Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attach 7
" 0 TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: I PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT coos Meeting Date: February 8, 2012 CA PREPARED BY: Suzanne Davis, Senior Planner sdavis(a,los atosca.gov 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 -08 -02 and ND -08 -03 LOCATION: 339 and 341 Bella Vista Avenue (west side of Bella Vista Avenue, north of Charles Street) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: 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 that exceed the allowable floor area ratio. APNs 529 -23 -015 and 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). RECOMMENDATION: Continue for redesign. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: R -1:8 Applicable Plans & Standards: Zoning Ordinance General Plan Parcel Sizes: 6,049 square feet - 341 4,106 square feet - 339 Surrounding Area: C' 7 Existing Land.. Use......._.._.... General... Plan `..._ Zoning...... North I Residential ................. ..................................... ...................... Medium Density ........................... _... R -1:8 & Residential ! RM:5 -12 ._ ......... ........... _........_.................. East _ .................................... ._._. ....... _ ............... ..................... 1 Single- Family Res. ............. _......................._ ........... _ ............................... _.__ ................. ........................................._..... Medium Density Res. _._... ................_............., R -1:8 South Residential Medium Density Res _ .......................................... RM:S -12 West ....... _. _ Residential ... .... ...... Medium Density Res. .. RM:5 -12:PD C' 7 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue /5 -06 -046 5 -06 -64 ND -08 -02 ND -10 -002 February 8, 2012 CEQA: It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. FINDINGS: ■ That the project will not have a significant impact on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared. a That the project is consistent with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. ■ As required by Section 29.20.170 of the Zoning Ordinance for the granting of a variance. CONSIDERATIONS: ® As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ■ As required by Section 29.40.015.B(1) of the Town Code for granting reduced setbacks. ACTION: The Planning Commission is the final review body for these applications unless an appeal is filed. EXHIBITS: Received under separate cover: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration — 339 Bella Vista 2. Mitigated Negative Declaration — 341 Bella Vista 3. Location map 4. Mitigation Monitoring Program (three pages) 5. Required findings (two pages) 6. Recommended conditions of approval (10 pages) 7. Project data sheets (two pages) 8. Consulting Architect's report (three pages), received May 18, 2011 9. Consulting Arborist report (five pages), dated February 24, 2011 10. Applicant's letter (two pages), received September 12, 2007 11. Neighborhood correspondence (69 pages) 12. Development Plans for 339 Bella Vista (19 sheets), received September 15, 2011 13. Development Plans for 341 Bella Vista (19 sheets), received September 15, 2011 14. Letter and information from Mary J. Badame (27 pages), received October 11, 2011 �rr Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 339&341 Bella Vista Avenue /S -06 -046, S- 06 -64, ND- 08 -02, ND -10 -002 February 8, 2012 Received with this report: 15. Planning Commission Minutes of October 12, 2011 (pages 1 -17) 16. Applicant's letter (three pages), received December 20, 2011 17. Driveway and front setback exhibit, received December 20, 2011 18. Letter from Patrick Tillman (25 pages) with attachments, received January 17, 2012 19. Revised development plans for 339 Bella Vista (19 sheets), received February 2, 2012 20. Revised development plans for 341 Bella Vista (19 sheets), received February 2, 2012 BACKGROUND On October 12, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the subject applications. Following public testimony and discussion, the Commission continued the matter to January 11, 2012. The Commission stated concerns about house size, reduced setbacks, the requested driveway variance, and pedestrian and cyclist safety. Summary minutes of the meeting are attached as Exhibit 15. An issue raised at the public hearing was the date the applicants purchased the properties at 339 and 341 Bella Vista. The lots were purchased on December 23, 2004, following adoption of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS &G) which occurred in January 2004. The applicants submitted revised plans and materials in December 2011. Due to the need for additional time to complete the Commission report, staff requested that the applications be continued to February 8, 2012. ANALYS The following concerns and directives were discussed by the Planning Commission at the October 12, 2011 meeting (staff conunents follow each item): 1. Driveway variance is a concern. The applicant submitted an exhibit showing the driveway lengths for homes on the west side of Bella Vista Avenue (see Exhibit 17). Seven of 10 properties have driveways shorter than 18 feet. Even if the lots were not developed with a garage, two parking spaces are required by Town Code, and a driveway would be needed to reach a paved parking pad. If the garages or parking spaces were pushed further down the slope to increase the driveway lengths, it would result in increased grading, higher retaining walls and steeper driveways. The new driveways would tie into the existing edge of pavement and are long enough to allow vehicles to park without encroaching into the street (see site Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue /S -06 -046, S- 06 -64, ND- 08 -02, ND -10 -002 February 8, 2012 plans in Exhibits 19 and.20). The driveway length front edge of pavement to the face of the garages meets the Town standards for driveway length; the variance is required because the minimum 18 -foot depth is not entirely on the property. Due to topographical constraints, based on the existing development pattern along the west side of Bella Vista Avenue where the majority of existing homes have reduced driveway lengths, and the impacts that would occur if the driveway lengths are increased, staff supports the variance request. Approval of the variance would not be granting a special privilege to the applicants and is consistent with what has been approved for the majority of the existing residences along the west side of Bella Vista Avenue. 