwasserman@losgatosca.gov Joe Prizynski, Council Member jpirzynski @losgatosca.gov Diane McNutt dmcnutt @losgatosca.gov D. Michael Kane, Chair Planning Commission dmichaelkane @aol.com Steve Glickman sglickman @losgatosca.gov Greg Larson, Town Manager manager @losgatosca.gov Bud Lortz, Director Community Development planning @losgatosca.gov RE: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos Madam Mayor, Madam, and Sirs, I have written previously with regards to the development of the property at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos. I wanted you to know that Dan Ross and his wife did come and meet with a group of concerned Bella Vista residents (both of Bella Vista Village and Bella Vista Avenue). This meeting was on September 3rd. Dan presented his view point and listened to our concerns with respect to privacy issues (looking down into many of our Bedroom windows in Bella Vista Village) and multiple clear violations of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. One of the biggest violations on this 52 degree slope property being the sheer size of the buildings being proposed (— 2,700 sq. ft. each for two buildings). My understanding of the guidelines allows a building size up to 800 sq. ft. on this size lot. My understanding is that this is only one of many violations of the standards and guidelines that would require variances for Dan to proceed. As I stated in my last email, I can not conceive how fencing or hedges will mitigate the privacy concerns and have seen no plans in this respect. Frosting of windows really doesn't address the issue of the multiple balconies on the rear side of Dan's project (which I can only guess are there to mitigate the face that these two homes will have no usable front yard or rear yard given the size of the lot and the slope of the lot. I also have significant concerns with respect to drainage. This was a major issue for Bella Vista Village during it's construction and I am very interested to see what is being proposed for the two buildings. I have concerns over construction the Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos pg 1 of 2 foundation and it's impact on the existing retaining wall protecting Bella Vista Village during the construction process. I'd also like to understand if an Environmental Impact Report is being required for this project and, if not, why. Dan Ross did say that he would stay in touch with us but I have not heard from him since this meeting. It was held at one of our residences so he has an address to write and the meeting was initially arranged by Dan calling several Bella Vista residents including myself, so he has the phone numbers of at least three residents. I am happy to provide my email as well; ken.lown @gmail.com or ken.lown @sun.com. Perhaps someone on the Town Council or Planning Commission could let me know the status of Dan's project on Bella Vista Avenue? Regards, Ken Lown 156 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 408.888.0611 ken.lown @gmail.com Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos pg 2 of 2 September 1, 2008 Mr. Bud Lortz Director, Community Development Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Dear Mr. Lortz, OCT 1 3 2003 TOVv GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I am writing to you to object to a planned construction project at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue. Not because I want to deny a property owner the right to build, rather to object to what and where he wants to build it. I am a property owner in Bella Vista Village and neighbor to those homeowners that will be directly affected by 339 & 341 project(s). I object to the project for the following reasons: • The project will have a direct impact on the privacy and enjoyment of the Maggi Court residents who have purchased and resided there with the expectation that the hillside provides privacy and a view of brush and oak trees and not another resident's living room • The projectwill have a direct impact on the value of those properties affected • The project appears to violate town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines as well as Town Residential Standards • The project could pose an environmental hazard to the development below, both in water runoff and in weakening the hillside I would encourage the members of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission to view the proposed project from both Bella Vista Avenue and Maggi Court. New projects such as the ones proposed at 339 and 341 Bella Vista should enhance the entire neighborhood and not detract from a dozen other homes. Please cast your vote to disallow these projects from moving forward. . C Si:�erely, Coe orn 179 Cuesta De Los Gatos Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Mr. & Mrs. Curtis M. Leigh 148 Maggi Ct., Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354 -7380 RECEIV October 12, 2008 OCT 16 2008 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION To: Barbara Spector, Mayor bspector@losgatosca.gov Mike Wasserman, Vice Mayor mwasserman@los atg osca.gov Joe. Prizynski, Council Member 1pirz ski@los atg osca.goy Diane McNutt, dmcnutt@,losgatosca.go Steve Glickman sglickmanQlos atg_ osca. ov Greg Larson, Town Manager manager @losgatosea.gov D. Michael Kane, Chair Bud Lortz, Director dmichaelkaneQaol.com Planning Commission Community Development planning_nlos atg osca.gov RE: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, CA Dear Madam Mayor, Madam, and Sirs: We are writing in regard to the proposed residential development located at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos as submitted by Mr. Dan Ross and Mr. Jake Peters. As residents of 148 Maggi Ct. in Bella Vista Village, this development affects intimately our home in which we have lived for nearly four years. Like many of our neighbors in Bella Vista, one of the primary reasons we bought our home was the beautiful and tranquil hillside behind our home. The wildlife, which includes deer and many species of birds, and numerous types of trees, flowers and foliage, make this area a truly unique setting. However; we recognize that this is not a sufficient reason alone to justify a restriction on development. Accordingly, we would like to provide a brief outline of the concerns we have regarding this proposed development which will be directly behind our home. 1. The proposed plans for these homes grossly exceed both (a) the allowable square footage for residential buildings, and (b) the minimum setbacks required for the front and rear of a home, the formulas for both of which are set forth in the Los Gatos Town Building Code and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Based on the Code and Guidelines, the 2,728 square foot home that Mr. Ross and Mr. Peters plan to build clearly violates the permitted size of a home on this lot of 732 square feet,. and the setbacks for the front and rear of the home,. which should be twenty -five feet . and twenty feet respectively, are not reflected in�the proposed plans which provide only a 5.5 foot setback from the front and a 15 foot setback from the back of the house. 1 Mr. & Mrs. Curtis M. Leigh 148 Maggi Ct., Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354 -7380 2. According to the current plans, these homes would be directly behind our home, providing a clear view of the following; (a) our backyard where we enjoy many of our meals; (b) our outdoor jacuzzi on the back deck; (c) our living room, through the double doors which provide access to our back deck and patio; (d) our master bedroom deck; (e) and our master bedroom through the sliding glass door which provided access to our master bedroom. We are confident that any reasonable person who came to our .home and witnessed the lack of distance between the proposed homes and our home would find these views to be an invasion of our privacy. 3. We are concerned about erosion of and drainage from the hillside behind our home. Currently, it contains lush vegetation and many mature thriving trees and shrubs, but the developers propose to gouge seventeen feet into the hillside- likely causing the loose fill and water to slide in to our backyard and home which would clearly cause significant and possibly irreparable damage. In addition, since the majority of the proposed lot will be occupied by buildings, the land will no longer be permeable and without extensive drainage plans that are successfully executed, the rain will drain directly into our backyard and lot which could result in a mudslide effect to our home as well as other homes on Maggi Ct. 4. We are aware that several arborists are investigating the viability of these trees; however, based on our personal observations in the past four years, the trees on the hillside behind our home are beautiful and appear to be thriving and healthy. They are also the home to numerous species of birds which can be heard and enjoyed from our backyards. The deer also use these trees as shelter and protection. We appreciate your consideration of the issues outlined above and your considerable time and effort in keeping Los Gatos a wonderful place to live, especially by adhering to the guidelines and plans provided in the Los Gatos Town Building Code and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Please do not hesitate to contact . us if you. need additional information or have any questions related to this matter. Thank you. Sincerely, Curtis M. Leigh and Erin E. Leigh PA Page 1 of 4 Suzanne Davis - Bella Vista permits rrrazm�r�r, �aamaarxu�taazaatar ��aarxra<x�sr���rm c�aaaauarraaxrs�zare� 'a�'r,a¢�aaaaes From: fastcbra < fastcbra @aol.com> To: <planning @losgatosca.gov> Date: 10/28/2008 1:50 PM Subject: Bella Vista permits From: fastcbra <fastcbra @aol.com> Date: October 28, 2008 1:33:00 PM PDT To: fastcbra @aol.com Attachments: 2 Attaclnnents, 1.1 MB 20 October 08 To: The following Janet Cobb, president California Oak Foundation oakstaff @cal_iforniaoaksorg Barbara Spector, Mayor bspector @losgatosca.goy Mike Wasserman, Vice Mayor mwasserman @Iosgatoscaggoy Joe Prizynski, Council Member jpirzynski @losgatoscaggo_v_ Steve Glickman sglickman @losgatosca.goy Diane McNutt dmcnutt @losgatosca.gov Greg Larson, Town Manager manager@l,osgatosca,,gov. b Michael Kane, Chair dmichaelkane @losgatosca.gov Bud Lortz, Planning Commission planning @losgatosca.gov RE: Application for building permits for 339 and 341 Bella Vista Ave, Los Gatos, CA I am a resident of 146 Maggi Ct. My residence is directly below the two properties on Bella Vista. I have several concerns about this project, and cannot see how it has got this far through the planning process with so many variances allowed; and additionally, Los Gatos codes, standards and guidlines dismissed. My biggest concern is the ' Ellisl Arborist report suggesting three huge Coastal Live Oaks be cut down. I ?ve attended planning meetings and seen some of the ugliest trees in town be saved. Few plants figure more promently in California history than oaks. How can we cut down three huge native examples... just for a few ugly (just give me more square footage) homes. There is not a more beautiful and majestic tree than a native California Oak. The Coastal Live Oak has the ability to live centuries and commonly exceed 250 years of age. So,af ter reading the ' Ellisi report, I went to a ' Tree Experti and asked the question.... are these three file://C :\Documents and Settings \sdavis.LOSGATOSCA \Local Settings \Temp\XPGrpWi... 10/28/2008 Page 2 of 4 (forgetting the other 20 or so other Oak examples on the property) huge and beautiful Oaks really dead or in bad shape. The report is attached from John Thompson Tree Expert..... suggesting the trees are in good shape and might need some trimming or feeding. His company has three crews, that trims, removes and maintains trees six days a week in Atherton, Woodside, and six major golf courses in the area. He says he ?s not an arborist. However, much like a nurse or doctor, he works daily with the care and maintenance of oaks. For a formal written arborist report, John gave me several names, but he said the best was Ralph Osterling. I called Ralph Osterling and had conversations with both Ralph and his staff arborist Walter Fugii. Their report is also attached. Their conclusion is the same. Two of the three oaks are in good health. At this time, tree three is in less than good health, so lets trim and feed the tree so it can be saved too. I can go on with size of the homes violating codes.... setbacks.... hillside development guidelines... privacy... and erosion drainage issues. But, you ?ve heard them before. How has this project got so far along without someone in town just saying .... NO. Forrest Straight 146 Maggi Ct Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 3950302 John Thompson Tree Expert, LLC Since 1969 To Mr. Forrest Straight 146 Maggi Court Los Gatos, Calif. October 10th, 2008 Visual Report on Three Live Oaks described in the Ellis report: Oak Tree #1. Multi trunk Oak with Healthy, large dark green leafs. Tree looks very healthy but needs thinning and shaping. Oak should be alive for many years to come with minor maintenance. Oak Tree #2. Very good color and thick foliage. This Oak also needs some thinning and should be alive for many years. Oak Tree #3. This Oak show's its under stress but it is the end of summer and there hasn't been any rain for seven or eight months. Spring it might look better but its definitely declining. 24 Hours Professional Tree Care Since 1969 650- 327 -8090 file:HC:\Documents and Settings\sdavis. LOS GATOSCA\Local Settings \Temp\XPGrpWi... 10/28/2008 Page 3 of 4 146 Maggi Court 15 October 2008 Page 2 of 2 Tree 3, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) The sparse canopy and lack of growth of this oak is typical of a tree under stress from disease or drought, At this time,. overall health is poor to very poor. Summation Based on today's observations, tree 4 and tree 2 appear to be in good health and should be considered suitable for preservation, Both oaks will require routine tree maintenance in order to extend their safe and useful life. For reasons of safety, preservation of tree 1 may require cabling and / or bracing that is often performed do trees with multistem trunks. The proper Implementation of a qualified Tree Preservation Flan should be expected to minimize construction impacts to the trees. A qualified Arborist is required to monitor the• status of the trees and perform regular site •visits to verify that proper tree preservation measures have been implemented and are kept current. Tree 3 is in poor to very poor condition with the outward symptoms of a tree in decline. Tree . 3 should not be considered a suitable candidate for preservation. Should you require additional information kindly contact our office at your earliest convenience. Respectfully, Walter Fujii Staff Arborist ASCA Registered Cons ing Arbodst No. ISA Certified Arbarist No. I� 2257A y, 4 MIA Osterling C �ms}fllanbs, .Inc file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \sdavis.LOSGATOSCA \Local Settings \Temp\XPGrpWi... 10/28/2008 MIA Osterling C �ms}fllanbs, .Inc file: / /C:\Documents and Settings \sdavis.LOSGATOSCA \Local Settings \Temp\XPGrpWi... 10/28/2008 Page 4 of 4 146 Maggi Court 15 October 2008 Page 2 of 2 Tree 3, coast live oak (Quercus agrifofia) The sparse canopy and lack of growth of this oak is typical of a tree under stress from disease or drought. At this time, overall health is poor to very. poor. Summation Based on today's observations, tree 1 and tree 2 appear to be in good health and should be considered suitable for preservation. Both oaks will require routine tree maintenance in order to extend their safe and useful life. Far reasons of safety, preservation of tree 9 may require cabling and ! or bracing that often performed on trees with multistem trunks. The proper implementation of a qualified Tree Preservation Plan should be expected to minimize construction impacts to the trees. A qualified Arborist is required to monitor the status of the trees and perform regular site visits to verify that proper tree preservation measures have been implemented and are kept current. Tree 3 is in poor to very poor condition with the outward symptoms of 'a tree in decline. Tree 3 should not be considered a suitable candidate for preservation, Should you require additional information kindly contact our office at your earliest convenience, Respectfully, - { e-t, Walter Fujii Staff Arborist ASCA Registered Cons ISA Cerfifed Arborist No. .Ralph Osterfinx Consolfank, :Ins file: //C :\Documents and Settings \sdavis.LOSGATOSCA \Local Settings \Temp \XPGrpWi... 10/28/2008 S Y L' X s rz Arborist Na. 02 2257A A y > .Ralph Osterfinx Consolfank, :Ins file: //C :\Documents and Settings \sdavis.LOSGATOSCA \Local Settings \Temp \XPGrpWi... 10/28/2008 A, ALAIN FINE] Melanie Kemp Broker Associate November 1, 2008 To: Barbara Spector, Mayor bspector(a)losgatosca.gov Joe Prizynski, Council Member ipirzynskMIosgatosca.gov Diane McNutt, dmcnuttCa�losgatosca.gov RECEIVED NOV - 3 2008 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Mike Wasserman, Vice Mayor mwasserman(Uosgatosca.gov Steve Glickman salickmanCallosgatosca.gov Greg Larson, Town Manager managerCalosgatosca.gov D. Michael Kane, Chair Bud Lortz, Director dmichaelkane(cbaol.com Planning Commission Community Development plan nIng0)losgatosca.gov RE: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos CA Dear Madam Mayor, Madam, and Sirs: I am writing in regard to the proposed residential development located at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos submitted by Mr. Dan Ross and Mr. Jake Peters. I live at 174 Cuesta De Los Gatos Way in "Bella Vista Village" and am writing on behalf of my own investment in this development as well as writing to you in a professional capacity as a real estate broker who has been involved in the sale of more than a dozen homes in this development over the past 11 years. I want to express to you the significant impact on home values in "Bella Vista Village" the proposed development by Mr. Ross and Mr. Peters would have if it were approved. I don't know if it's been brought to your attention, but "Bella Vista Village" was involved in an expensive litigation with our developer, "Landmark Properties" a few years ago. The developer was found negligible in providing 750 University Avenue I Suite 150 1 Los Gatos, CA 95032 1 Office 408.357.7905 1 Direct 408.357.7905 1 mkemp @apr.com adequate drainage for this development, most of which was a result of the run -off from the hill immediately behind Maggi Court (the proposed building site.) As a consequence, the developer was forced to mitigate damage in this area with extensive drains and sump pumps. I fear that cutting into this hill and removing the natural vegetation could once again be the source of extensive water damage to this development. I am vy= aware of the disclosure problems this has caused every time we've sold a house in "Bella Vista Village." As you are aware, anything that could have a negative impact on the value of a home must be disclosed to all prospective buyers. Water issues here have already given several buyers pause in their decision making process. No one wants to hear there could be potential water damage in the future based on recent history. The potential problem with this site became even more apparent recently when I asked Tom Makdissy, Civil Engineer with "Terra Search Soils Engineering" in San Jose, to review the "Updated Geological and Geotechnical Investigations" report prepared on May 1, 2007 for the developers by Ali Oskoorouchi, a geotechnical engineer, and Lou Gilpin, an engineering geologist with "Gilpin Geosciences" for the developers. One of the biggest concerns Mr. Makdissy voiced was his concern with the "Seismic Considerations" (page 5, para b.) regarding "Known Active or potentially active faults nearest to the site include: The Monte Vista — Shannon, 0.0 km., San Andreas (1906) Fault 6.0 km Sargent Fault, 10.1 km Azyante — Vergeles Fault 15.4 km, and Hawyard (SE extension) Fault, 21.8 km." Mr. Makdissy is particularly concerned that there have not been any soil "cuts" to determine how the Shannon Fault might affect the proposed building site and adjacent properties ("Bella Vista Avenue" as well as "Bella Vista Village.' With 0.0 km proximity to this active fault, he expressed extreme concern. I can't imagine what kinds of disclosures the "Bella Vista Village Homeowner's Association" and individual homeowners would have to make to prospective buyers in the event this development were approved. It is difficult to measure the financial loss the homeowners here 'might suffer with an inability to sell these homes. I already have a challenging situation here as a real estate broker with the mitigation that has been completed. Thank you. Melanie Kemp Broker Associate Alain Pinel Realtors May 5, 2010 To: Mayor Diane McNutt Vice Mayor Joe Prizynski Chair Planning Commission John Bourgeois Director of Community Development Wendie Rooney Council Member Steve Rice Council Member Barbara Spector Council Member Mike Wasserman Town Manager Greg Larson Deputy Town Manager Bud Lortz RECEIVED MAY - 0 2010 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION _Subject: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, CA Dear Madams and Sirs: I have been a resident of Los Gatos for over 10 years, own the Bella Bridesmaid boutique in Los Gatos, and am a member of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce. I currently own and live in Bella Vista Village at 154 Maggi Court. I am writing to you in regard to the proposed residential development located at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue submitted by Mr. Dan Ross and Mr. Jake Peters. As you know, this situation has raised the concern of many of our neighbors and I would like to add my concerns and objections based on a recent meeting held on May 3, 2010 with Mr. Dan Ross to review his latest development plans. As an interesting aside, we were informed by Mr. Ross that the "Town Planner and Town Engineer" would be in attendance to answer any questions during the meeting. Unfortunately, Suzanne Davis was not able to attend and it seemed odd that Fletcher Parsons, who is no longer employed with the Town of Los Gatos, was present instead, I understand that Mr. Ross and Mr. Peters purchased the property and have the right to build on the lot in compliance with regulatory standards. However, there will be a significant negative impact on the natural environment, privacy, and home values in the community if they are allowed to move forward as planned. Although some refinements to the plans have been proposed, glaring violations of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines remain unaddressed: 1. The standards related to site selection mandate that the building be located within the Least Restrictive Development Area and that the visual impact is mitigated. The proposed plans for both of these homes grossly exceed the maximum allowable square 1 footage for residential buildings and violate the standard to minimize bulk, mass and volume from surrounding properties outlined in the Code and Guidelines. a. The maximum allowable square footage calculated by using the FAR for each of the lots is approximately 835 square feet and 735 square feet. The plans initially submitted by Mr. Ross and Mr. Peters were for two homes in excess of 1800 square feet each (2700 square feet each of bulk including building mass of garage and cellar). The most recent revision claims a reduction in footprint however the overall square footage, building mass, and bulk remain the same. The revised garage design continues to exceed the FAR exclusion of 400 square feet. b. The proposed siting for one of the homes would result in the destruction of a cluster of 17 oak trees and would have major negative impact on the natural landscape and environment. 2. According to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the Town Council Planning Commission may approve residential projects greater than the maximum allowed floor area only when all of the stated conditions apply. In this case, Mr. Ross and Mr. Peters have not complied with these conditions: a. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat, or movement corridors. If the development proceeds as planned, 17 out of 21 "protected" oak trees will be destroyed and the remaining ones will have questionable post development viability (according to a report commissioned by Mr. Ross). In addition, the planned site of one of the homes is extremely close to the trail that leads up to Bella Vista Drive. Many people in the community use the trail behind the town homes to enjoy the trees and wildlife on a walk into town instead of having to cross Highway 9. b. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. One of the main reasons I purchased the property in 2002 was the pristine view afforded by the hillside when in the master bedroom, living room, and rear deck of the property. In fact, the homes located on Maggi Court continue to be priced at a premium in Bella Vista Village due to the views of the hillside from both the front and back of the townhomes. The planes of view, natural ventilation, and light will be obliterated by the proposed homes. 3. The Hillside Standards and Guidelines place a high priority on protecting the privacy of neighboring homes. Specifically, they require that siting and design or a new home follow standards to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors. The proposed homes would be a mere 30 feet directly behind our homes at Bella Vista Village. a. The plans for each house include a kitchen, two bedrooms with balconies, and an outside deck which look down upon our master bedrooms, living rooms, and back decks. 2 a. The plans for each house include a kitchen, two bedrooms with balconies, and an outside deck which look down upon our master bedrooms, living rooms, and back decks. b. Although Mr. Ross has suggested concessions such as smoked glass, high railings, and plants to mitigate visual invasions of privacy, the extreme angle of the hillside (> 50 degrees) in combination with the height and proximity of the proposed homes would make it extremely difficult to overcome the direct line of sight into our homes. c. I can now hear the occasional sounds of people talking or the sound of the gravel under their feet as they walk on the trail passing my home when I have my windows open or am on one of my outside decks. Another form of privacy invasion which is completely unaddressed by the proposed plans include auditory (e.g. conversations, music, children crying or playing) and lighting intrusions (e.g. daytime glare from windows and doors, indoor or outdoor nighttime lighting) from occupants in extremely close proximity. I join the other members of the community who ask that the Los Gatos Town Building Code and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines be adhered to for this and other projects that elevate speculative financial gain above the quality of life we are so fortunate to enjoy in Los Gatos. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you need additional information or have any questions related to this matter. Sincerely, W J I A� ' �� Debra Chin 154 Maggi Court 3 ROB D. MacDONALD STEVEN M. WHITE JAMES P, HILLMAN WHITE & 1VMacDONALD, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD SUITE 1050 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 -1601 (408) 345 -4000 June 4, 2010 FACSIMILE (408) 345.4020 Bud Lortz Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos Los Gatos Town Hall 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA. 95030 Re: 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue Dear Mr. Lortz and Mr. Larson: Greg Larson Town Manager Town of Los Gatos Los Gatos Town Hall 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA. 95030 JUN 7- 2010 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Our office represents the Bella Vista Village Homeowners Association (the "Association "), a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation formed for the purpose of managing the common interest development commonly known as Bella Vista Village, located near Alberto Way and Bella Vista Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos. The development consists of common area and 46 individually owned townhouses constructed in approximately 1996 and 1997. The residences in Bella Vista Village are located on Cuesta De Los Gatos Way, Treseder Court and Maggi Court. We previously wrote to you on August 4, 2008, on behalf of the Association regarding the proposed development of two parcels of land which are adjoining, but are not part of, Bella Vista Village. At that time efforts were underway to obtain approval from the Town of Los Gatos for the construction of two homes at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos. The Association is now informed the efforts to obtain approval for development of those lots has been renewed. We are again writing to you to convey the Association's concerns regarding development of the lots. Due to the fact that the area under consideration for development includes relatively steep slopes the Association has a legitimate concern regarding the stability of the slopes above Bella Vista Village if disturbed by construction or removal of trees and other vegetation. Slope erosion or stability problems at that location have occurred in the past resulting in debris and damage in Bella Vista Village. For any development to occur, it is imperative that adequate safeguards be implemented to prevent slope instability and to control drainage and erosion that would adversely affect the Common Area or Separate Interests in Bella Vista Village. The Association would like to make sure the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, as adopted by the Town Council in January of 2004 are fully complied with. Additionally, Members of the Association have expressed concern that the development of the adjoining property may affect the privacy, market value, aesthetic value and appearance of properties in Town of Los Gatos June 4, 2010 Page 2 Bella Vista Village and result in the loss of trees and vegetation to the hillside which is the subject of the development efforts. If any additional information is needed in order to evaluate the site conditions at, or the potential impact of the proposed development on Bella Vista Village, please do not hesitate to contact me. The Association would appreciate any information you can provide regarding the proposed . development and the requirements being imposed to address the privacy and other concerns of the Association's Members and the Association's concerns regarding slope instability and erosion that could be detrimental to the Common Area and residences in Bella Vista Village. Very truly yours, U IN M0 R WE IF 1 0: 0• R RDM /tdw cc: Bella Vista Village Board of Directors WABella Vista \Corresp\Town6- 4- 1O.doc September 28, 2010 To: The following Diane McNutt, Council Member bspectorf+losgatosca.gov Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner sdavis(@,Iosgatosca.gov Mike Wasserman, Council Member mwasserman@los€tatosca.gov Joe Prizynski, Vice Mayor j.pirzynskifflosgatosca.gov Greg Larson, Town Manager managerC@,losgatosca.g_ov D Michael Kane, Chair dmichaelkane @losgatosca.gov Bud Lortz, Planning Commission 131anning@losgatosca.gov ' RECEIVED E-> `_'7 2010 TOWN OF LOS GAT ®S PLANNING DIVISION Re: Application for building permits for 339 and 341 Bella Vista Ave, Los Gatos, CA I am writing you to object to the planned construction project at 339/341 Bella Vista Ave for the following reasons: 1) The potential denigration of property value brought on by the construction of the proposed properties to homeowners on Maggi Ct. 2) Construction of two very large homes on a potentially unstable steep hillside. and clear violation of hillside guidelines. 3) Invasion of privacy as homes would directly overlook many of our bedrooms. 4) The increase traffic on Bella Vista Ave and burden on our ever increasing overcrowded schools. The decision to purchase a home in Los Gatos was easy. The town's long standing tradition of focusing on its environment and family centric approach is unmatched. The town must not stray from these longstanding values. In addition, it must adhere to its own regulations, policies and hillside guidelines. A precedent has been established. Several years ago the Town of Los Gatos rejected a proposed property on this very site. The rejection led the previous own to sell the property to Mr. Dan Ross. Mr. Dan Ross was aware of the risks that he may not be granted a permit to build on this piece of land. He took a calculated risk. Please do not allow him to profit from this gamble at our expense. A community prospers and grows stronger when the interest of all are protect and are not set aside for the benefit of the few. Please explain to me, what has changed? Why should the outcome be any different this time around? I have faith that our elected officials will honor our town's longstanding tradition of supporting a community that feels more as a family. If anything, current times have clearly shown what can happen when our primary focus is making a quick buck regardless of the consequence it may have on its stakeholders long I have full confidence the town will not forgo its values, history and uniqueness which makes Los Gatos such a special place to live and raise a family. I wish you the best this upcoming election period. Sincerely, The Corral Family Edgar, Janet, Jade, Mayte & Evan 160 Maggi Ct, Los Gatos, CA. 95032 PATRICK K. TIL1,ivIAN Attorney at Law July 1, 2011 Lead agency: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Project Title and Location: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue JUL 07 20 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Architecture and Site Application S -06 -46 and S -06 -64 Subdivision application(s) M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -02 and ND -08 -03 Regarding: Objections to MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION[S] To Whom it may concern: I am an owner of 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos, California. I will be seriously - negatively impacted if the above- referenced application(s) to build at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, California are granted. I read the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS] pertaining to the above. They are completely devoid of the "human" aspect to the proposed projects and their technical information is evasive garbage. In 2008, these same people submitted an application for the same project. It; too, was chalked full of distortions, e.g: 1) discussions were had with the affected neighbors and 2) pictures were submitted of the impacted residents (looked like they were building in the Yosemite National Park). When we were drug into that process, we — 10 -15 families in our neighborhood — told Applicant several times, we warned him in no uncertain terms, that any building on these lots must be in strict compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines ( "HDS &G "). 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 Phone: (408) 615 -9670 Fax. (408) 615 -9715 E -mail. pat@pktlawoffice.com The primary applicant this year is again Dan Ross. Since his /this project application was shot down in 2008, instead of heeding our warnings, Mr. Ross made himself part of the Los Gatos General Plan Update Advisory Committee (from 2008 until 2010), and then part of the North -40 Advisory Committee (since 2011). Mr. Ross has been providing his invaluable opinions regarding land use to the Town of Los Gatos on a volunteer basis, actively ingratiating himself with the powers that be. Mr. Ross told us /me that he was getting the assistance of Los Gatos Planning personnel in this re- submission. Most troubling of all his comments was that he has no plans consistent with the FAR requirements because he was told by a Town of Los Gatos official, someone in the Planning Department, not to even bother submitting any. In essence: "don't worry about it." On an historical note, as to this same location and a similar project, the Planning Department of Los Gatos stated: COMMENTS /CONCERNS: 11. The Town sets a high priority in preserving its hillsides, natural views, and the character if its neighborhoods. This site is in a very visible location that has the potential to greatly impact these views and the character of this neighborhood. The Planning Department can not recommend approval of the design as submitted because of its potential to greatly impact these views, is not in keeping with the residences in the area, and has potential privacy impacts with the residences of the Bella Vista Development that is now under construction. The applicant should consult with an architect to develop a design that addresses the massiveness of the rear elevation, articulates the bulk of the second story from the lower story, minimizes privacy and view impacts, minimizes grading and retaining walls, and preserves the sites existing trees. ... (Emphasis added) Bella Vista Proj. App. PRJ -97 -020 Rec: 02 -12 -97 2 Similar concerns were voiced by the MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL on April 3, 2003 DISCUSSION The Planning Commission considered this matter on February 26, 2003 The Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal due to lack of progress. The Commission further directed the applicant to, should they resubmit an application, incorporate the following: Merge the two lots, APN 529 -23 -015 and 5229 -23 -016; Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot; ... (Emphasis added) Why is this Applicant being treated differently? As to specific issues raised in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION[S] : Project Description. a. Lot size. The lots are small — 6,038 sq. ft. and 4,106 sq. ft. Applicant proposes to reduce the size of the larger lot from 6,038 sq. ft. to 4,915 sq. ft. He disregards the law that says you can not make a non - conforming lot more non - conforming. (Gov. Code §66412(d)) The adjacent lot would then increase in size from 4,106 sq. ft. to 5,240 sq. ft. Both lots, before and after the shift, are substantially below the 8,000 sq. ft. minimum for R-1:8 zoned projects. b. House Size. Applicant wants to construct two (2) 2,760 sq. ft, homes, one (1) on a 4,915 sq. ft. lot and the other on a 5,240 sq. ft. lot. Both lots sit on a +53° (average) slope within the purview of the HDS &G. There is virtually no room in front of each house (to the road) and none between their downhill face and multiple neighbors - us. Applicant represents that there is forty feet (40') between the downhill face of the project and the neighbors — us. Again, a lie. He also omits the fact that 25 feet of that distance consists of a gravel walkway (— 10 feet wide) and our 15 foot backyards. At the Northern end of the project, these monstrosities will be built right up to the downhill lot -line. c. Environmental Impact Report. He says one is not needed. Do you need an EIR to build in someone's backyard? 1. Aesthetics. a. Across the street. No problem for those living across the street that may have enjoyed the trees and /or the view, he says, the roof of the proposed homes will be lower than the canopy of the +150 year old oak trees they are killing/ removing. The Bella Vista residents will certainly be far happier looking at the new roofs. b. "Visual character along Bella Vista." Construction of these two (2) homes will look like an overstuffed backpack on the West side of the street. They detract from the serenity of that section of the street — they are out of place. c. View analysis. Applicant's report properly defines the "view analysis"' issue, then goes on to prove /factually admit — contrary to his own conclusions — that his project violates the HDS &G from all three (3) of the locations to which he makes reference. At all three (3) locations — according to this report — the project is visible based on the HDS &G standard. But instead we get: "Hey!! You can't see the poles from here ... good thing these damn trees and shrubs block the view, otherwise, we'd have failed the `view analysis'." Applicant also invokes the view blockage "by an approved new building on the parcel located between the site and Alberto Way. First, view blockage by a building more appropriately calls for moving the viewing platform. Second, for how many years have we been threatened with more construction at The Los Gatos Motor Lodge? 10!! Third, when will this proposed project block the view? 5 -10 years from now? Fourth, the view of the project is not blocked if you move 10 feet from either side of the viewing platform. And fifth, if built, you can probably see the project from Cupertino. Who is he kidding? Applicant identifies the issue in footnote #2: " `Potential' is defined as capable of being seen from a viewing platform if trees or large shrubs are removed, significantly pruned, or impacted by construction," (Emphasis added) rd d. HDS &G Minimum Grading. Grading Standards: Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels are considered excessive and contrary to the objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. Grade to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate buildings and to site structures consistent with slope contours. These are maximum numbers and may be reduced by the deciding body if the project does not meet grading standards or is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Standard and Guidelines. Maximum Grade Cuts — 8' (From Chart) The Applicant proposes two (2) grade cuts totaling 17 feet The first is 4 1 /2'. Three (3) feet later, another 121/2 foot cut is required. Because of their close proximity, the two (2) "cuts" should be considered as one (1). To further aggravate the problem, the last 4 1 /2' of the downhill edge of the house sticks up 3' above the natural slope, indicating the cuts should be even more drastic and demonstrates just how steep this hillside is. In the "6. Geology and Soils" section, Applicant asserts that "approximately 247 cubic yards" of soil will be cut from each house location — presumably to build the foundation of the house. The quantity of soil to be removed does not sound massive because it's not — the angle of the hillside is so steep, they need only shave off a little topsoil. He goes on to state that 96 cubic yards of soil will be returned — "filled." True (maybe), but again misleading. The 96 cubic yards is "filled" outside the house - foundation footprint to build up a platform for the garage. Almost 50% of the soil removed to build the whole house is needed to build up a 20' x 20' garage pad. Again, reflecting just how steep this slope is. e. "This screening would help to minimize loss of privacy at the existing townhomes, immediately downhill of the site since the proposed home[s] would directly overlook these townhomes." 5 You Asshole!! You lying sack. The lowest part of each proposed home — the foundation — is level with the very top portion of our living room. They look down on us and into our living room area (2" floor) and bedroom area (3 floor) from their basement. They tower over our homes. Because of the steep slope, they would have to have 60 foot trees to block their view; and then, where do they plan on putting these trees - there is probably not 10 feet of room anywhere between their foundation and the lot line ... then there is the gravel walkway, then there is our 15 foot deep backyard. L Outdoor lighting. According to Applicant, they are 40 feet from our homes ... and uphill. Both our living room (2" floor) and bedroom (3 floor) have large sliding glass doors, easily 10 feet wide. Any lights on the downhill side of these homes will light up our entire backyard, living room, and bedroom. As to the "landscape screening" they claim will mitigate, see above. In a Solar /lighting study submitted to the Town of Los Gatos in 2008 by Applicant (Geier & Geier contractor), they recommended a "set-back" from the downhill neighbors of 75 feet — as opposed to their currently proposed 40 feet. This report was removed from Town's file. (Also see "Solar Study," supra) 4. Biological Resources. a. Tree removal. NO ARBORIST IS ADVOCATING REMOVAL OF THE TREES. And, no arborist voices any serious concerns about the health of these trees if no construction goes forward. All the reports are based on the premise that these homes will be built. The closest an arborist came to making a recommendation was: There are already high density condominiums or apartments on the east[sic] (downslope) side of the parcel, and these trees in their intact groves provide a good buffer and screening between the condominiums and the single family residences on the west[sic] side of Bella Vista Avenue. It is too bad that this small parcel cannot be kept as an open space buffer, or a low - maintenance park. If this were not possible, then the construction of only one house on the lot would preserve more of the trees and the general open space nature of the parcel. (ARBORIST REPORT 09- 20 -01) N i` For the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Unfortunately, now that this arborist is on Applicant's payroll, and not consulting for the Town of Los Gatos, she seems less enthusiastic about allowing these trees to survive and contribute to the community. Her opinion of the health of the trees now seems a bit less hopeful, as well. Regardless, the opinions regarding removal are only if the homes are constructed. And if so, the whole damn lot of them can go. Applicant wants to remove 12 "regulated trees" and jeopardize the health of 6 more — out of 21— leaving basically none. Completely omitted are the new owners' plans for a lawn. As to replacement trees, where are you going to put them, on top of the homes? They're not going to fit between the downhill face of the home and the property line. Feigning environmental concerns is very telling about the nature of this proj ect. 9. hydrology and Water Quality. Each of these homes will result in at least 2,063 sq. ft. of "impervious surfaces" (building, driveway, and porch) — between the two (2) of them, over 4,126 sq. ft. of impervious surface within a 100 foot distance, on a +53° (average) slope, leading down to a gravel pathway (approximately 10 feet wide), leading down to our homes. No problem. Applicant has a septic system to handle even the biggest storm. And much like they do at the better trailer parks, any excess can be pumped uphill right onto the street ... where it can accumulate ... or run downhill, right back to the project from where it came — they are downhill of the street. "And NO!!" this system is not consistent with requirements on similar properties. There are no properties similarly situated to those being addressed. i 10. Land Use and Planning. a. "Medium Density Residential" apparently is 5 -12 units per acre. This entire plot of land is "0.11 acres." With two (2) homes on it, that would be +18 units per acre ... on +53° (average) sloped land. Are we not going in the wrong direction for density ?? b. Consistent with existing adjacent and nearby residences. Again: "NO, it's not." The only homes with any similarities, i.e. on downhill side of Bella Vista, are at least a 1 /a mile down the street, on the other side of Highway 9. Downhill of these homes, and I believe there are four (4) of them, is the parking lot to the Los Gatos Lodge and the Los Gatos High School Baseball field. None of them have downhill residents. 12. Noise. Nobody cares about the noise level during construction. Construction is noisy, but temporary. Noise that does concern the downhill residents is, and will be, tolerating the ongoing noise of those living above us. This noise will not "be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses." Another outright lie. Standing in our backyard, standing on our upstairs deck, without trying, I can listen in on conversations taking place on Bella Vista Avenue. I hear the words clearly. With that as my standard, I anticipate being privy to far too many conversations to which I was not invited. There's also parties, kids, barbeques, television to be concerned about. I do not want to be hollering "shut up" at my neighbors. If I do, I expect to get an equally nasty response. Did I mention we are downhill of them? That would put me /us at a disadvantage. OTHER Solar Study. Applicant is obligated to submit a Shade and Shadow Study, setting forth potentially significant impacts on the project neighbors. Such study was submitted to the Planning Department in 2008, commissioned by Applicant and prepared by Geier & Geier. It was removed from the Town's file. Therein, Geier & Geier identified substantial impacts on the downhill neighbors. In particular, in Winter months the project would block the sun from the downhill neighbors from before 9:00 a.m. until shortly after 12:00 p.m. . I find no reference to this mandate in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION[S] . CONCLUSION These Mitigated.Negative Declarations are a fraud. Those submitting them are shameless liars. This is Los Gatos. Our homes boarder on $1.0 million in value. Having the proposed projects built will certainly harm the value— estimated to exceed $100,000 per household times at least eight (8) households; but more importantly, our privacy is gone, our quality of life is gone. We did not move into Los Gatos to live like this. The Town Council is charged with preserving its hillsides, natural views, and the character if its neighborhoods. At the very least, I expect my Town not to rubber -stamp a lifetime nuisance . Allowing this Applicant, this insider, a waiver (aka "variance ") to virtually everything this community and the HDS &G stand for is certainly not appropriate. The projects proposed should be rejected based on the integrity of the presentations, alone. Respectfully, Patrick K. Tillman cc: Bella Vista Home Owners BellaVista.NegDec1070111 Z Acts Constituting Nuisance. "Anything that is ... indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, ... (CC §3479) 0 July 7, 2011 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S -0646 & S -06 -64 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -02 & ND -08 -03 Planners and Planning Commission, JUL 07 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION I have been retained by Mr. Patrick Tillman, resident of 150 Maggi Court, to review the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, dated June, 2011. The very first line of the document states that the owner is requesting a lot line adjustment. Missing from the document is the note that this adjustment would make an existing non- conforming lot even smaller and even more non - conforming within an R -1:8 zone. My professional experiences within Los Gatos and understanding of Town ordinances lead me to believe that this is not allowable. Per Los Gatos Zoning and General Plan requirements these lots must be combined into one lot. My understanding is that the combined lot size is only 10,155 s.f. I have worked on numerous hillside projects and can determine fairly quickly whether a proposal makes sense; in this case I do not understand the numbers I am seeing. The basic calculation I would use is: If we have a 10,144 s.f. lot (with lots combined), the number must be reduced by 60% in order to show net lot area of 4,056 (.345), for an allowable area of 1399 s.f plus a 400 s.f. garage. If one were to divide that number in half for two lots, allowable area would be 700 s.f. plus a 400 s.f. garage. Because of the negative impacts this development would have on the neighboring properties, there is no way for D.R.C. or Planning Commission to meet the findings required for an increased F.A.R. In summary, I strongly believe this project as proposed is flawed. The only way to move forward would be to combine the lots and resubmit with a single family design. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to give me a call. Sincerely, Terry J. Martin Architect, Lic #C23221 Terry J. Martin Associates, A.I.A. 61 East Main Street, Suite D, Los Gatos, California 95030 Tel: 408 395 -8016 Fax: 408 395 -5732 email: terry @tmaarchitects.net July 7, 2011 To: Joe Prizynski, Mayor Steve Rice, Vice Mayor Steven Leonardis, Council Member Diane McNutt, Council Member Barbara Spector, Council Member Marico Sayoc, Chairwoman Planning Commission Marcia Jensen, Vice Chairwoman Planning Commission John Bourgeois, Planning Commission Member Charles Erekson, Planning Commission Member Thomas O'Donnell, Planning Commission Member Jane Ogle, Planning Commission Member Joanne Talesfore, Planning Commission Member Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner Greg Larson, Town Manager Wendy Rooney, Community Development Director RECEIVED JUL 07 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, CA Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Town of Los Gatos Staff: I have lived in Los Gatos for over 10 years, own the Bella Bridesmaid boutique in Los Gatos, am a member of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce, and own a residence at 154 Maggi Court in Los Gatos. I am outraged by the complete lack of objectivity and disregard for the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines shown in the recently released mitigated negative declaration for the above mentioned applications. This project, if allowed to proceed as outlined in the plan, would have a significant negative impact on the environment, quality of life, and home values in the surrounding community. It should be noted that the applicant (Dan Ross) did not take the initiative to gather feedback on his plans from the neighbors as advised by the Planning Commission. After many of the neighboring property owners sent letters of objection to the Los Gatos Planning Commission and Town Council, he met with us last May to reveal his development plans. These plans did not address any of the major concerns previously raised by the community, most notably the glaring violations of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines: 1. The standards related to site selection mandate that the building be located within the Least Restrictive Development Area and that the visual impact is mitigated. The proposed plans for both of these homes grossly exceed the maximum allowable square 1 footage for residential buildings and violate the standard to minimize bulk, mass and volume from surrounding properties outlined in the Code and Guidelines. a. The maximum allowable square footage calculated by using the FAR for each of the lots is approximately 835 square feet and 735 square feet. The plans currently submitted by Mr. Ross are for two 2,760 square feet homes. . 2. According to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the Town Council Planning Commission may approve residential projects greater than the maximum allowed floor area only when all of the stated conditions apply. In this case, Mr. Ross has not complied with these conditions: a. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat, or movement corridors. If the development proceeds as planned, 12 out of 21 "protected" oak trees will be destroyed and 6 of the remaining ones will have questionable post development viability (according to a report commissioned by Mr. Ross). In addition, the planned site of one of the homes is extremely close to the trail that leads up to Bella Vista Drive. Many people in the community use the trail behind the town homes to enjoy the trees and wildlife on a walk into town. b. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. The proposed development would eliminate the pristine view of wildlife and trees from the master bedrooms, living rooms, and rear decks of the adjacent Bella Vista townhomes. The planes of view, natural ventilation, and light will be completely obliterated by the proposed homes and result in a detrimental effect on our lifestyles and home values. 3. The Hillside Standards and Guidelines place a high priority on protecting the privacy of neighboring homes. Specifically, they require that the site and design for a new home follow standards to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors. a. Although Mr. Ross has suggested cosmetic concessions such as smoked glass, high railings, and plants to mitigate visual invasions of privacy, the extreme angle of the hillside (> 50 degrees) in combination with the height and proximity of the proposed homes (30 feet away) would make it extremely difficult to overcome the direct line of sight into our homes. b. I work from my home office and can hear people talking at conversational levels on Bella Vista Drive or the sound of the gravel as passersby walk on the trail behind the lots. The noise created by the construction process and ongoing inhabitants of the new homes a mere 30 feet from my property would not only be an inconvenience, but would have a negative impact on my ability to conduct business and earn a livelihood. The Los Gatos Town Building Code and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines should be adhered to on a fair and consistent basis. In addition, the applicant should be required 2 to follow due process. Despite the fact that a hearing for the planning commission has been scheduled for Aug. 10th, proper story poles outlining the perimeter of the proposed homes have yet to be put in place. Due to the fact that the story poles are not in place and many of the impacted neighbors are away on summer holiday, I would like to request a postponement of the hearing until September. In the mean time, I invite members of the town council and planning commission to visit my home and the Bella Vista Village community to gain a realistic perspective of the significant negative impact this will have if the applicant's plans are approved. Sincerely, Debra Chin 154 Maggi Court 0 Viably Stulski & Natallia Stulskaya 152 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA 95032 To: Joe Prizynski, Mayor JPirzynskia.LosGatosCa.aov Steven Leonardis S Leona rdisnalosGatosCa.gov Barbara Spector BSpectorna.LosGatosCa.gov Marico Sayoc maricosayoc anyahoo.com John Bourgeois ibouraeolse,harveyecoloay.com Jane Ogle Wendy Rooney planninana LosGatosCa.gov Steve Rice, Vice Mayor SRicena LosGatosCa.gov Diane McNutt DMcnuttaLosGatosCa.aov Marcia Jensen marcia.jensen@gmail.com Joanne Talesfore 9 oannetOid- 3d.com Thomas O'Donnell todonnell2a,msn.com Charles Erekson Suzanne Davis sdavis anLosGatosCa.g_ov RECEIVED JUL 07 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Re: Application for building permits for 339 & 341 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA Dear Mayor, Council Members and Town Managers, We are writing in a regard of a proposed residential development located at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA submitted by by Mr. Dan Ross. We live at 152 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA in "Bella Vista Village" and are the owners of this property. We are very concerned by the fact that this project is moving forward despite significant hardship it will cause to the whole neighbourhood and my family in particular. We'd like to point out several specific areas where my family is substantially impacted by the proposed development. 1. Privacy. Proposed property is located 40 feet from our house and front of the property faces our bedroom windows with a direct view over our patio. This level of visibility into our bedroom and patio is completely unacceptable and shall not be possible. Tinted or frosted windows or some sort of visibility limiters are not acceptable as well, because they can be reinstalled by the future owner of the house at a later time, or someone can just step outside the house to get the same level of visibility into our property. The close proximity of the proposed construction will also affect us from a noise perspective. Right now we can clearly hear noises from Bella Vista street that is substantially farther than 40 feet. In photos attached which were taking from our bedroom you can see how close the proposed development. 2. Violations of hillside development guidelines. Proposed development significantly exceeds the size of the house allowed on a such a small lot. The fact that the lots are 'nonconforming' shall give a bigger scrutiny to the project, not a special treatment when it comes to following hillside guidelines. I'd like to bring to your attention that on April 3, 2003 Town Council stated to a previous attempt to build on this property exactly the following; "Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot ". We were aware of this decision (it was disclosed to me by the previous owner of my property) and we relied on the Town consistency in this matter while making very big financial decision to purchase our house. 3. Financial impact. The property located in such a close proximity with a direct view into our bedroom and overlooking our patio will significantly lower prices of homes in Bella Vista Village and of our house in particular. It will require for all the homes to go through substantial disclosures if we decide to sell our house. We expect the damages to exceed $100,000 to me if this project will get approved. 4. Environmental impact. The proposed plan requires removal of almost all hillside vegetation. This hill is a home for a lot of rare and old trees, such as oaks. We attached photos showing that this hill looks extremely healthy. Vegetation removal, construction process and future land use might cause severe damage to aesthetics of the neighbourhood and cause irreparable damage to the hill. 6. Safety. This project is proposed on a hill with slopes averaging 53% (meaning at some places they exceed 53 %). The project is a subject to very strong to violent ground shaking during a future large earthquake on the nearby San Andreas fault zone, or on one of the other major active faults zones in the region. Land slides, drainage damages or other possible hazards are very possible in a case of such an event. Small mistake or miscalculation in a building process, degradation of the structure or even misplaced heavy objects on a balcony (such as grills, furniture, umbrellas) might result in debris from the proposed houses to cover our patio or even destroying our house. We have two small kids 8 and 2 years old and the oversized house 40 feet away from our home (and 25 feet away from our patio) built on a 53% slope is not safe. 6. Convenience, traffic, construction. Bella Vista Avenue has only one sidewalk on the opposite side of the road from the proposed houses. The houses will have small or no driveway at all and any visitor will be forced to park their cars in front of other people homes. During construction traffic on Bella Vista will be much more intense and heavy construction equipment will be operating right next to our windows causing major inconvenience especially to families with little children. Though construction is a temporary, but significant inconvenience, noise and light from these houses will be inconveniencing us forever. We also want to note that the applicant (Mr. Dan Ross) made negligible effort in communicating to neighbour property owners the plans for his project. We learned about the project only after the fact and only after we wrote letters to the Town Mr. Dan Ross explained his plans. During 2 formal meetings he shown little to no interest in changing these plans to be compliant with the guidelines or respect our privacy, saying he was advised by the Town officials to do it the way he did. In our long careers we never faced such ignorance towards other people's privacy, private property and safety. If you would like to visit our home to see the extent of a hardship this project will cause to our neighbourhood we are wholeheartedly inviting you to visit our house and tour our property. We can be reached at 650- 391 -4033 or vstulski @gmail.com and we will make sure that we can accommodate the time convenient for you in case you decide to visit. We also kindly ask you to postpone Planning Commission hearing scheduled on August 10, 2011 to a later date, preferably in September. August is a summer vacation season and school break for kids when a lot of people are out of towm. Thank You, Vitally Stulski and Natallia Stulskaya Owners of 152 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA. ` z y a- tME 1 0 - A - mmumm f. bw U P if too - 7 TV PAW MIM Meg Ian yqy ^--~-' July 7, 2011 To: Joe Prizynski, Mayor Steve Rice, Vice Mayor Steven Leonardis, Council Member Diane McNutt, Council Member Barbara Spector, Council Member Marico Sayoc, Chairwoman Planning Commission Marcia Jensen, Vice Chairwoman Planning Commission John Bourgeois, Planning Commission Member Charles Erekson, Planning Commission Member Thomas O'Donnell, Planning Commission Member Jane Ogle, Planning Commission Member Joanne Talesfore, Planning Commission Member Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner Greg Larson, Town Manager Wendy Rooney, Community Development Director JUL 07 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, CA Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Town of Los Gatos Staff: I have lived in Los Gatos for over 10 years, own the Bella Bridesmaid boutique in Los Gatos, am a member of the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce, and own a residence at 154 Maggi Court in Los Gatos. I am outraged by the complete lack of objectivity and disregard for the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines shown in the recently released mitigated negative declaration for the above mentioned applications. This project, if allowed to proceed as outlined in the plan, would have a significant negative impact on the environment, quality of life, and home values in the surrounding community. It should be noted that the applicant (Dan Ross) did not take the initiative to gather feedback on his plans from the neighbors as advised by the Planning Commission. After many of the neighboring property owners sent letters of objection to the Los Gatos Planning Commission and Town Council, he met with us last May to reveal his development plans. These plans did not address any of the major concerns previously raised by the community, most notably the glaring violations of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines: 1. The standards related to site selection mandate that the building be located within the Least Restrictive Development Area and that the visual impact is mitigated. The proposed plans for both of these homes grossly exceed the maximum allowable square footage for residential buildings and violate the standard to minimize bulk, mass and volume from surrounding properties outlined in the Code and Guidelines. a. The maximum allowable square footage calculated by using the FAR for each of the lots is approximately 835 square feet and 735 square feet. The plans currently submitted by Mr. Ross are for two 2,760 square feet homes. 2. According to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the Town Council Planning Commission may approve residential projects greater than the maximum allowed floor area only when all of the stated conditions apply. In this case, Mr. Ross has not complied with these conditions: a. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat, or movement corridors. If the development proceeds as planned, 12 out of 21 "protected" oak trees will be destroyed and 6 of the remaining ones will have questionable post development viability (according to a report commissioned by Mr. Ross). In addition, the planned site of one of the homes is extremely close to the trail that leads up to Bella Vista Drive. Many people in the community use the trail behind the town homes to enjoy the trees and wildlife on a walk into town. b. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. The proposed development would eliminate the pristine view of wildlife and trees from the master bedrooms, living rooms, and rear decks of the adjacent Bella Vista townhomes. The planes of view, natural ventilation, and light will be completely obliterated by the proposed homes and result in a detrimental effect on our lifestyles and home values. 3. The Hillside Standards and Guidelines place a high priority on protecting the privacy of neighboring homes. Specifically, they require that the site and design for a new home follow standards to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors. a. Although Mr. Ross has suggested cosmetic concessions such as smoked glass, high railings, and plants to mitigate visual invasions of privacy, the extreme angle of the hillside (> 50 degrees) in combination with the height and proximity of the proposed homes (30 feet away) would make it extremely difficult to overcome the direct line of sight into our homes. b. I work from my home office and can hear people talking at conversational levels on Bella Vista Drive or the sound of the gravel as passersby walk on the trail behind the lots. The noise created by the construction process and ongoing inhabitants of the new homes a mere 30 feet from my property would not only be an inconvenience, but would have a negative impact on my ability to conduct business and earn a livelihood. The Los Gatos Town Building Code and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines should be adhered to on a fair and consistent basis. In addition, the applicant should be required 2 to follow due process. Despite the fact that a hearing for the planning commission has been scheduled for Aug. 10th, proper story poles outlining the perimeter of the proposed homes have yet to be put in place. Due to the fact that the story poles are not in place and many of the impacted neighbors are away on summer holiday, I would like to request a postponement of the hearing until September. In the mean time, I invite members of the town council and planning commission to visit my home and the Bella. Vista Village community to gain a realistic perspective of the significant negative impact this will have if the applicant's plans are approved. Sincerely, Debra Chin 154 Maggi Court 3 July 10, 2011 Timothy S. and Judith A. Coughlin 320 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 356 -8092 LGVision @Comcast.Net Suzanne Davis Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 sdavis @losgatosca.gov ctaylor(a-losgatosca.gov RE: 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S -06 -64 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -03 339 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S -06 -46 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -02 Dear Ms Davis: RECEIVED JUL 11 Z011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION We are writing in response to the above applications. Our comments are after the bullets relating to the sections cited and apply to both lots being considered for development. "From Bella Vista Avenue, the proposed residence would appear as a one -story home. The height of the proposed residence (11 feet, 6 inches high) would be similar to adjacent proposed residence to the north. Homes along the east side of Bella Vista Avenue in the project vicinity are one and two stories with heights ranging from approximately 15 to 25 feet. Since the proposed home would be similar in height when compared to other one -story homes along Bella Vista and lower than existing two -story homes, the proposed home would not substantially alter the existing visual character along Bella Vista." • Our view is through the trees as well as over them. This will be a substantial change in the aesthetics of the area. • We disagree with your assessment that the removal of trees would be of minimal impact. "The project site is located within the area subject to the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS &G). The HDS &G requires a "view analysis" for any development project with the potential for being visible2 from any established viewing platform. Story poles were placed on the site and it was determined that the proposed home would not be visible from established viewing platforms. Intervening trees block views of the story poles from the closest viewing platform located on Los Gatos Saratoga Road at Highway 9. Trees also block views of the story poles from eastbound Los Gatos Saratoga Road (except for a brief glimpse just west of the Bella Vista overpass). Story poles indicate that these homes would be visible from the south end of Alberto Way, but future visibility would be blocked by an approved new building on the parcel located between the site and Alberto Way." • When trees are removed for the construction of this development the buildings will be plainly visible from viewing platforms. "Outdoor lighting would be provided on the exterior of the home. The proposed home would be located approximately 65 feet from homes to the east (across Bella Vista) and 50 feet from townhomes to the west. Project exterior lighting could illuminate distant nighttime views to the west (overlooking the site) from existing homes to the east, although the 65 -foot distance would help minimize the effects of nighttime illumination depending on lighting design. Exterior and interior lighting also could have nighttime illumination effects on existing townhomes to the west, although the intervening distance and proposed landscape screening would minimize the potential for impacts associated with nighttime illumination. Proposed exterior lighting will be specifically reviewed as part of Architecture and Site review. To reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the final plans will need to satisfy Town Code Section 29.10.09035, which prohibits the production of direct or reflected glare (such as that produced by - floodlight.onto any area outside the project boundary)." • The presence of exterior lighting will substantially reduce our night -time view across the valley. Light emanating from roof skylights will have impacts as well. These should be screened. "Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance ?" ® You say "no significant impact, with mitigation ". What are the mitigations for cutting down an ancient oak tree? "Tree Removal. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3 -1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy — Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24- inch box size trees or two 36 -inch and /or 48 -inch box size trees, depending on the canopy size of the tree to be removed." • Where will these trees be placed on the site? No amount of money or the planting of trees in some other location will mitigate the loss of these trees. "The proposed project is consistent with the existing General Plan designation of "Medium Density Residential, 5 -12 units per acre." This designation allows for residential uses at densities of up to 12 units per acre. The proposed residence would be developed on a 0.12 -acre site, which would be within allowable densities. The minimum lot size in the R -1:8 zone is 8,000 square feet for each dwelling unit, and the proposed project would be located on a 5,240 square -foot lot. Since the lot is smaller than the required minimum lot size, it is considered a nonconforming lot. Nonconforming lots are considered a hardship for the owners and certain exceptions to the Town's Code (such as minimum building setbacks) may be allowed if consistent with established setbacks in the neighborhood." • Where is the hardship when the buyer knew the zoning when the purchase was made and chose to buy the property anyway? These two lots should be combined so that one home can be built with the necessary setbacks and tree preservation. • The FAR should be respected in constructing this home. It' is in the General Plan for a reasonl "Residential uses are generally considered to be noise - sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. There are single- family residences located east and west of the site, The residences to the east are located approximately 65 feet from the proposed residence, while the townhomes to the west are located approximately 50 feet from the residence. At 50 feet, the ordinance noise limit (85 dBA at 25 feet) would result in maximum noise levels of 79 dBA, respectively at the closest residences to the west and east." • Ventillation systems, pumps, compressors, generators, vacuum systems and the like should be situated so as not to impact the noise - sensitive neighbors. "Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? X • We are very concerned about the narrowness of the street and the ability of fire equipment to navigate it with the increased parking and the presence of 2 new driveways. Bella Vista Ave. is extremely narrow where it meets Simons Way and this is because there are houses on both sides and cars parked on the right -of -way. We do not want to see that happen here. "Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non - motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit ?" • Bella Vista Avenue is a bike route. Residents paid for surfacing the street with the help of federal dollars for the bike -route designation. The additional driveways, parking and ingress /egress would add to the danger of riding on the street, since this development is situated immediately after a bend in the road. "When the proposed project is considered together with the home proposed on the adjacent property at 339 Bella Vista Avenue, the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts, particularly those related to biological resources and traffic during and after construction. The project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with construction of both proposed homes are described under relevant topics above, With implementation of mitigation measures specified in this report, they were determined to be less than cumulatively considerable and therefore, less than significant." • How will increased traffic be mitigated? How will the loss of trees and views be mitigated? How will the safety for bicyclists be ensured? How will fire- engine access be assured? The proposed plans indicate that 13 of the 2u regulatea trees win oe removea. iney include #1 -9, 11 and 19 -21. Based on their species and/or condition, I fmd the loss of each but #2 confidently conforms to the Town Code. In the event that retention of tree #2 would result in a reduction of the otherwise - permissible building envelope by more than 25- percent, its removal would then directly conform pursuant to Section 29.10.0990(6) of the Town Code. • These trees along the west side of Bella Vista Avenue constitute a significant green belt which birds use to migrate from south to north with relative protection from human activity. Removal of 13 of the 20 trees on this site would completely disrupt this corridor. This applicant has not met with the neighbors as he indicated. We have not had a single meeting with him. The development he created on the south end of Bella Vista stands as a monument to his vision of how this neighborhood should look. It is crowded, unsafe, and frustrating for drivers trying to navigate the narrow, parked -up street. This is not our vision for this neighborhood. Please keep me informed about any developments in this matter, and don't hesitate to contact me if you want further comments or observations. Thank you. Sincerely, Tim Coughlin, O.D. RECEIVED Robert And Karin DiNapoli 322 Bella Vista Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95032 Lead Agency: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Project Title And Location: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecural and Site Application s -06-64 Subdivision application(s) M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -02 and ND -0803 JUL 1 _1 1U11 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Regarding: Objections to MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS My wife and I have been living at 322 Bella Vista for the past 14 years. Our home is directly across the street from the Project listed above. We object to the project and to the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated June, 2011. Aesthetics: We take issue to the report's findings that the proposed homes would not substantially alter the existing visual characteristics along Bella Vista. Currently, over 75% of the westward side of Bella Vista is undeveloped. That side of the street remains in its natural state, populated by aged coast live oak and an understory of vinca, an ornamental groundcover. The area of Bella Vista closer to Los Gatos High School that has been developed on the westward side is a disaster. The road narrows because of increased street parking thus allowing only one lane of traffic. Bikers and pedestrians have to wait behind parked cars to avoid being hit, and garages open up just a few feet from strolling pedestrians and joggers. Adding more houses on the westward side of Bella Vista certainly will alter the existing visual character along the street. 1 Land Use and Planning: Where does the Town of Los Gatos' General Plan state we should build more homes along the ridgelines surrounding our town! That was tried already... they call it Hollywood Hills and the results are UGLY! Safety: Bella Vista has become a well used and much needed pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare because it offers these travelers a scenic and safe route to travel from Downtown to neighborhoods east of Los Gatos Boulevard. Adding homes with abbreviated setbacks at the 339 and 341 locations will dramatically increase the danger for pedestrians and cyclists. At least a hundred students drive Southward on Bella Vista each morning on their way to Los Gatos High school. Just before the two proposed home site, the street bends to the west creating a `blind curve'. This blind curve, combined with additional parked cars and drivers backing out of garages set too close to the street will cause a serious hazard. To make matters worse, with cars parked on ,both sides of the street, emergency Vehicles will have difficulty passing! Conclusion: These two lots, along with the balance of the undeveloped property along the west side of Bella Vista should remain undisturbed and protected from development. The lots are too small, are perched on a ridgeline with a steep slope for their back yard. Bella Vista has become a vital and well used pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare which should be promoted not made more hazardous. The current leaders of the Town of Los Gatos should do as previous leaders have done and deny approval to further develop the west side of Bella Vista. Sincerely, Robert and Karin DiNapoli qgwwk Mary J. Badame JUL 1 1 2011 215 N. Santa Cruz Ave Suite B TOWN OF LOS GATOS Los Gatos, CA 95030 PLANNING DIVISION June 21, 2011 Bus. (408) 395 -1113 Fax (408) 395 -1115 Lead Agency: Town of Los Gatos License #0688038 Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Project Title And Location: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architectural and Site Application s -06 -46 and 5 -06 -64 Subdivision application(s) M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -02 and ND -08 -03 Regarding: Objections to MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION'S General Comments Many reasons listed to support findings are subjectively biased and conflict with findings of prior site projects (PRJ -97 -020 and PRJ -98 -139). They are also incomplete (shade and shadow study), devoid of visual character effects on the Maggi Court neighborhood, and inaccurate on project's site layout, pad elevation, and site orientation. The impact analysis in the EIR generally does not explain why mitigation measures are effective in reducing impacts to less than significant levels. We are not assured that the mitigation proposed will reduce the level of impact. There are numerous misrepresentations and discrepancies on the project application. Aesthetics The site was identified as "a very significant gateway to Los Gatos" by former Director of Community Development Bud Lortz (01- 22 -08). The ridgeline that abuts this "very significant gateway" will be severely impacted by the loss of view shed, wooded ridgeline, and heritage trees and it should be considered a significant ridgeline (limiting height to 18 feet). The visual character of the site and its surroundings will be degraded by the loss of open space, view of hillside, loss of trees and vegetation, disproportionate sense of scale of new development to adjacent property /community, and privacy impacts. The EIR is remiss in identifying the impact on the neighborhood the development impact is most visible — Bella Vista Village community on Maggi Court. Our properties will be severely degraded by the development. Our homes have no windows to the north, south, and west sides of our primary living areas. The solar access we now have from the east will be significantly shaded by the development. The deprivation of light and warmth from the sun degrades our lifestyle/ living conditions as well as the visual character of our homes. • Please address the effectiveness of proposed replanting mitigation. The steep bank, height of project development, loss of soil, and lack of solar access will make replanting mitigation nearly impossible due to the heights and breadth (canopy) trees and vegetation would have to reach to restore sight and sound blockage to pre - construction levels. • Please provide the results of an independent shadow study and explain the effectiveness of any mitigation. • Please explain the "insignificance" of comments made by former Director of Community Development Bud Lortz in regard to the site being a very "significant" gateway to Los Gatos. • Please explain the effectiveness of landscape screening in regard to privacy, noise, and nighttime illumination/glare. • Please explain how the massive removal of heritage trees does not degrade the visual character /quality of the site and surroundings. • Please explain the effectiveness of the visibility analysis by sticking poles in the ground that are obscured by trees slated for removal. • Please explain the compatibility issues of our Maggi Court neighborhood where the proposed development will have a significant impact degrading the character of the neighborhood. Biological Resources Removal of numerous protected trees will result in a substantial adverse change in the site's aesthetic and biological significance contrary to the General Plan Tree Protection Ordinance. • Please explain the effectiveness of removing numerous heritage trees inconsistent with the Tree Protection Ordinance. The massive tree removal will result in a substantial adverse change in the site's aesthetic and biological significance. Geology and Soils Landslides can be caused by loss of vertical vegetative structure and soil structure and can be aggravated by human activities such as vibrations from machinery. Man-made landslides on hillsides are also addressed under 5.0 of the General Plan. • Please explain the mitigation measures for a man-made landslide caused by heavy machinery on a critically steep slope jeopardizing public safety/human lives. Land Use and Planning Bella Vista Village on Maggi Court is an established community governed by a homeowners association with Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions and operating as a California Corporation. The proposed development will not have a compatible relationship with the established community already known as Bella Vista Village and will not be subject to the rules and restrictions of a planned unit development. The application is manipulative. The very nature of this project's requests /waivers for reduced front setback, rear setback, a driveway variance, tree removal permits, and quadrupled FAR conflicts with applicable land use policies. This project is not consistent with the General Plan, Residential Design Guidelines, and Hillside Standards and Guidelines. The applicants purchased a heavily constrained "non- conforming" vacant lot subsequent to the adoption of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. There is no undue hardship by enforcing the standards and/or guidelines that came "ran" with the land. • Please explain the consideration of numerous "special privileges under the guise of undue hardship in purchasing a heavily constrained non- conforming lot. • Please explain any "undue hardship." • Please explain how the project is "consistent" with the General Plan, Residential Design Guidelines, and Hillside Standards and Guidelines. • Please explain how the Town determined consistency with the development intensity with a floor to area ratio quadrupled the allowable limit. • Please explain the following "consistencies" with the General Plan addressing the sections cited below. 1.1 Vision for Los Gatos Residents expect all new development to fit into the fabric of the community. The benefit of new development must be measured against the ability of the proposed development and it architectural style to harmonize with existing development while minimizing impacts on existing residential neighborhoods and infrastructure. Support of new development from surrounding residents and property owners will be a major consideration during any development review process. Preserving the small -town character of Los Gatos in regard to open space, view of the hills, protection of the Town's various neighborhoods. The Town can utilize important means for ensuring continuity of values: consistent and resolute enforcement of the General Plan, specific plans, and the Town Code. 1.4 Use and Purpose of General Plan The role of each community's general plan is to act as a constitution for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based. 2.5 Goals, policies, implementing strategies Los Gatos is distinctive. New development should be well designed to preserve and enhance these attributes (natural setting). L.G.1.1 To preserve, promote, and protect the small town character and quality of life within Los Gatos. L.P.1.1 Development shall enhance the character and unique identity of existing residential neighborhoods. L.P.1.2 Encourage developers to engage in early discussions regarding the nature and scope of the project and possible impact and mitigation requirements. These discussions should occur as early as possible in the project planning stage, preferably preceding land acquisition. Conservation Element — L.P. 1.5, L.P.1.7, L.P.1.8 Residential Density vs Building Intensity — L.G.2.1, L.G.2.2, L.G.2.3, L.P.2.3, L.P.2.4 Protect Residential Neighborhoods — L.P.3.4, L.P.3.5, L.P.3.8 Maintain Individual Identity of Residential Neighborhoods — L.G.4.1, L.P.4.1, L.P.4.2, L.P.4.3, L.P.4.6 Maintain The Natural Environmental Setting — L.G.8.1, L.P.8.2, L.P.8.3, L.P.8.5, L.P. 8.8 Noise Elements — N.G. 1. 1, N.G.1.2, N.P.1.5, N.P. 1.12 Residential Design Standards Hillside Standards and Guidelines I grew up in this Town. I own a home and a business in this Town. I am not a Town Planner but I've spent a considerable amount of time researching the merits of the proposed development. The upside to this proposal is restricted to the developer. All Los Gatos personnel — elected and/or salaried — are charged with protecting our community. I respectfully request that you do so- by rejecting this application. With Concern, j a�yq xa"tL' Mary J. Badame 150 Maggi Court WHITE & MacDONALD, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 99 ALMADEN BOULEVARD SUITE 1050 SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 96113 -1601 (408) 345 -4000 ROB D, MacDONALD STEVEN M. WHITE JAMES P. HILLMAN . .July 13, 2011 Bud Lortz Community Development Director Town of Los Gatos Los Gatos Town Hall 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA. 95030 Re: 339 and 341 Bella -Vista Avenue . Dear Mr. Lortz and Mr. Larson: Greg Larson Town Manager Town of Los Gatos Los Gatos Town Hall 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos,.CA, 95030 FACSIMILE (408) 345 -4020 EaJ PE JUL 15 ?011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Our office represents the Bella Vista Village Homeowners Association (the "Association "), a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation formed for the purpose of managing the common interest development commonly known as Bella Vista Village, located near Alberto Way and Bella Vista Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos. The development consists.of common area and 46 individually owned townhouses constructed in approximately 1996 and 1997. The residences in Bella Vista Village are located on Cuesta De Los Gatos Way, Treseder Court and Maggi Court. We previously wrote to you on August 4, 2008, and June 4, 2,010, on behalf of the Association regarding the proposed development of two parcels of land which. are adjoining, but are not part of, Bella Vista Village. Due to continuing efforts to obtain approval from the Town of Los Gatos for construction of two homes at 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue in Los Gatos, we are again writing to you to convey the Association's concerns and objections regarding development of the lots. The area under consideration for development includes relatively steep slopes. It is our understanding the project proponents have sought, :or are seeking, multiple variances in order to make the project viable. Strict application of, and compliance with, the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines should be required to protect the properties in the vicinity of the proposed project. The Association has legitimate concerns regarding the stability of the slopes above Bella Vista Village. Disturbance of those slopes by construction and removal of trees or other vegetation may significantly affect, the -stability of the slopes 'and create a risk of damage to properties within Bella Vista Village. Slope erosion or stability problems at that location have occurred in the past resulting in debris and damage in Bella Vista Village. Additionally; Members of the Association have expressed concern that the development of the adjoining property may affect the privacy, market value; aesthetic value and appearance of properties in Bella Vista Village and result in the loss of trees and vegetation to the hillside which is the subject of the Town of Los Gatos July 13, 2011 Page 2 development efforts. If any additional information is needed in order to evaluate the site conditions at, or the potential impact of the.proposed development on Bella Vista Village, please do not hesitate to contact me. The-Association would appreciate notice of any and all proceedings regarding the proposed development. The Association requests that the Town of Los Gatos note and consider the objections to the project asserted herein, due to the significant slope instability, erosion and privacy issues that the proposed project will cause that could be detrimental to the Common Area and residences in Bella Vista Village. Very truly yours, . ROB D. MacDONALID RDM/tdw cc. Bella Vista Village Board of Directors W:\Bella Vista \CorrespWown 6- 28- 11.doc Edgar Corral & Janet Carmona 160 Maggi Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 July 8 2011 Town Of Los Gatos Community Development 110 Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 341 & 339 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos Architecture and Site Plan Application S -05 -46 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -02 and ND -08 -03 LETTER OF OBJECTION .ID JUL '15 LU11 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Dear Mayor, Council Members and Town Managers, We are writing in regards to the proposed development at 341 & 339 Bella Vista Avenue. We are extremely concerned that this project is moving forward for the following reasons. t 1. The proposed project is in clear violation of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. a. The maximum allowable square footage calculated by using the FAR for each of the lots is approximately 835 square feet and 735 square feet. The current plan is for two monstrosities of 2,760 square feet each! These homes more than double the allowable square footage. It is preposterous to think they will blend in and have no negative impact to neighboring properties. Please take a moment to visit the site and view it from our balconies. b. There will be a significant impact on the natural setting. The proposed project will kill two healthy (protected) heritage oaks. Please explain how this is consistent with the Towns Tree Protection Ordinance? Please note that this proposed development would destroy the character and unique identity of the existing residential neighborhood. Please do not allow this project to move forward. Sincerely, Edgar Corral Janet Carmona RECEIVED August 1, 2011 To: Joe Prizynski, Mayor Steve Rice, Vice Mayor Steven Leonardis, Council Member Diane McNutt, Council Member Barbara Spector, Council Member Marico Sayoc, Chairwoman Planning Commission Marcia Jensen, Vice Chairwoman Planning Commission John Bourgeois, Planning Commission Member Charles Erekson, Planning Commission Member Thomas O'Donnell, Planning Commission Member Jane Ogle, Planning Commission Member Joanne Talesfore, Planning Commission Member Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner Greg Larson, Town Manager Wendy Rooney, Community Development Director TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Subject: Applications for Building Permits 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, CA Dear Mayor, Council Members, and Town of Los Gatos Staff. We are writing in a regard to a proposed residential development submitted by by Mr. Dan Ross. We live at 162 Maggi Ct. Los Gatos, CA in "Bella Vista Village" and very concerned by the fact that this project is moving forward despite the significant hardship it will cause the entire community. We are especially disturbed by the complete lack of objectivity and disregard for the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines shown in Mr. Ross's plans. It should be noted that the applicant (Dan Ross) did not take the initiative to gather feedback on his plans from the neighbors as advised by the Planning Commission. Only after many of the property owners sent letters of objection to the Los Gatos Planning Commission and Town Council, did he consent to meet with us. At that time, he revealed his development plans and did not address any of our major concerns previously raised by the community, most notably the glaring violations of the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. We would like to point out several specific areas where the community is substantially impacted by the proposed development: 1 1. Violations of hillside development guidelines. Proposed development significantly exceeds the size of the house allowed on a such a small lot. The fact that the lots are `nonconforming' shall give a bigger scrutiny to the project, not a special treatment when it comes to following hillside guidelines. I'd like to bring to your attention that on April 3, 2003 Town Council stated to a previous attempt to build on this property exactly the following: "Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot ". 2. Financial impact. The property located in such a close proximity will significantly lower the prices of homes in Bella Vista Village. The plan does not consider or address the views of the Maggi Court Town homes. Each residence proposed is approximately 30 feet away from the town homes and faces directly into the bedrooms of the existing residents. The proposed 341 & 339 Bella Vista Avenue homes will be a "nuisance" consistent with California Civil Code sections 3479 et seq. The view of Bella Vista Avenue residents across from the proposed development is negatively impacted by a significant reduction in green -space on the parcel, replaced with rooftop and garage views. 3. Environmental impact. The proposed plan requires removal of almost all hillside vegetation. This hill is a home for a lot of rare and old trees, such as oaks. Independent arborist analysis suggests that all oak trees within the parcel are viable and can thrive for many years if adequate protection is provided. Removal of these trees would be in violation of Town Code. 4. Convenience, traffic, construction. Bella Vista Avenue has only one sidewalk on the opposite side of the road from the proposed houses. The houses will have small or no driveway at all and any visitor will be forced to park their cars in front of other people homes. During construction traffic on Bella Vista will be much more intense and heavy construction equipment will be operating right next to our windows causing major inconvenience especially to families with little children. This project, if allowed to proceed as outlined in the plan, would have a significant negative impact on the environment, quality of life, and home values in the surrounding area. Please reconsider the wisdom of this project in our small and already overcrowded community. Sincerely, Matthew and Monita Levy 162 Maggi Court 2 Suzanne Davis From: Jak Van Nada <jvannada @gmail.com> Sent: Friday, September 09, 201111:31 AM To: debrachin @aol.com; Suzanne Davis Cc: Town Manager; Joe Pirzynski; Steve Rice; Steve Leonardis; BSpector; Diane McNutt; marciaJensen @gmail.com; maricosayoc @yahoo.com; joannet @id- 3d.com;. jbourgeois @harveyecology.com; love_bourgeois @yahoo.com; todonnell2 @msn.com; Planning; chassueerekson @comcast.net; LCGA Subject: RE: FW: 339 & 341 Bella Vista The developer should "flag" all the trees that are going to be gone by using Adobe Photoshop, as well as design renditions of how the property will look once the buildings were built. The town didn't want to do story poles at Albright because they would have been too high and "unstable ", and I would guess, show how high the buildings would really appear to passers -by. Now, the developer has put in low, obscurely placed poles because they don't want to damage the canopy that the developer wants to remove. Mr. Rice told me that they preferred to use computer generated pictures rather than story poles on commercial projects. Because the homes proposed are extremely over - building the property allowances, the town should require the developer to digitally design pictures of what they would look like from your viewpoint, and that from those who live off Bella Vista. This is far from a normal residential home site by any stretch of the imagination and should be given more effort by developing Photoshop renditions. This is a very unfortunate project and one that should never be considered as viable by the town of Los Gatos. It's unfortunate that Mr. Ross purchased the piece of property and is attempting to increase the size of a unit by 400% to justify his purchase. I hope that Mr. Ross's relationship to the council does not influence their decision, and 1 hope the council and planning commissioners all have all looked at the "view" from your home as well as the "view" of the 2 lots. Unfortunately I will be traveling and unable to attend the meeting, but will encourage everyone from our group to attend and let the council know that we care about the vastly oversized homes that are proposed to be looming over your homes. Jak Van Nada Los Gatos Community Alliance www. ca.com From: debrachin(abaol.com Finailto:debrachinPaol.coml Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 20114:20 PM To: sdavis LosGatosCa.gov Cc: manager LosGatosCa.gov JPirzynski@LosGatosCa.gov SRice@LosGatosCa.gov SLeonardis(a)LosGatosCa.gov BSpector(a)LosGatosCa.gov DMcnutt(a@LosGatosCa.gov marcia.jensen(agmail.com maricosayocayahoo.com joannet(d)id- 3d.com jbourgeois@harveyecology.com love bourgeois(abyahoo.com todonne112(&msn.com planning@LosGatosCa.gov chassueerekson(abcomcast.net Subject: Fwd: FW: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Suzanne, Suzanne Davis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Tim and Judy Coughlin 320 Bella Vista Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95032 September 14, 2011 Igvision @comcast.net Wednesday, September 14,20115:56 PM Suzanne Davis Judy Coughlin 339 and 341 Bella Vista Ave. Suzanne Davis, AICP Town of Los Gatos Senior Planner Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Email: SDavis(aDLosGatosCA.gov Via Email RE: 339 and 341 Bella Vista Ave. Dear Ms Davis, Once the story poles went up, my next -door neighbor, Dick Harris, and I went to the Town and looked at the plans on file. We reviewed the letters sent by the neighbors and interviewed Terry Martin, the architect who also wrote in opposition to the projects. I now have additional concerns that were not expressed in my letter filed during the comment period. Of course, our first choice would be complete abandonment of the project(s). They do not meet General Plan requirements by a long shot. But failing that, we want to minimize impacts on our neighborhood. Upon review of the plans at the Planning Department 9/13/11 we have these additonal observations that were not addressed in my letter on file in the packet: 1. Address: These two homes are designated 339 and 341, in ascending order from North to South. The rest of Bella Vista descends from North to South so that we are at 320 and my neighbor to the South is 316. Previous developers have labeled these properties 319 and 317 Bella Vista going from North to South. What is the rationale for this new numbering system? 2. The driveways are not long enough to park cars completely on the parcel and off of the Bella Vista right -of -way. This will lead to parking impacts on both sides of Bella Vista. The garages should be moved back to allow an SUV to park completely within the property boundaries without hanging out into Town property. 3. Retaining wall heights seem to exceed the Town limits in several places on the construction drawings. Heights must stay within the prescribed guidelines. 4. There is a sanitary sewer pump house located at the street on both plans. What is the noise implication of these pumps so close to our home? 5. The side setback on the southern -most home is very small and does not appear to meet the code for sideyards. 6. The front setback on the northern -most home also appears to be below the requirement as the garage is shown to be only 5 % feet from the front property line. 7. The square footage of both homes exceeds the FAR by a whopping 300 %. How can this be justified? 8. What "mitigation" will replace the oaks that will be removed to put in these homes? 9. What is the justification for allowing all these exceptions to the Town General Plan, when there are clear guidelines about what is allowed? Sincerely, Tim Coughlin 320 Bella Vista - directly across the street from "339" (408) 656 -5692 N Suzanne Davis From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Erin Johnson 150 Maggi Court Los Gatos, CA 95030 Erin Johnson <erin_c,johnson @apple.com> Monday, October 03, 201112:27 PM Suzanne Davis Wendie Rooney 339 & 341 Bella Vista Ave Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Ave Architectural and Site Applications S -06 -46 and S -06 -64 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 Negative Declarations ND -08 -02 and ND -08 -03 Variance Application V -11 -001 October 3, 2011 To whom it may concern, I strongly object to the above applications. With so many waivers, exceptions, variances, etc., how can this application even be considered as consistent with the General Plan? Common sense tells me there is a lack of objectivity and the accommodations are biased. Why should the Town'gift' the developer at the expense of the existing community? Why is the developer given such preferential treatment when he has consistently disregarded the rules? I was born in Los Gatos, graduated from the Los Gatos schools, and continue residency here. I plan to raise my children here someday so that they may be privy to the lifestyle I had growing Up. If I wanted to live in a town that mirrors the neighborhoods of Daly City, I'd simply move therefor half the cost. Our privacy and solar access are gone, and the simple tranquility of being 'at home' is tainted if the application proceeds forward. My trust in town government is gone if the rules are not enforced. I'd like to trust you will refuse this application on the basis that they most definitely contravene your planning regulations. And I'd like to trust you will not accommodate a developer who has taken advantage of his position with the Town. It's called brown - nosing. Sincerely, Erin Johnson This Page Intentionally Left Blank °wN TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 1 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM !p QAt ° s Meeting Date: October 12, 2011 PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner sdavis(ajosgatosca. ov APPLICATION NO: Architecture and Site Applications S -06 -46 and S -06 -64 Lot Line Adjustment Application M -06 -09 Variance Application V -11 -001 Negative Declarations ND -10 -02 and ND -08 -03 LOCATION: 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue (west side of Bella Vista Avenue, north of Charles Street) APPLICANTS/ PROPERTY OWNERS: Jake Peters and Dan Ross CONTACT: Dan Ross APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval of a lot line adjustment, a variance for reduced driveway length, and to construct two new single - family residences with reduced setbacks and that exceed the allowable floor area ratio. APNs 529 -23 -015 & 016. DEEMED COMPLETE: September 15, 2011 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: Final action on the subject applications is required by CEQA Section 15107, within six months of the application being deemed complete (March 15, 2012). EXHIBITS: L -13. Previosuly received under separate cover 14. Letter and information from Mary J. Badame (27 pages), received October 11, 2011 ANALYSIS: Exhibit 14 is a letter and information that was submitted following distribution of the Planning Commission packets. The information attached to the letter is relative to a prior project on the property that was denied by the Planning Commission in 2003. The Commission provided four directives to that applicant as follows (staff comments follow in italics): • Merge the two lots The application denied in 2003 was made by an individual who owned both lots. The lots are now separately owned and a parcel merger cannot be required. A PaC H WEE k'T 4 Planning Commission Desk Item Report - Page 2 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue /S -09 -064, ND -10 -002 October 12, 2011 Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot The staff report contains a detailed discussion on FAR and a request that the Commission discuss this issue. Project may include an application for a variance in required driveway length A variance application has been included for reduced driveway length as discussed in the staff report. Project shall be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect. The plans were reviewed by the Consulting Architect. The Architect's report is Exhibit 9 to the staff report. Directives to the previous applicant were made based on a different set of plans and an incomplete application. The subject applications were made by the current property owners who purchased the lots in 2006. D'. Prepar d Suzanne Davis, AICP Senior Planner (Approved by: ie R. Roo Director of Community Development 1 J :: _ W N; \DEV\PC REPORTS\ 2011 \Be11aVista339 - 341- dsk10121 Ldoc Mary J. Badame 150 Maggi Court OCT 112011 Los Gatos, CA 95030 Town of Los Gatos - Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 October 11, 2011 RE: PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 10 -12 -11 (339 & 341 BELLA VISTA) HONORABLE PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, TOWN OF LOS OATOS PLANNING DIVISION Please consider prior project history at 339 Bella Vista in your evaluation of the proposed project. Attached are Planning Commission hearing transcripts from 02- 26 -03, architect plans for one 2380 square feet total building, and Development Review Comments from the Planning Department (28 pages total — requested as a desk item for the hearing). Please note the Planning Department comments pertain to same site characteristics of the newly proposed project in regard to setbacks, mass, scale, and lot coverage as noted five times over a four year period. Specifically: The proposed residence is inconsistent with the Town's adopted residential standards. These standards require that new development must have a harmonious and compatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of: a) An appropriate design theme b) An appropriate sense of scale c) A compatible roofline d) Colors, exterior, materials and details e) Lot coverage /setbacks which complement adjacent structure and uses Also attached for your review is an email exchange between Maggi Court neighbors and Ms. .Davis. Regards, �2�tlirltio.� Mary J. Badame EXHIBIT 14 52 - U , 0 4;— . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ipip IF U-71 ............... ............. 400 �-F 6AF A 6E 1-00F LAN F TOTAL, "0 5F TOTA L, — % OF SIGNED PROJECT WE 11HVXEKI PFt 406-37 LOCATION DELLA VK)TA aVll G al- FoKT ii. DATE 4 / Z I C I E G E o� N. Jol O . p `2 7 ....... .. ... Of - d - 'i A R CHI TEO SIATE OF CAUFOINIA C•014122 t1l: 401-244.2721 4;— . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , ipip IF U-71 ............... ............. 400 �-F 6AF A 6E 1-00F LAN F TOTAL, "0 5F TOTA L, — % OF SIGNED PROJECT WE 11HVXEKI PFt 406-37 LOCATION DELLA VK)TA aVll G al- FoKT ii. DATE 4 / Z I C I E G E o� N. Jol O . p `2 7 Bella Vista Avenue Project Application PRJ -97 -020 Requesting Architecture and Site approval to construct a new single family residence and merge two lots on property in the R -1:8 zone. PROPERTY OWNER: Khalaf Ghayyem REC: 2/12/97 DRC; 2/25/97 APN: 529 -23 -015, 016 PLANNER: Erwin Ordonez PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS This application is INCOMPLETE because of the deficiencies or concerns noted below: SUBMITTAL DEFICIENCIES: 1. Provide a fully dimensioned site plan noting: 1) all site improvements (both existing & proposed), 2)property lines(both existing & proposed), 3)building setbacks from the property lines for required yards, 4) all easements (see title report), 5) utilities(both existing & proposed), and 6)a project information table to include: lot sizes before merger (in square feet), total lot size after merger (in square feet, total building square footage, living space square footage, and garage square footage. 2. Indicate on the site plan all existing trees greater than 4" in diameter, their driplines, and the common name of the plant species via 'look a corresponding numbered up' table on the plans. Note which trees are proposed for removal. An Arborist report may be required by the Parks & Forestry Department to verify the condition-of trees proposed to be .removed. 3. The elevations are inaccurate. Provide accurate, fully dimensioned building elevations for all four sides of the building noting: 1)building heights(30' Max. Ht, following the natural slope) and 2)proposed exterior materials and colors, including roofing and trim elements. 4. Provide a line -of -sight - analysis with a topographic ' cross section and individual photo perspectives /montages of the proposed building site from at least four different vantage points. Of key concern to the Town are sight lines and perspectives from Alberto Way, Los Gatos - Saratoga Avenue, the surrounding residential neighborhoods', and Highway 17. A visibility analysis map prepared for the West Valley Joint Planning Review indicates that this site is visible from these vantage points. 5. Provide a color and materials board or color photocopy(8 1/2" X 11" max. size). 6. The proposed driveway does not meet minimum Town standards for slope (15 %). Redesign the driveway to meet this standard. 7. Provide the required streetscape elevations, 8. Provide a detail drainage plan for the site. ---�� 9. The setbacks provided do not meet the standards for the R- 1:8000 zone. Provide the setbacks required by the Town Code or provid the required documentation to show how the proposed setbacks will be compatible with the existing neighborhood. �— 10. The proposed residence is inconsistent with the The Town's adopted residential standards, these standards require that new develepment must hava a harmonious and compatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of: Project Application PRJ -97 -019 Page -2 February 25, 1997 a. an appropriate design theme; b. an appropriate sense of scale; C. a compatible roofline; d. colors, exterior, materials, and details; e, lot coverage /setbacks which complement adjacent structures and uses. Provide a design consistent with the Town's adopted residential standards and provide a Letter of Justification outlining how the proposed development is consistent with these standards. COMMENTS /CONCERNS: l 11. The Town sets a high priority in preserving its hillsides, natural views, and the character of its neighborhoods. This site is in a very visible location that has the potential to greatly impact these views and the character of this neighborhood. The Planning Department can not recommend approval of the design as submitted because of its potential to greatly impact these views, is not in keeping with the residences In the area, and has potential privacy impacts with the residences of the Bella. Vista Development that is now under construction. The applicant should consult with an architect to develop a design that addresses the massiveness of the rear elevation, articulates the bulk of the second story from the lower story, minimizes privacy and view impacts, minimizes grading and retaining walls, and preserves the sites existing trees. The ideal design for this site is a low profile structure that steps down the slope and follows the natural contours of the site. Required parking could also be provided closer to Bella Vista Avenue as one homeowner has already done, 12. Any design that is finally recommended for approval by the Development Review Committee will be subject to a 10 -day neighborhood notification /appeal period. Neighborhood notification envelopes with the appropriate postage will be required from the applicant prior to any noticing. 13. Traffic impact fees as determined by the Engineering Section will be required for this project, C:\ ECQO\ DRC\COMMENTS \BELLAVST.EO ' TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DEPARTMENT Civic CErrm (408) 354 -6872 110 E. MAmT S TMT P.O. Box 949 1996 Los GA TOS, CA 95031 Ehtram Yvosefi 10650 S. Tantau Cupertino, CA 95014 RE: Bella Vista Avenue Conceptual Development Application CD -96 -21 Requesting preliminary review of the construction of a new single family residence on property zoned R -1:8. PROPERTY OWNER: Fleet Finance Inc. APPLICANT: Ehtram Yvosefi On October 9, 1996 the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee reviewed your application. The Committee identified the following concerns or deficiencies with your proposal: Need to prove parcels were lawfully created. 2. Sewer needs an easement access across downhill neighboring property. 3. Neighborhood will be very concerned about appearance and blocking of views. 4. Minimize grading; reduce he of house as viewed from downhill side; smaller house would be preferred; consider view of hill from below. Your next step in this process would be to work with Town staff toward the submission of a formal proposal to the Development Review Committee responding to these issues and any additional issues that may be identified as part of the more extensive staff review. It is recommended that you meet with staff before you submit a formal application to the Town. There are various application fees for the submittal of a development application to the Town that must be paid at the time the application is submitted. In addition, there may be traffic mitigation fees required to be paid once your application is approved. A summary of such fees is available from the. Planning Department once the specific project is well defined. Very truly yours, / e 4- Lee E. Bowman Planning Director LEB:sm cc: NA Engineering Fleet Finance, Inc. WDEVILEMBELLA.CDA Exhibit B INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887 �• v Bella Vista Avenue Project Application PRJ -98 -139 Requesting Architecture and Site approval to construct a new single family residence and approval to merge two lots on property zoned R -1:8. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Hamid F. Ghazvini PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Development Review Committee, September 1, 1998 This application is INCOMPLETE because of the deficiencies or concerns noted below: SUBMITTAL DEFICIENCIES: 1. Show accurate elevation drawings, demonstrating that the lower level is a cellar and should not be counted as floor area. From the plans presented, it looks as though there are two stories. Cross sections may help in this effort. Cellar means that portion of a building between floor and ceiling which is wholly or partly below grade, and so located that the vertical distance from grade to the floor below is equal to or greater than the vertical distance from grade to ceiling. 2. The garage is an accessory structure and must therefore remain under 15' in height. The 30' height maximum is measured vertically from grade. Show that the building does not exceed the requirement. 4. The Planning Director has preliminarily reviewed the development plans and has indicated that this project is not Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and will require the preparation of an Initial Study. The project is not exempt because a reasonable possibility exists that the activity may have a significant environmental impact because of unusual circumstances. These circumstances include the steep topography of the lot as well as the elimination of significant heritage oaks. As a result of this determination this project will require Planning Commission approval. 5. Indicate on the site plan all existing trees greater than 4" in diameter, their driplines, and the common name of the plant species via a corresponding numbered 'look up' table on the plans. Note which trees are proposed for removal'. An Arborist report may be required by the Parks & Forestry Department to verify the condition of trees proposed to be removed. The 30' height maximum is measured vertically from grade. Show that the.building does not exceed the requirement. 6. Provide a color and materials board or color photocopy(8 1/2" X 11" max. size). The proposed driveway does not meet minimum Town standards for length (25' is required). A variance will be required. _ 8. Provide the required streetscape elevations. 9. Provide a detail drainage plan for the site. 10. The setbacks provided do not meet the standards for the R- 1:8000 zone. Provide the setbacks required by the Town Code or provide the required documentation to show how the proposed setbacks will be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Project Application PRJ -98 -139 Page -2 September 1, 9998 11. The proposed residence may be inconsistent with the Town's adopted residential standards. These standards require that new development must have a harmonious and compatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of a. an appropriate design theme; b. an appropriate sense of scale; C. a compatible roofline; d. colors, exterior, materials, and details; e. lot coverage/setbacks which complement adjacent structures and uses. Provide a, Letter of Justification outlining how the proposed development is consistent with these standards. COMMENTS /CONCERNS: 12. Any design that is finally recommended for approval by the Development Review Committee will be subject to a 10-day neighborhood notification/appeal period. Neighborhood notification envelopes with the appropriate postage will be required from the applicant prior to any noticing. 13. Traffic impact fees as determined by the Engineering Section will be required for this project. N:1D EVIRYANIB ELLAVST. EO i' Bella Vista Avenue Project Application PRJ -98 -139 Requesting Architecture and Site approval to construct a new single family residence and approval to merge two lots on property zoned R -1:8. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Hamid F. Ghazvini PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Development Review Committee, November 24, 1998 This application is INCOMPLETE because of the deficiencies or concerns noted below: SUBMITTAL DEFICIENCIES: The Planning Director has reviewed the development plans and has indicated that this project is not Categorically Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act and will require the preparation of an Initial Study. The project is not exempt because a reasonable possibility exists that the activity may have a significant environmental Impact because of unusual circumstances. These circumstances include the steep topography of the lot, the possible elimination of significant heritage oaks and drainage issues. 2. The proposed driveway does not meet minimum Town standards for length (25' is required). A variance will be required. 3. Provide the required streetscape elevations. 4. Provide a detailed drainage plan for the site, 5. The setbacks provided do not meet the standards for the R- 1:8000 zone. Provide the setbacks required by the Town Code or provide the required documentation to show how the proposed setbacks will be compatible with the existing neighborhood. �--� 6. The proposed residence may be inconsistent with the Town's adopted residential standards. These standards require that new development must have a harmonious and compatible relationship with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of:' a. an appropriate design theme; b, an appropriate sense of scale; C. a compatible roofline; d. colors, exterior, materials, and details; e, lot coverage /setbacks which complement adjacent structures and uses, Provide a Letter of Justification outlining how the proposed development is consistent with these standards. 7. Provide a color and materials board or color photocopy(8 1/2" X 11" max. size). COMMENTS /CONCERNS: 8. Traffic impact fees as determined by the Engineering Section will be required for this project. C: \RYAN \DRC \COMMENTS \BELLAVS2.DRC Bella Vista Avenue a. Project Application PRJ -98 -139 b. Negative Declaration ND -99 -6 Requesting Architecture and Site approval to construct a new single family residence with a reduction in the front and rear setbacks on a nonconforming lot and approval to merge two lots on property zoned R- 1:8. If no significant environmental impacts are identified as a result of this project, a Negative Declaration will be recommended and an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. PROPERTY OWNER /APPLICANT: Hamid F. Ghazvini PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Development Review Committee, February 1, 2000 This application is INCOMPLETE because of the deficiencies or concerns noted below: SUBMITTAL DEFICIENCIES: Initial Study & Negative Declarati -on The Initial Study & Negative Declaration are not completed due to the deficiencies noted in the attached (Attachme.nt 1) memorandum from Geier & Geier: Proposed Driveway The proposed driveway does not meet Town's minimum standards for length (25 feet). A variance will be required, Slope of Driveway Indicate on sheet A -1 the slope of the driveway. T Setbacks The proposed setbacks do not meet the minimum required standards for the R -1:8 zone, Please provide documentation to show how the proposed setbacks will be compatible with the existing neighborhood? Lot Coverage Provide lot coverage information on the sheet A -1. Letter of Justification The proposed residence may be inconsistent with the Town's adopted residential standards . Please provide a letter of justification outlining how the proposed house is consistent is consistent with the following standards: a. an appropriate design theme; b, an appropriate sense of scale; c, a compatible roofline; d, colors, exterior, materials, and details; e, lot coverage /setbacks which complement adjacent structures and uses. Streetscape Provide staff with streetscape elevations as requested in the previous DRC comments, . Color and Material Board Provide a color and material sample board as requested in the previous DRC comments.. Drainage plan Provide a detailed grading and drainage plan as requested in the,previous DRC comments. COMMENTS /CONCERNS: 1. Traffic impact fees will be required for this project as determined by the Engineering Section. `�--� 2. Staff has concerns that the proposed'house does not meet the Town's residential standards in terms of its mass scale, and setbacks /coverage, 3. An address should be acquired from the Town Clerk. Attachments 1. Memo from Geier & Geier. N;\DEV\GARY\DRC \DRC \COMMENTS \BELLAVIS.DRC i• TOWN OF LOS GATOS Los WTOS, CA 95031 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CYICCEMER PLANNING DIVISION' .110E.MAINS= (408)354 -6872 FAX (408) P.O. Box 949 February 7, 2.000 Khalaf Ghayyem 937 Carola Ave. San Jose, CA 95130 RE: Bella Vista Avenue a. Project Application PRJ -98 -139 b. Negative Declaration ND -99 -6 Requesting Architecture and Site approval to'construct a new single family residence'with a reduction in the front and rear setbacks on a nonconformi.ng and approval to.merge two lots on property zoned R -1:8. If no significant'environrimental i'm'pacts* are identified as'a result of this project, a Negative Declaration will be recommended and an Environmental Impact Reportwill:not,be required.. PROPERTY O W' NER/APPLICANT: Hamid F. Ghazvini On February 1, 2000, the Los Gatos Development Review Committee (DRC) deemed the above referenced . application incomplete. Deficiencies and comments noted at DRC are attached for our informafion.' Please note that the comments from the previous D meeting still app y, lease revise the plans to meet the deficiencies as attached and submit four (4) revised sets to 'the Planning Department. Th'e'Development Review Committee (DRC) is a technical committee charged by the Town with reviewing plans for completeness antl compliance with all Town Codes, policies and the California Environmental Quality Act. While the DRC will review plans for compliance with the Town's policies on architecture and design, it does not act as an architectural review board. The Planning Commission and Town Council will' respond to issues of the appropriateness of architecture and other design features 'as part of'their discretionary review of an individual project. If you have any question in this matter, please contact Gary Chao at (408) 354 -6879. Sincerely, 1 1 2 Paul L. Curtis Director of Community Development PLC:GC:mvg cc: Kurt Anderson, 1560 Coleman Rd., San Jose, CA 95120 Attachment 1. DRC Comments (7 Pages) N : %DE VMAR7\DRCUNMBELLA.INC INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887 fu 4 Bella Vista Avenue a,' Project Application PRJ- 98439 b a'tive Declaration ND -99 - Requesting Architecture and Site approval to construct a new single family residence with a reduction iri the front and rear setbacks on a nonconforming lot and approval to merge two lots on property zoned R- 1:8. If no significant environmental impacts are identified as a result of this project, a Negative Declaration will. be recommended and an Environmental Impact Report will not be required, PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Hamid F. Ghazvini PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Development Review Committee, February 1, 2000 This application INCOMPLETE because of the deficiencies or concerns noted.below:,. SUBMITTAL DEFICIENCIES: Initial ,Study ., &.Negative Declaratio The „Ihitial Stud & Negative i �eclarajion `are not'conipl 'eted due ' to aiie deficiencies not'ed in fhe attached (Attachmerit 1)'memorarjdum frbt Geier & Geier' Proposed Driveway` The proposed driveway does not meet Town's minimum standards'forlength' (25. + fe:et);' A.vajia,nce.wiii be required. , Slope of Driveway Indicate on sheet,A - `I the globe of the' driveway Setbacks The. proposed setbacks do not meet the minimum required -standards for'the R -1:8 zone,. Ple.ase•provide document show how the proposed setbacks will compatible with th.p e5a5tin,' neighborhood? Lot Govergo.e ; Provide lot coverage. information.on•.the'sheetA -1'.. Letter of Justification ---- -� The proposed residence may be inconsistent with the Town's adopted residential standards .. Pl.ease - provide a letter of justification outlining how the proposed house is consistent is consistent with'the following standards: a. an appropriate design theme; b. an appropriate sense of scale; c, a compatible roofline; d. colors, e>derior, materials,. and details; e. lot coverage /setbacks-which complement adjacent structures and uses, Streetscape Provide staff with stree'tscape elevations as requested in the previous DRC comments, Color and Material Board Provide a color and material sample board as requested in the previous DRC comments, I Drainage plan w Provide a detailed grading. and.drainage plan as requested.in •the preMyo ,p,RC comments. COMMENTS /C.ONCERNS: 1. Traffic impact fees will be required for this project. as determinq.. Engineering Section, 2. Staff has concerns that the, proposed hous&Cloes not meet .:the T;own's•residential. standards in terms of its mass, scale, and setbacks /coverage, 3, An address should be acquired from the To.•wn ' Cle�rk: , Attachments 1. Memo • from Geier & Geier. N:\DEV\GARY\DRC \DRC \COMMENTS \BELLAVIS..DRC 61 TowN of Los G.A.Tos COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CMCCENTER PLANNING DIVISION 110 E, MniN STREF" (408) 354 -6872 FAX (408) 354 -7593 P,O. Box 9' Los GATOS, CA 95031 May 22, 2000 Khalaf Ghayyem 937 Carola Ave. San Jose, CA 95130 RE: Bella Vista Avenue a. Project Application PRJ -98 -139 b. Negative Declaration ND -99 -6 Requesting Architecture and Site approval to construct a new single family residence with a reduction in the front and rear - setbacks on a nonconforming lot and approval to merge two lots on property zoned R -1:8. If no significant environmental impacts are identified as a result of this project,"a Negative Declaration will be recommended and an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Hamid F. Ghazvinl On February 1, 2000, the Los Gatos Development Review Committee (DRC) deemed the above referenced application incomplete, Revised plans were received on May 2, 2000. However, the following deficiencies still exist: 1) The proposed driveway backup distance does not meet the Town's minimum requirement of 25'. Please revise the plans to meet this requirement or a variance application will be required to be filed prior to deeming this application complete. 2) Please call out on the plans the cellar area /portion of the lower level. 3) A house address is required and can obtained from the Town Clerk. Staff still has concerns regarding the compatibility of the proposed house in terms of the proposed setbacks, mass, and scale. The application will not be scheduled for the Planning'Commission meeting until the project is deemed complete. The Development Review Committee (DRC) is a technical committee charged by the Town with reviewing plans for completeness and compliance with all Town Codes, policies and the California Environmental Quality Act. While the DRC will review plans for compliance with the Town's policies on architecture and design, it does not act as an architectural review board, The Planning Commission and Town Council will respond to issues of the appropriateness of architecture and other design features as part of their - discretionary review of an individual project. If you have any question in this matter, please contact Gary Chao at (408) 354 -6879. Sincerely, Paul L. Curtis Director of Community Development PLC:GC:mvg cc: Kurt Anderson, 1560 Coleman 'Rd., San Jose, CA 95120 Ni11FV�/:ARY111Rf.VIN(:1RFI I A71Nf. ., INCORPORATED AUGUST TO, 1887 � PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL RE: 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE April 3, 2003 The merits of the project are, however, irrelevant at this juncture because the application remains incomplete. The primary issue before the Town Council is the appeal of the Planning Commissions denial due to a lack of progress pursuant to Resolution 1984 -21. It would be inappropriate for the Council to act on the merits of the project again due to the incomplete nature of the application, including non - compliance with CEQA. If the Town Council desires to continue with the application, then Staff recommends that the Counci I remand the application to the Commission with the direction that the applicant submit the required plans and fees in a timely manner so the project can be processed. Additional project history and background are provided in the Background and Remarks sections of Attachment 3, DISCUSSION The Planning Commission considered this matter on February 26, 2003, The Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal due to lack of progress. The Commission further directed the applicant to, should they resubmit an application, incorporate the following: • Merge the two lots, APN 529 -23 -015 and 529 -23 -016; • Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot; • Project may include an application for a variance in required driveway length; and • Project shall be reviewed by the Town's Consulting Architect. A copy of the approved Planning Commission minutes is included as Attachment 2, APPEAL An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision was filed by Hamid Ghazvini on March 4, 2003 (Attachment 1). The appellant's basis for the appeal is that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because they didn't consider the history of the project. Analysis: The Commission denied the appeal because they determined that the applicant has not provided the information necessary for a complete application and significant further work needs to be performed prior to the Town acting on any proposal for this site. The Commission carefully considered the chronology of the project and determined that nearly 5 years has lapsed and that the lack of progress was a compelling reason to deny the application. CONCLUSION The subject site is extremely challenging and any future application will need to be carefully reviewed. A new application may be filed at any time if the Commission's denial is upheld due to lack of progress, but the application must be accompanied by all plans and supplemental information necessary to process the application. The Town Council may, at its discretion, discuss the design Page e (i) the motion? (` (2) COMMISSIONER MICCICr E: Second. (3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner cciche (4) seconds the motion. Any comments? Co missloner (5) Dre el, (s) CO MISSIONER DREXEL: Wo d the maker of (7) the mote n accept a condition that e applicant (8) work with anning and the Tow Architect on design, (9) size and Its mpatlblllty with t e neighborhood? (10) COMMISSI ER TREVIT CK: I certainly (11) will. (12) CHAIRMAN DU IS: Seconder? (13) COMMISSIONER CICHE; I acceptthat. (14) CHAIRMAN DUBO, ; Okay, Commissioner- (15)5) COMMISSIONE TALE ORE; Talesfore. (is) CHAIRMAN D 015; - alesfore, (17) COMMISSIO ER TALESF E And I'd like to (19) add a conditon that they pay pa Icular attention (19) In the rede gn of the shadow an e shade that It (20) would c se the residence at 16031 from the (21) testim y we heard tonight In the redesign. (22) C MISSIONER TREVITHICK: Yes. (23) AIRMAN DUBOIS: We should probably see a (24) sha ow study. (25) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: The shadow Page 50 (1) study. (2) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Thank you, (3) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Yes. (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Seconder? (5) MMISSIONER MICCICHE: Agree, (s) CH RMAN DUBOIS: Comm) loner Burke, (7) COM SSIONER BURKE: I' Ilke to just add (a) a comme/ed the record on thl as It Is going back, (9) and that eference the Ge eral Plan Land Use (1o) Policy 4. we talk abo t avoiding (i 1) demolitiod they're a owed, that the (12) replacemouse houI be In similar size and (13) scale as iginal d aintaln the neighborhood (14) characte (15) So as thiing d sign d, I'd like to (16) make sur th Is slmlla Ize - cannot be the (17) same sizi usly, but that I taken Into (1s) considers It is part of the a opted General (19) Plan. (20) CHAIR DUBOIS: Thank you, ommissioner (21) Burke, Any other comments? Hearing none, I'll call (22) the question. All those in favor of the motion? (23) (Ayes,) (24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed? Motion carries (25) unanimously, * Page 51 0) MR. LOY Is action of the )a nning (2) Commission Is a(tealable to the own Council. There (3) are forms tAed peal av l ble In the Town (a) Clerk's offi to for filing an (5) appeal, anl st be filed within ten days, (s) If there Is aat's Iled, the (z) new - new I be pr vlded, (s) CHAIRMIS: 0 We're moving (9) to - hold here, Ne public hearings, (1o) Item Nu ber 3, 339 Bella Vista Avenue, Projec (i 1) Application PRJ -98 -139. Negative Dec Applicatio (12) 99 -6. This Is an appeal of the decision of the DR (13) Department - the Development Review Committee (14) denying request for approval to construct a new (15) single family residence with a reduction of front (ts) and rear side backs (sic) on nonconforming lot, to (17) approve the merge of two lots on property zoned (19) R -1:8. Is the applicant here? (19) HAMID GHAZVINI: My name Is Hamld (2o) Ghazvinl. I'm the property owner for 339 Bella (21) Vista, (22) Good evening everyone. I have a short (23) presentation here to provide a brief history of this (24) project since 1996, when I owned the project, and (25) describe the compatibility of the proposed design In Page 52 (i) the neighborhood, as well as the steps we have taken (2) to minimize the Impact In terms of the vegetation, (3) as well as the size of the project. (4) As people can see here, we started this (5) project In 1998, We've gone through five unique (5) different designs to - to address several Issues on (7) the site. One foremost Is the size of the project, (a) and we had to address the - the field of view from (9) across the neighbors, as well as the preserving the (1o) vegetation at the site. At the same time we had to (11) preserve the size, small size type look for the (12) property to insure It's compatible to the - to the (13) surrounding neighborhood, (14) Each - each design we presented over (15) time, we've gone through minimum of four revisions (16) to address the Staff's concerns and Issues. Along (17) with that, we've gone through various reports, (1e) mainly soli and geotechnlcal report to insure that (19) the - the current condition of the property Is well (20) fit to handle the construction and size of this (21) project, as well as we spent quite a bit of time and (22) expenses to look at the present trees on the lots, (23) took a look at the condition of the trees and to (24) Insure that the - the arborlst and architects are (25) In full compliance In terms of meeting the ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 49 to Page 52 Page 53 _ _ (1) requirement In preserving as m� 's;as we can, (2) And last, but not least, Is the (3) environmental Impact that was done early In this (4) project, The two I've selected two pictures (5) . here on Bella Vista, These are the two examples of (s) the houses on the hill side of the project. On the (7) top right hand side, I've noted the approximate (a) location of these two houses relative to what - (s) where my lot is, which highlighted In the red color (i o) here, (i i) Along with that, we went ahead and (12) surveyed the.- the setback on these addresses on (13) 'Bella Vista,,As you notice, these are all odd (14) addresses, and at the bottom we averaged the (i s) setback - this Is relative to the edge of the (is) pavement versus what we are proposing today for this (17) project. (is) Now, one thing I have to mention Is that (19) the current lot that we have, It's a nonconforming (20) lot, so It's we are requesting avariance to (21) adjust the setback both on the - on the front side (22) as well as the garage as well as the rear - rear of (23) the property. But in order to Insure that what we (24) are proposing Is not way out of line as opposed to (25) what presently exists on the - on Bella Vista, we Page 54 (i) , went ahead and surveyed the properties across, and (2) you can see these other numbers we have per our (3) measurement. (4) These are the sample houses across from (5) our property, the existing houses, and the Intent of (s) these pictures are to show you the architectural (7) designs that exist on Bella Vista. And again, (s) the - the green stars shows the approximate (s) location of these houses, Iio) I'll get close to where the - our project (11) Is right now. The top'left hand side of the picture (12) here resembles the Immediate houses across from my (13) lot at 339 Bella Vista. The house right In the (14) middle which comes closest to the - to be adjacent (15) from my lot has the four feet elevation from the (1s) street side. That means If a person stands up In (17) the floor of that house It actually Is about four (1 s) feet above the street level, which comes to - Into (19) the picture as far as the field of view Is concerned (20) when they look across the street, (21) On the bottom right -hand side Is the other (22) piece of property which is adjacent to mine, which (23) has a dot of vegetation, a lot of trees, which (24) you - If you were to look at the proposed house (25) from this angle, you will hardly see any - any Page 55 (i) existence of IC „ the house, (2) This slide on the top left - on the top (3) right -hand side shows the plot map of the property (4) and the current trees that are located on this side, (s) And then to the left of k we are showing the (s) proximity of the design of the existing project. (7) And as I stated earlier, based on our own (e) arborlst report, as well as the Town Arborlst, (s) majority of these trees In the current condition (i o) they have, they're very In poor condition, and we (i i) are taking - (12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Would you please - (13) would you please summarize now, please, you're out (14) of time, (15) HAMID GHAZVINI; I'm sorry, Can we speed (1s) up? (17) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Well, If you're to a (18) point of conclusion here - (1s) HAMID GHAZVINI: Sure, sure, Basically (20) the whole Intent here Is that we're trying to (21) preserve as many trees as we can, as well as (22) maintain the topography and vegetation In the street (23) in this design. (24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay, thank you, Do we (25) have questions by the Commission of the applicant? Page 56 (1) Commissioner Drexel, (2) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I understand you (3) haven't applied for the variances yet on this (4) project, Is that true? py HAMID GHAZVINI: That Is true. One of the (s) reason we have not gone that far yet Is that we have (7) spent over about $110,000 on the various fees since (e) the begin - since the start of this project, We (9) have reached a point that we wanted to come and (i o) present our case to the Planning Commission and (11) understand what type of feedback we're going to get (12) so we can proceed to the next step, pay the rest of (13) the fees for other requirements, (14) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: All right, And so (15) you haven't done the Initial study, either, for (is) this; Is that correct, for this project? (17) HAMID GHAZVINI: Excuse me? initial (18) study? (19) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I understand there (20) was supposed to be an initial study for this (21) project; is that right? (22) MR. LORTZ: There would be a Negative (23) Declaration initial study - (24) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: Yeah. (25) MR, LORTZ: - and they have not paid for Page 53 to Page 56 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (1) It yet (2) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: They have not paid (3) for that, either, Okay, Thank you, (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay, Commissioner (5) Quintana, (s) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yes, our Staff (7) Report Indicates that this application originally (s) was to merge two lots and build one resldentlal (9) house, and that subsequently one of the.lots has (1o) been sold; Is that correct? (ii) HAMID GHAZVINI: Let me explain that, We (12) had two lots here, and In fact, If I point out here, (13) this lot adjacent is what we're talking about, (14) Originally we were told that we can have two (15) existing houses because there - we are talking ' (is) about two legal lots here. So what we - what we (17) tried to work with the Town and Planning Department (18) Is that we can go sacrifice of merging the two lots (19) together and by building one house, which is this (2o) house you're looking at here, to maintain the size, (21) Is small size of the project, as well as preserve as (22) many trees we have, (23) So once that decision was made, we went, (24) and we did not get any feedback, we could not (25) proceed any further, what we decide to do is to go Page 58 (1) after and proceed to the sale of the left lot, which (2) 1 - I'm pointing out here. However, the sale (3) condition that we have signed contract with with the (4) potential buyer, It has conditions we have said Is (5) based on the feedback we get from the Planning (s) Commission, (7) If we can get a condition on this project (s) such that we merge the two lots together, we have (9) ability to remand the sale that we have right now, (1 o) and we merge the two lots together and only build (ti) one house as It's stated here. (12) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA, Can you tell me (13) what the size of the merged lots are? (14) HAMID GHAZVINI: This lot here Is about (15) 4,300 square feet as It's listed In the County, (16) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: And of the other (17) lot? (18) HAMID GHAZVINI: This lot Is 6,696, (19) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: The lot where the (2o) house Is - (21) HAMID GHAZVINI: That's correct, (22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - being proposed? (23) Okay. (24) HAMID GHAZVINI: That Is correct, (25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay, So you - Page 59 (i) the house( A't changed any since the sale of (2) the lot? (3) HAMID GHAZVINI: Not at all, This deslgn (4) remains Intact, and that's what - exactly what's (5) been submitted to planning. In fact, we added a 3D (s) view here of the south - south we - south view, as (7) well as the east view from across the street. And (8) to the left side of what the proposed structure (9) looks like for neighbors as well as for the Planning (1o) Commission to see what - what In - In reality what (11) the house would look like, (12) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: I just have one (13) more question. You showed us several examples of (14) houses across the street. The topography on the (15) other side of the street Is very different than on (i s) your side of the street - (17) HAMID GHAZVINI: Uh -huh. (18) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - but you dldn't (19) show us any examples of houses - (20) HAMID GHAZVINI: Ch, In fact It's here. (21) These are the houses that are built on the - on the (22) hill side, on the same side that my property Is (23) looking at that. And these are the across the (24) street, some of the examples. (25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay. Thank you. Page 60 0) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions from t (2) the Commission? Commissioner Talesfore, (3) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yes, I'was just (4) curious, the Town Staff has indicated that along (5) with the resubmitted plans, you still haven't (s) submitted any plans I mean, and there's some (7) Inconsistencies In what you have submitted and some (s) things you haven't submitted, missing Information, (9) would Include heights, natural grade, complete (i o) retaining wall Information, grading qualities, and (i i) you have Incorrect elevations. Have you addressed (12) any of that? (13) . HAMID GHAZVINI: We have had some (14) misinterpretation as to what we have provided, which (15) to us — (16) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Youhave (17) misinterpretation? Is that what you said? (ie) HAMID GHAZVINI: Exactly, We've had (19) several discussion as to - as far as the drainage (20) plan and all the things you just Indicated that we (21) have clearly stated on our plans. And that's why (22) we're a little bit puzzled as to what's insufficient (23) or inconsistent as to what - with respect to what (24) the Town's requiring, (25) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Also (Inaudible). ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 57 to Page 6o Page 61 (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: , Go�" (2) COMMISSIONER TALESFO, I did go by the (3) property today, and I also looked at your plans, and (4) then I see noted here that the Town Is also (5) questioning that perhaps the home as you have it (6) proposed cannot even be built. Have you had an (7) engineer look at this? (a) HAMID GHAZVINI: Yes. We have had two (9) different engineers and two architects have looked (1o) at this project, and If you like to get technical (11) response, I have Mr. Frank Oldham, who the architect (12) of this project Is, He can go through this, (13) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Has - maybe this (14) is of Staff now, Has - have those plans been (15) submitted to the Town Staff? Or the studies of (16) structural engineering on this house? (17) MR, LORTZ: I don't think they've gotten (18) to the point where we were able to give them a (19) complete review. (20) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, (21) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yes, These plans (23) show a house that are - excuse me, Let me restate (24) this. (25) One of the Issues here I believe Is that Page 62 (1) the house Is over FAR, and your plans - on your (2) plans you Indicate that it's not over FAR, but you (3) had not taken the deduction for the slope. Could (4) you please explain that? Also, could you point out (5) on the plan set that we have where the drainage (6) plans are? (7) HAMID'GHAZVINI: Yes. if you don't mind, (a) 1 would like to have my architect describe the (9) technical questions here, If It's okay, (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: That's fine. We have a (1 1) card on him, Mr. Oldham. (12) FRANk OLDHAM: You'll need my time on his (13) questions? Whatever's fair. In answer to your (14) specific question on drainage, on page 01 R, on the (15) lower left -hand side of the building where you see (16) the - the driveway, there is a: four -Inch GI (17) sedimentary sewer and - hmm. You know what, that's (1 a) what happens when you get dumb architects that don't (19) know where to put It on the plan. (20) We originally had In there a line going (2 1) along to the curb of the road from the gutters, We (22) have a complete gutter around the roof to carry off (23) all drainage and carry It Into a line to the road. (24) That's the proposal on It. (25) One thing we might consider here is when I Page 63 0) came on thq� ,� they had a plan which has been (2) referred to to cover both lots. It was a plan that (3) In elevation was 60 feet high, because It went from (4) the very back of the lot, the parcel, It was a - (5) like a diamond set on the parcel, which was (6) ridiculous to start with. It was - touched the (7) front property line, it touched the back property (a) line, and In the middle of It they had the oak tree, (s) and the difference of elevation between the oak tree (1o) and the building was 17 foot. There was no way the (1 1) building could be built. (12) So how that ever got any consideration to (13) start with, I don't know. But when I came Into it, (14) 1 took the setbacks of the City, a 25 foot setback (15) line, drew a plan that would fit the setback lines (16) as you have them In your zoning ordinance. I did (17) not realize that you also had exceptions to that on (18) these hillside lots, And so I was told by the (19) planner at the time to take this building, which you (20) see behind you, and which was this - very similar (2 1) to the same size building it Is now, It's never (22) been deeper than 20 feet. So It's a very narrow (23) building because *e lot Is very narrow, (24) And - but it had a 25 foot setback, and (25) we were told bring the building up closer, And we rage b4 (1) did It to 15, Then we were told bring it closer, (2) We brought it to ten. Then we were told to bring It (3) closer, We brought It to eight. Now It's down to (4) three foot on one - to the actual property line, (5) Now, again, when we're talking these setback lines, (6) they are 16.3 foot average to the paved line, but (7) the actual property line Is eight foot from the (a) paved line. So the building, the garage part of It, (9) has enough to put a 15 foot driveway In there. The (i o) other end of the house almost touches the property. 01) But this was at Staff's recommendation. (12) We did not ask for a variance, so this variance (13) that's being asked for Is because Staff said move (14) the building up closer. We want to sink the (15) building Into the ground, we want to bury the ;16) building, and If you bury the building, you won't ;n) have to count the bottom floor In the FAR, which 16) when you look at a building, the mass of the 19) building, a two -story building from down below, or a 20) two -story building from the side, still looks the 21) same whether It's burled or not. 22) From across the street, that building 23) right now, its eve line is seven feet. The pick - 24) peak of the roof Is at 12 feet above the line, The 25) houses across the street we see here are set up Page 61 to Page 64 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC Page' - (i) their - they're above the streq` , llking (2) from, They are up at least four' toot to their (3) floor, and their eye line Is about ten foot, So (4) they are really looking out and seeing Just a little (5) bit of the house, the very top of the roof of the (6) house there, (7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr, Oldham. (a) Does that answer your question, Commissioner (9) Quintana? Mr, Oldham, I neglected to have you (i o) Identify yourself for the record. Would you please (i i) do that. (12) FRANK OLDHAM: I'm sorry. I'm Frank (13) Oldham. 3217 Bluebird Drive, San Jose, I'm a (14) registered architect, (i5) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr. Oldham, (16) Appreciate It. Any other questions of the (17) architect? ( COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Yeah (19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (20) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: - I do have a (2 1) question, Obviously once you submitted the plans, (22) It was called to your attention by Staff that the (23) way they were drawn, they didn't meet the FAR, but (24) you haven't revised them to do that, (25) FRANK OLDHAM: There are two reasons, In Page 66 (i) your FAR, the FAR Is a guideline, It Is a direction (2) to follow for reasonableness. These two lots (3) whereby the City fathers originally designated lots, (4) they were made small lots, This was one parcel of (5) land. It was divided up and said yes, this Is a (s) reasonable buildable lot. So we should look at It (7) from that standpoint today, The FAR also has a (a) caption In there that says this does not apply and (9) is only a guideline and does not have to be used. (to) Now, we've talked tonight about FAR, and I (11) heard the project before, they said 50 percent (12) coverage, Actually, If we took the full building, (13) both floors of this building, we only cover 40 (14) percent of the lot, and the FAR would be 40 percent. (15) If we use both floors, if we use the one (16) floor, the difference that they're talking is 17 (17) percent against 14 percent, The one thing I did (i a) make a mistake on the original plot getting It off (19) the engineer's map and so forth, and I don't know or (20) care why, but I do things like that, the lot, (21) according to the assessor, is 6,695 feet, We did (22) our calculations on 6,285 feet. So with that (23) difference, that Increases. It to another ten, 11, 12 (24) percent, something like that, (25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay, Page 67 (i) FRANK G( is The - yeah, but the FAR Is (2) a guldellne, and your own Instructions say that you (3) do not need to follow It, (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr, - (5) FRANK OLDHAM: And so It's up to the (6) Council to determine whether it should be applied to (7) this - (a) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr. Oldham, (9) Appreciate that, Commissioner Micciche, (10) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE :. The report also (i i) states that a complete set of plans should be (12) supplied, Are you of the opinion that you've (13) supplied a complete set of plans? (14) FRANK OLDHAM: We have supplied 84 pages (15) of drawings to the degree that the Staff asked for (is) each one, and verbally approved them and then turned (17) around and said no, The first Staff member who met (i a) with us told us that this project.would never be (19) built In this city, that we would have to come In (2o) and get Council to deny It so that they would have (21) to buy the lot. Now, that was what the planner (22) said, which Is a ridiculous stupid statement on his (23) part to make. (24) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Excuse me, Let me (25) re -ask my question, Maybe - Page 68 0) FRANK OLDHAM: Okay. (2) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: - you didn't (3) understand it, (4) The report says the complete set of plans (5) should be supplied, Is It your belief that you've (6) come - sent In a complete set of plans? (7) FRANK OLDHAM: I have not done structural (6) engineering on it. (9) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: So you have not (i o) sent It In yet. (11) FRANK OLDHAM: I've not done structural (12) engineering, We don't even know what size building, (13) How can you do the structural engineering when you (14) don't know what size building you're going to have? (15) We want a guideline. We - (16) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I think you've - I (17) think you've answered the question, thank you, (1 a) FRANK OLDHAM: Well, that's - (1s) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: You've answered the (2o) question I think, (21) FRANK OLDHAM: Okay, (22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions, (23) Commissioners? Commissioner Quintana. (24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Of applicant, (25) the applicant stated that they've done environmental ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 65 to Page 66 Page 69 (i) review, Our Staff tells us that t nmental (2) review hasn't been completed J _,, Could you please (3) explain that to me? (4) HAMID GHAZVINI: We paid fee two years ago (5) during one of the phases of engineering design we (s) submitted, and the environmental report started (7) then, We never received a final copy nor we never (a) knew what the status of the environmental report (9) was. (1 0) One thing I have to add Is that we have (11) had over five different planners from since 1998, (12) So ft's been very difficult try to sustain (13) continuity of this project from the beginning. And (14) we had to start all over again each time with a new (15) planner to go through the history of the project and (1 s) identify the critical Issues and what the current (17) Issues have been In that.particular time, (I B) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: I appreciate that. Any (19) other questions by the Commission? Hearing no other (20) questions, I shall open this to the public hearing, (21) We have a card from Eleanor Leishman, (22) FRANK OLDHAM; Do I get to comment at all (23) on what - (24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: No, sir. Your time Is (25) up, thank you, Eleanor Leishman, There Is a Page 70 (1) rebuttal period, sir, that you - (2) FRANK OLDHAM; Thank you, (3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: -can comment during (4) that time. (5) ELEANOR LEISHMAN: My name Is Eleanor (s) Leishman, And I'm a property owner at 332 Bella (7) Vista, which Is that house to your right there at (e) the top. And just to set the record straight, it (9) isn't right across from the proposed residence. (1o) It's sort of kitty corner from It. (1 1) And also, should say that I do not live (12) at 332 Bella Vista, I live in San Francisco, but 1 (13) have tenants who live in this house, and I'm (14) concerned very much about the quality of life on (15) Bella Vista, I grew up there, and I have friends (16) there, and it's a very Important thing for that (17) character to be maintained, (18) 1 understand that the property owner has a (19) right to build on his lot, obviously, If he can get (20) his plans approved, but I would like to point out (21) that on the original arborlst report there were 18 (22) oak trees identified. I believe all but two would (23) have had to have been removed for the original (24) proposal, and now looking at the plans, it looks to (25) me like perhaps at least half of those will still Page 71 (1) ':'have to be rr u to do the existing plan. (2) That Is going to have a tremendous Impact (3) on all of the property owners along Bella Vista. (4) It's a - it's a buffer between the freeway, It (5) buffers sound, It buffers sight, It's - .they're (s) wonderful - I - they're old trees. They haven't (7) been cared for, I won't debate that, but some of (e) them are protected trees as Identified in the (9) arborlst report, so I just want to go on record and (io) say I care very much about these trees. I think the (1 1) other neighbors do as well. (12) I also would like to point out that the - (13) I'm not an expert on all of this stuff, but I went (14) and looked at that the plans today, The - speaking (15) with Joel Paulson, one of the planners, because this (16) house Is built on a 26 percent slope, the - what he (17) told me the FAR was about 1,641 square feet, and (ie) this plan Is coming In at over.3,000 square feet. (19) So I think that's'a pretty big variance. I think (20) that's something that ought to be discussed, and I'm (21) sure you're all aware of It, but I - I think it - (22) it Is out of scale with - certainly with the lot (23) and the slope, (24) I'm also concerned about the short - the (25) short driveway and what Impact that might have on Page 72 - (1) traffic and pedestrian circulation on the street, (2) I'm not sure that I really know enough about that to (3) comment; but It's a concern I'd want to know more (4) about. (5) So that's basically everything I have to (s) say, (7) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Are there (s) any•questlons of Ms,.Leishman? Hearing no (9) questions, thank'youvery much. Next card from Ray (io) Davis. (11) RAY DAVIS: Comments In the public (12) interest. Oh, yeah. With regard to the comments on (13) the FAR from this gentleman right here, well, 1 (14) happen to have a copy of the FAR ordinance, So (15) either - I got to say one thing, either - he says (16) It's a guideline and doesn't really count. I got to (17) say he's a liar or I'm a liar, okay, One of us is a (1 a) liar. And I'm going read the ordinance, and you can (19) make up your mind yourself whether It's he or me, (20) okay, (21) The objective of the floor area ratio is (22) to assist In determining whether the mass and scale (23) of the project Is compatible with the surrounding (24) neighborhood, The FAR is a nominal limit, key, 25) limit, not a goal, and - as he said - and shall be Page 69 to Page 72 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC Page' (1) used In conjunction with the re( I development (2) standards adopted by resolution, (3) Okay. Furthermore, which Is controlling, (4) it says the lot coverage setbacks and FAR (s) (Inaudible) FAR of the proposed project must be (s) compatible with the development on surrounding lots, (7) It's all right here, Town Code, No bologna, okay. (a) Excuse me, I didn't mean to call you bologna, okay, (9) Just - (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Mr. Davis, please (i i) address the Commission, not the members of the (12) audience. (13) MR, DAVIS: Of course. I'm sure you could (14) hear me. Or need I speak up? That's my friend up (15) there, the Chairman, theoretically, (16) The - I think It's pertinent that the DRC (17) denied It. The DRC, you know, to me, I've been to (1 s) all the meetings In three years. It's a technical (19) committee, makes no judgments on anything other than (20) the technical part of It, okay, which Mr. Parsons Is (21) part of, (22) So it - I think It's a huge red flag If (23) the DRC denied It. Huge that they normally rubber (24) stamp pass, rubber stamp pass, That's all they do, (25) 'cause they all work for Bud Lortz, And he tells Page 74 (i) them how to vote, Yes, Indeed he do. That's how (2) the business is run down here In Los Gatos. (3) And lastly, these people need to know - (4) they probably don't even know - that there's a Los (5) Gatos Lodge property right below and down a ways (s) that Is up for a 10,000 seat convention center. You (7) know that now, full disclosure, okay, And a 300 (s) room hotel, three story, all right down from your (9) property. How wonderful, (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Mr, Davis, address the (i i) Commission, please. (12) MR. DAVIS: Of course. Well, again, I'm (13) sure you heard me. I can always speak a little (14) louder If you want me to, (15) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr, Davis, (16) for your comments, (17) MR, DAVIS: Always happy to oblige, (1e) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Mr, Davis, your time Is (19) up, thank you, Mr. DlNapoll, Rob DlNapoll, (20) ROB DINAPOLI: Good evening. My name's (21) Rob DlNapoll, and I reside with my wife and son at (22) 32 Bella Vista, which Is - was listed by the (23) applicant and shown tonight as one of the three (24) houses directly across from the proposed building, (25) What brings me here tonight Is to talk Page 75 (r) about publl,-( ion this - on this structure, (2) Bella Vista, Our family lived In Willow Glen for (3) about ten years prior to moving to Bella Vista about (4) five years ago, and my observations of the area Is (5) that It's a very, very high traffic area related to (s) the amount of residents on the street. (7) We get a lot of trafflc In the morning, (s) high schoolers going down to the high school from (9) about 7:00 to 9:00. Then In the afternoon, we get a (i o) high volume of drivers that appear to be avoiding (ii) the left -hand turn as they go from Los (12) Gatos- Saratoga Road and try to get on to Los Gatos (13) Boulevard, So we get a series of right -hand turns, (14) and they flood that area with a lot of traffic, (15) In addition, we get a high volume of (is) pedestrians, bicyclists, people walking In that (17) neighborhood as they make their way down to Los (ia) Gatos and on to the - on to the - on to the (19) pedestrian - the pedestrian roadway along the (20) percolation ponds. So this area gets a - really (21) shoulders a fairly high burden compared to typical (22) neighborhoods of -for the traffic patterns, (23) It appears to me that the applicant's (24) property Is - it's at a bend In the road. There's (25) limited visibility. There's - even In our Page 76 (i) driveway, what I do when I back out Is I drive out, (2) and I wait and watch for oncoming traffic, And then (s) generally proceed with - with caution, but (4) generally what you find Is people are In a hurry, (5) and they're swerving around the car rather than (s) stopping In back, and It really Is a fairly (7) dangerous area. (a) I think that I think that the (9) applicant's property Is going to make It even more (i o) difficult. It appears that there's not a lot of (1 1) room for them to back out or stop before they look. (12) Those swerving cars would be heading into my (13) driveway and my area, and I think It's - It's a (14) disproportionate burden for those of us on Bella (15) Vista to share already and to add to that (16) aggravation and danger by adding a house with (17) limited set back, not a lot of area for one to pulp (1a) out, wait, look, and I think it - It really (19) deserves proper attention, and I would object to any (20) change In your original - your original position (21) to - to object to the building permit, Thank you. (22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr. DlNapoll (23) Do we have any questions, Commission? Hearing none, (24) thank you very much sir, appreciate It, I have no (25) other cards up here. Is there anyone else from the f ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 73 to Page 76 rage // -, (1) public that would like to speak natter?-} - (2) Seeing no one else, the appllca�. �r his (3) representative has three minutes In which to rebut, (4) HAMID GHAZVINI: Thank you, One of the (5) neighbors commented on number of trees, You're (5) absolutely correct, there are 18 trees, but nine of (7) those trees are on this lot here, on this adjacent (a) lot, where the other ones are here, I'm sorry, (9) seven of the 18 are here, the rest are here, So we (i o) are proposing, as you can see from here, Is to (i s) remove these trees here and retain the rest of them, (12) And I must add Is that If you look at the arborlst (13) report carefully, there are more than eight trees (14) that are not In a very good condition, and In fact, (15) the arborlst report even states the removal of (16) those, Thank you. (17) FRANK OLDHAM: And as a point, I am a (1 a) registered acoustician In the State of California, (19) and the trees do not make a sound barrier against a (20) freeway at all. In fact, the trees - these trees (21) pretty well stay Evergreen, so - but still, trees (22) never make a sound barrier, (23) In the FAR, again, I wanted to get a copy (24) of that tonight, and I didn't bring It and didn't (25) look, but the gentleman did mention the fact that Page 78 (i) the FAR Is to assist. The word assist means It's (2) not a goal line, it says It's a nominal limit, and (3) that's what It means, So It Is up to your (4) discretion, and that's why you are here as a (5) Commission to be able to determine whether It should (5) be or not. (7) But the thing I see that some of the (a) people that are complaining, as he mentioned, (9) there's going to be a convention center with 300 (i o) more units down below. These people are going to (11) stall the building of these two residents possibly, (12) One now Is all they're asking for, one residence (13) with one homeowner, not encompassing this and the (14) right of way that goes through there by that land (15) down below, and all of a sudden this becomes all (1 s) apartments. And in 15 or 20 years from now that (17) could easily happen, It's happened all over the (18) community. (19) The high traffic area Is - If this Is so, (20) this is then a neighborhood thing that the neighbors (21) should be taking care of, but we're willing to put (22) the building back at 25 foot, and If we don't have (23) to meet this FAR and bury It in the ground, It can (24) be back 25 foot. (25) But meanwhile, on the garage, we did Page 79 (1) already propT overhead automatic door so the (2) person can pa,,, in the 15 foot setback, which cars (3) fit In there, and to the road Is further than that, (4) to the actual paved part Is about 22 feet. So a car (5) can park there and see and then have an automatic (s) door to open to keep your car In the garage. (7) And If it was a condition that they could (e) not park In front, that'd be fine, or as one of the (9) planners did recommend, that we put the whole front (10) of the property parking, we would be willing to do (ii) that, too, (12) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Your time Is up, thank (13) you very much, Are there any questions? Hearing no (14) other questions, thank you very much, sir. I will (15) close the public hearing - (is) FRANK OLDHAM: (Inaudible), (17) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: - open this up to the (18) Commission for questions of Staff, a motion, (19) comments. CommisslonerTalesfore. (20) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Mr, Lortz, Is (21) this considered a - I just want a clarification, (22) Is this considered a complete application? (23) MR, LORTZ: Not at the current time, (24) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay. And - (25) thank you, Page SO (1) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Drexel, (2) . COMMISSIONER DREXEL: If we should deny (3) this and uphold the DRC's decision, what happens to (4) this applicant? (5) MR, LORTZ: If there's any fees to be (s) returned to the applicant, they will - those fees (7) will be returned, In the case of an environmental (a) review fee, If that has been paid, that will be (9) returned, And the applicant Is free to start anew. (10) One thing that would be helpful to Staff, If the p1) Commission Is Inclined to uphold the denial, Is any (12) direction that you feel should be pursued In a (13) future project, and we'll make notes of that in the (14) file so that those Issues can be addressed before (15) any project comes back to the Commission, (is) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: . Thank you, (17) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke. (1e) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Pardon my Ignorance (19) on this, but one thing - I mean, this Is a single (20) family home application, Why Is there Initial study (21) on that? I didn't - I thought for - this Is where (22) I'm - (23) MR, LORTZ: It's on a project - it's on a (24) slope that exceeds ten percent and when there's, you (25) know, a significant amount of grading that's Page 77 to Page 80 (408) 920 - 0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC Page 82 (i) So those are the things that I would be (2) concerned with. (3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana, (4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Question of Staff. (5) According to the applicant, Staff requested that the (s) house be moved forward requiring - therefore (7) requiring a variance. I'm not sure how to phrase my (8) question, if the house had not been moved forward, (9) would It not have been not - not have met our (i o) architectural standards for the lot? I'm not sure I (11) made myself clear. Okay, (12) If the - yeah, by - by following the (13) direction to bring the house forward, not totally (14) following the direction to bury It, the bottom (15) floor, that forced a variance, (ie) MR. LORTZ: Well, yeah, once you reduce (17) the setback, Now, there Is a provision In the Code (i a) that allows - you know, we have a steep property, (19) could the findings for a variance be granted? (zo) That's a question. Certainly there Is a topographic (21) Issue with this property. So It falls Into that (22) category where a variance could be considered. (23) And then the question of what's the (24) benefit of granting a variance versus the (25) disadvantage of pushing It back down the hill. Page 83 F'a N 0) COMMIS,( ( QUINTANA: ' Ti%t "sfiy (2) question, actually, (3) MR, LORTZ: And that was what I think we (4) were trying to evaluate as we asked for those (5) different plans so that we could see the pros and (s) cons of moving the project forward, (7) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay, Now, I'd (e) like to'add to the comments that have already been (9) made that if the Commission were to deny this (i o) application, what do we do - we're saying that - (ii) MR. LORTZ: You're upholding the denial, (12) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: If we were to (13) uphold the denial and then give further direction, 1 (14) would personally favor a variance If It'provides the (15) best possible solution to a house on this property, (16) maintaining the FAR and architectural standards. (17) MR, LORTZ: Those are all really Important (18) for Staff to understand, and I appreciate It, This (19) Is a difficult site, there Is no question about It. (20) Would this lot be created today? No, It Is a - (21) you know, there are two legal lots out there,. (22) however, there have been project - projects In the (23) past where the applicant has agreed to merge the (24) properties, but also develop a home that Is (25) respectful of the terrain and the size of the Page 84 (i) building envelope regardless of all the other (2) Issues, t (3) This site Is heavily constrained, It's (4) constrained with oak trees, It's got slope (5) constraints, It's got road Issues. I mean, (s) there - there's nothing about this that's easy. (7) There's geotechnlcal Issues that have to be (e) explored, So this has been a challenge, There's no (9) question about It, (i o) This has just reached a point - reached a (ii) point at DRC that a lot of time had gone Into It, (12) Staff had probably expended the application fee, and (13) so - and It had to proceed In an expeditious (14) manner, and we try to expedite, you know, a plan In (15) a reasonable period of time, and that just did not (i s) occur here, (17) If the applicant - If this - If the (18) Commission's pleasure Is to uphold the denial, one (19) of the things that we would do Is before we received (20) an application In the future, and they can apply at (21) any time, they - we would be very careful about (22) what's submitted so that we don't delay the process, (23) and this direction that has been provided tonight by (24) the Commission is very helpful to us, (25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you, I l ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 81 to Page 84 Page _ (t) occurring on a steep slope, It( ,o through (2) environmental review. (3) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay, thank you, (4) . CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any other questions? (s) Commissioner Drexel, (s) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: I don't have a (7) question, but I d.o have a comment. If this (8) project - I am Inclined to think that this project (9) Is lacking so much that the only thing I feel (i o) comfortable doing Is denying it and upholding the (i i) DRC's decision, and If this project were to come (12) back, In order to help Mr. Lortz with his - (13) project perhaps on this site In the future, I'd like (14) to say that I'd like to see these two lots remain - (15) (End of Side B -1,) (16) (Beginning of Side A -II) (17) COMMISSIONER DREXEL: - most helpful way (18) with regard to the site, So I think It gives him a (19) lot more latitude, It gives him - you know, the (20) lot's larger, so you have more places as to where (21) you put It and how big it Is, I think that the (22) house should meet FAR and naturally, you know, run (23) through the architect so that It Is compatible, the (24) Architect agrees that It's - the size and the (25) design Is compatible with the neighborhood, Page 82 (i) So those are the things that I would be (2) concerned with. (3) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana, (4) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Question of Staff. (5) According to the applicant, Staff requested that the (s) house be moved forward requiring - therefore (7) requiring a variance. I'm not sure how to phrase my (8) question, if the house had not been moved forward, (9) would It not have been not - not have met our (i o) architectural standards for the lot? I'm not sure I (11) made myself clear. Okay, (12) If the - yeah, by - by following the (13) direction to bring the house forward, not totally (14) following the direction to bury It, the bottom (15) floor, that forced a variance, (ie) MR. LORTZ: Well, yeah, once you reduce (17) the setback, Now, there Is a provision In the Code (i a) that allows - you know, we have a steep property, (19) could the findings for a variance be granted? (zo) That's a question. Certainly there Is a topographic (21) Issue with this property. So It falls Into that (22) category where a variance could be considered. (23) And then the question of what's the (24) benefit of granting a variance versus the (25) disadvantage of pushing It back down the hill. Page 83 F'a N 0) COMMIS,( ( QUINTANA: ' Ti%t "sfiy (2) question, actually, (3) MR, LORTZ: And that was what I think we (4) were trying to evaluate as we asked for those (5) different plans so that we could see the pros and (s) cons of moving the project forward, (7) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Okay, Now, I'd (e) like to'add to the comments that have already been (9) made that if the Commission were to deny this (i o) application, what do we do - we're saying that - (ii) MR. LORTZ: You're upholding the denial, (12) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: If we were to (13) uphold the denial and then give further direction, 1 (14) would personally favor a variance If It'provides the (15) best possible solution to a house on this property, (16) maintaining the FAR and architectural standards. (17) MR, LORTZ: Those are all really Important (18) for Staff to understand, and I appreciate It, This (19) Is a difficult site, there Is no question about It. (20) Would this lot be created today? No, It Is a - (21) you know, there are two legal lots out there,. (22) however, there have been project - projects In the (23) past where the applicant has agreed to merge the (24) properties, but also develop a home that Is (25) respectful of the terrain and the size of the Page 84 (i) building envelope regardless of all the other (2) Issues, t (3) This site Is heavily constrained, It's (4) constrained with oak trees, It's got slope (5) constraints, It's got road Issues. I mean, (s) there - there's nothing about this that's easy. (7) There's geotechnlcal Issues that have to be (e) explored, So this has been a challenge, There's no (9) question about It, (i o) This has just reached a point - reached a (ii) point at DRC that a lot of time had gone Into It, (12) Staff had probably expended the application fee, and (13) so - and It had to proceed In an expeditious (14) manner, and we try to expedite, you know, a plan In (15) a reasonable period of time, and that just did not (i s) occur here, (17) If the applicant - If this - If the (18) Commission's pleasure Is to uphold the denial, one (19) of the things that we would do Is before we received (20) an application In the future, and they can apply at (21) any time, they - we would be very careful about (22) what's submitted so that we don't delay the process, (23) and this direction that has been provided tonight by (24) the Commission is very helpful to us, (25) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you, I l ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920 -0222 Page 81 to Page 84 rage do (i) think you touched on a commr ' probably would (2) have made, that any future app, pion actually not (3) be accepted until all of the requirements that were (4) previously stated are complete In the package, (5) . CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Micciche. (s) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE; Do we have the FAR (7) that would be calculated If they merged the lots? (s) Is that - I didn't see that Information. (9) MR. LORTZ: We - we can get that. We (io) don't have that for this evening. (11) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Is it (12) approximately the same type of ratio with the (13) sloping aspect to It? (14) MR, LORTZ: Yes, You know, I think the (15) FAR Is an Interesting number to use, It Is (1 s) something that we do look at - the Commission has (17) looked at numerous times, and looks at It as a (i s) limit, But It Is possible that a certain property (19) can't be built to the FAR, (20) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: In that case, we (21) can make findings to that effect, (22) MR, LORTZ: Well, you wouldn't have to (23) make findings - (24) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Right. (25) MR. LORTZ: - It Just - you know, It Page 86 (1) goes back to the residential design standards and (2) the site, and can this site accommodate the size (3) home that an applicant Is proposing, (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Burke, (5) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Mr. Lortz was kind of (5) leading me on to my question here. This Is a very, (7) very tough site, and. I think one of the real (s) problems with this is we're looking at about, with (9) garage and living space, about 3,000 feet worth of (1o) home, And while I understand the property owner has (11) a right to develop the property, Is there a cutoff (12) on this? I mean, If a piece of property - If the (1 :3) property only allows for a thousand square foot (14) home - I'm not saying that's the case - I mean, do (15) we have a cutoff where we have to say you have to (15) let them have so many square feet because otherwise (17) It's not a legitimate house? (1e) 1 don't know If we're going to approach (19) this, but likewise, I don't know if a house that (20) went up to the FAR would still be compatible with (21) that lot, the steepness, the geometry, the whole (22) thing, (23) MR, LORTZ: That's been the issue probably (24) from the onset, and the Commission may recall that a (25) project was Just approved out on Winchester Page 87 (1) Boulevard wt- ,d homes are 13 to 1,800 square (2) feet. So It's p�,.slble to build a modest size home (3) and still have a functional living environment, (4) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Any questions, comments, (5) motion? Commissioner Micciche, (s) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: I'm going to make (7) a motion. I'm going to make a motion that we deny (a) the appeal and uphold the DRC's decision and provide (9) strong recommendations that the new application (1o) consider merging the two lots coming as close as (11) they can to the FAR In making it a (Inaudible) (12) result and doing as much as they can to limit the (13) driveway length to Impede any danger, (14) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Do we have a second to (15) that motion? (16) COMMISSIONER TREVITHICK: Second, (17) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Second by Commissioner (1e) Trevithick, Questions, additions? Commissioner (19) Burke. (20) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Clarification, When (21) you say come as close to the FAR as possible - (22) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS': Yeah. (23) COMMISSIONER BURKE: - are you saying be (24) over it Just a little bit or try to go up to It (25) or - Page 88 (1) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: What I'm saying (2) there, you should use it as the guide, not - If (3) they do go over it, If it meets the architectural (4) standards that we talked about In our own ordinance, (5) then that's fine. (s) COMMISSIONER BURKE: But If the architect (7) feels that you can't go to It, Is that acceptable? (8) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Beyond It you (9) mean? (to) COMMISSIONER BURKE: No, below it, (I COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Well, you can (12) always go below It. (13) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay, I just wanted (14) to make sure what your motion was, (15) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Quintana. (16) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Just to beat that (17) drum a little harder, are you saying that they (18) should design a house that is compatible with the (19) conditions and characteristics of the lot? (20) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE; Yes, that's what (21) I'm saying. (22) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Regardless of FAR. (23) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: Right, (24) COMMISSIONER QUINTANA: Thank you. (25) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Talesfore. Page 85 to Page 88 (408) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC Paget. 0) COMMISSIONER TALESF T ;hat was the (2) clarification I wanted, thank you. (a, ',HAIRMAN DUBOIS: Okay, a1; (:,OM vIISSIONER'T'ALESFORE: Can we add p) co~idltlonc? ',+:'AIHi`/IAN DUBOIS: Yes, you may. Go ahead. (7) You have the floor, (a) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: I would like to (9; ,see this definitely denied, but also if It does come (1 0) uacX, that It goes before the Town Architect for (1 1) re`/lo:w. (12) ;V R. L.OR`IZ: Oh„ It will definitely, yes, (13) ' oNiMISSIONER TALESFORE: And that we (14) dafi have •- I mean, maybe the - I'm worried (') that ina:ybe It will come back and, you know, the (iu) grading arid the site and the geotechnic and all of (1 7) that mlght come back saying you can't build on this (16, I rnearl, Is that a possibility? (1 "1 M!'-i. LORTZ: Well, you know, the - (20) that's - that becomes a financial Issue, how (21) much — (22) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, (23) MR. L.ORTZ: - It costs to do the (24) engineering and all the rest of ft, (25) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, Page 90 0) P;1H. L OR "rZ: It's similar to the project (2) behind Town Hall that we wrestled with In the not (8) too recent past, (4) COMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Okay, thank you, (5) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Commissioner Mlcciche, (6) did you have another comment? Any other comments, (z, additlons ?.,blearing none, I'll call the question. (8) All In favor of the motion? (9) (Ayes,) (10) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Opposed? Motion carries (1 1) unanimously, (12) MR, LORTZ: ' Thls action of the Planning (13) Commission Is appealable to the Town Council; Forms (14) for an appeal are available In the Clerk's office, (15) There's a fee for filing an appeal, and the appeal (1a) must be filed within ten days, Any appeal that Is (17) filed would - the neighbors would receive (18) additional notice. (19) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: Ladies and gentlemen, (20) the Commission's going to recess for five minutes, (21) and we will resume. Five minutes, (22) (Recess,) (23) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: We're continuing on new (24) public hearings, callInR Ite umber 5, 15 and one (25) half North Santa Cruz nue. It's a Conditional - Page 91 (i) Use Permlt � ' ;6, requesting approval to modify (2) Conditional Use Permit to expand bar service, This (3) Is the Los Gatos Bar and Grill on property zoned (4) is the applicant ere ome orwar , (5) please, Would you Identify yourself for the record, (s) and you ha e five minutes, (7) JASON F RWELL: As far as t card goes? (a) CHAIRMA DUBOIS: Just p ft over there, (9) and they'll ge It over to me, th k you. (10) JASON FAR ELL; Than you very much, My (11) name Is Jason arwell, I'm ne of the owners of the (12) Los Gatos Bar a d Grill. I Ink you've been (13) supplied with all t e relat) e documents regarding (14) this. I won't spend w ole lot of time reviewing (15) these documents w you, (1e) I. would, however, II to Just emphasize (17) the fact that we. ar e to work with the Town on (18) this Issue. We've ork - been working with the (19) Police De nt and - ollectively with the (20) Police Depart ent to try an mitigate some of the (21) Issues, som of the nolse co plaints, etcetera. (22) As far as th modification to ou se (23) permit an the - the design of our - or the (24) conflgura Ion of our establishment, we feel that (25) there are a couple of areas, basically the pool Page 92 (1) table area and our high - high top area that aren't (2) very conducive to meal service. So we would like to t (3) take those two areas, turn them Into a cafe type (4) area where alcohol service Is permitted ong as (5) food Is available, as long as the kitch Is (6) available, (7) We're essentially talking about seats. (a) I think 16 In e - 16'to 18 In a pool table area (s) and around In the high p area, We have 20 (io) stand alone se is at a s nd alone bar. (1 1) Sothis Is essen ally r request for - (12) for this modiflcati . We have a patio area as (1a) well. And 60 seat our - our dining area, If (ta) this was approv d' b - by Planning and the Council (15) eventually, we ould h ve 60 seats of dining, 40 (16) seats of cafe area and 2 seats of stand alone bar. (17) That's ess tially all I'd Ilk to offer (1a) at this tim , If you have any questions or (19) concern I'd like to pass It o er to you, and we'd (20) be hap to answer any - (21) CH 'I MAN DUBOIS: Thank you, Mr, Farwell, (22) We have several questions waiting here, (23) JASON FARWELL: Sure, (24) CHAIRMAN DUBOIS: We'll start with (25) Commissioner Burke, ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC (408) 920.0222 Page 89 to Page 92 raye as (1) JASON FARWELL: Okay,( (2) COMMISSIONER BURKE: , _on't think I need (3) to disclose that I have dined there before, but I (4) will do that actually - (5) COMMISSIONER MICCICHE: (Inaudible.) (6) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Probably, l (7) probabl - I'll be honest, I probably dra In an (8) area that I asn't supposed to be drin ng In and (9) didn't know But it was a very con clve place (i o) to meet a bun of, you know, for er coworkers, (1 i) You're working r a dot com, y have a lot of (12) former coworkers hese days. (13) CHAIRMAN DUB IS: Y ur question Is, (14) Mr. Burke? (15) COMMISSIONER B E: Sorry, Sorry. 1 (18) digressed. You've bee business there about (17) eight years, correct? (18) JASON FARWE : That correct. We've (19) actually owned I or five, (20) COMMISSI ER BURKE: Ok (21) JASON F WELL: Five of the eig (22) COMMI TONER BURKE: Previous to that, I (23) know th a are several other restaurants, Do you (24) have y Idea how long they lasted? And I'm Just (25) loo ng at economic viability of what you do, and Page 94 (1) that's - (2) JASON FARWELL: Sure, I can speak to (3) Mounta' Charley's, which was the original (4) restaura In that location, I believe lasted f (5) '72 to aro d '81 or '82. (6) Following untain Charley's, I believ (7) that there wa a restaurant called U er Dee's, (a) which Is more f a high end - I ca t -1 can't (9) state speclficall what their men consisted of, but (i o) I remember It wa kind of a w ' e tablecloth fine (1 1) dining establlshm t. I think at lasted (12) approximately 18 to 4 m ths, (13) Then there was a Fri e lb Diner that went (14) In for a relatively simile. time; (15) Then we had Elegan s come in there, (16) That was some so of hl end burger place. (17) Then ultimately had the arthquake, (1 a) which kind of ut down the uilding. (19) And the AIII for Bar and Grill Ilowed (2o) after the r rofitting of the build) , And I think (21) the Alli for was there for approxi ately three to (22) four ears, I think from '90 or '91 up round (23) , '94. (24) COMMISSIONER BURKE: Okay. Do you find (25) that - and I'll go back to my youth without Fage 95 (i) edftorlallzingr o you still get patrons that (2) come over fr6,„ Mountain Charley's Just to get food (3) or take food back? Is that still a viable business (4) for you ther \WELL: / (5) JASON F We certainly het some (6) customers ross for food FSut as far as (7) tak ing the fo Mountain harley's, that's (8) not accepta Health D partment, I believe. (s) 1 don't think wed to end food Into a (i o) stand alone bar, (11) COMMISSIONER BU E: Okay, (12) JASON FARWELL: 5 - so there's not a (1 :3) whole lot of transfer f foo but we do have (14) patrons coming ross the II for food, (15) COMMISSI1 ER BURKE: And lastly, there's a (16) patio out bay' (17) JASON/ARWELL: Correct, (18) COM fSSIONER BURKE: Ho Is that used by (19) your e blishment? Are there tables out there (20) wher there Is service? Is It Just an are where (21) pe le wander to? Could you give me a le (22) b' ckground of how that works? (23) JASON FARWELL:. We have attempted I the (24) ast to utilize the patio when the weather was (25) conducive. The one thing we've run Into Is that Page 96 (i) back wall there Is a brick wall, and obtains a lot (2) of heat from the sun and radiates a tremendous amount of heat, so It was a - It was I think very (4) od Idea In concept to put a patio bac here to (5) ma be attract some diners, but In re It hasn't (6) been very attractive location for ers, p) We hav done some - some re arsal (a) dinners b ck there, some birtt ay parties. And we (9) do like to u the space wh there are customers (1o) that want to u e the spac , but that's essentially (11) It, And then our atrons se that deck area often (12) when there Is no a service out there, And to be (13) quite honest right n w, there are no tables out (14) there, They use it or smoking area, (15) CHAIRMAN BOIS.� CommissionerTalesfore. (16) COMMISSI NER TAL FORE: Thank you. Yes, (17) can you ex aln to me how e proposed cafe set up (18) will oper differently than w at you have now? (19) JAS FARWELL: As far ? (20) CO MISSIONER TALESFOR Right. (21) Jq ON FARWELL: As far as th CUP we have (22) rig t now? (23) OMMISSIONER TALESFORE: Yes. (24) JASON FARWELL: Essentially the pool table (25) area, the high top area and the low top area, which Page 93 to Page 96 (406) 920 -0222 ADVANTAGE REPORTING SERVICES, LLC This Page Intentionally Left Blank