2. Driveway locations are a concern relative to pedestrian and bicycle safety. Staff requested that the applicant's engineer evaluate the proposed locations for the driveways to determine if they are in the most appropriate locations for sight distance. If this information is available before the meeting, staff will prepare an addendum to the staff report. If the information is not submitted before the meeting date, the applicant will present the engineer's findings at the public hearing. 3. The sizes of the homes are too large given the site constraints. While some exception to FAR may be considered, the home sizes should be reduced significantly. The applicant has reduced the home proposed at 339 Bella Vista by 126 square feet. The applicant has indicated that a similar change can be made to the house proposed for 341 Bella Vista if the Commission supports the approach on 339 Bella Vista. Staff does not believe the elimination of 126 square feet complies with the Commission's direction to significantly reduce the home sizes or the massing of the rear elevations. 4. Justify the need for exceptions. The applicant is requesting the following exceptions; a. Reduced side (left), front and rear setbacks for 341 Bella Vista b. Reduced front and rear setbacks for 339 Bella Vista c. Increase in FAR for both properties d. HDS &G standard III.A.1. - cut and fill depths e. HDS &G least restrictive development area (LRDA) Reduced setbacks are commonly approved for nonconforming lots and have been allowed within the Bella Vista neighborhood in the past. The new residences will be compatible with the neighborhood with the proposed setbacks. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue /5 -06 -046 5 -06 -64 ND -08 -02 ND -10 -002 February 8, 2012 The applicant has not made a substantial reduction in the size of the homes as requested by the Commission. A minor reduction in size will not make a perceptible difference in the height or massing of the homes at the rear. The requested HDS &G exception to exceed maximum grading cut and fill depths is supported by the need to provide functional driveways and access to garages (or parking pads), and lowering the homes into the site. Many of the homes on the west side of Bella Vista are one -story at the street level and two stories at the rear. There is technically no LRDA, as both lots are comprised of slopes in excess of 30% and there are some significant oak trees that should be preserved. 5. Would like to see a neighborhood meeting. The applicant indicated that neighbors have been unwilling to meet (see pages 2 and 3 of Exhibit 16). CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A. Conclusion While staff supports the requested variance for driveway length, the setbacks exceptions, and the HDS &G exceptions to cut and fill depths, the proposed FAR for both houses significantly exceeds that allowed by Code. The Planning Commission requested that the size of the houses be significantly reduced and that the bulk and mass at the rear of the homes be reduced. The applicant has not complied with these directives. Staff recommends that the Commission continue the applications and direct the applicant to revise the plans to address these concerns, as well as any other aspects of the project that the Commission determines needs further modification. Due to permit streamlining requirements the applications need to be acted on by March 15, 2012, unless the applicant agrees to waive the timeline. An alternative action would be to deny the applications. B. Recommendation The Commission should take one of the following actions: Continue the applications to a date certain and direct the applicant to make further reductions to the size of the homes, and any other desired plan changes; or 2. Deny the subject applications, citing findings in support of the action. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue /S -06 -046 S- 06 -64, ND- 08 -02, ND -10 -002 February 8, 2012 66ws Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, AICP Senior Planner 1 _�Ix OKI, A Approved by: Wendie R. Ro e Mre6tor of Community Developr. WRR:SD:ct cc: Dan Ross, 188 Villa Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Jake Peters, P.O. Box 3486, Ketchum, ID 83340 David Britt, Britt -Rowe, 108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 N: \DEV\PC REPORTS\2012 \BellaVista339- 341- 020812.doc Page 1 of 25 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 110 E. MAIN STREET WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2011 Chair Marico Sayoc called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Marico Sayoc, Commissioner Charles Erekson, Commissioner Thomas O'Dom7ell, Commissioner Margaret Smith, and Commissioner Joanne Talesfore. Absent: Vice Chair Marcia Jensen, and Commissioner John Bourgeois. Others: Town Attorney Judith Propp, Planning Manager Sandy Baily, Associate Planner Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner Marni Moseley, Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu- Nguyen, Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia, and Recording Secretary Linda Rowlett. Planning Manager Sandy Baily noted that Vice Chair Jensen and Commissioner Bourgeois will be arriving after Item #1 because they both live within 500 feet of the subject property and would therefore need to recuse themselves for Item #1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Commissioner Margaret Smith. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14 and 2$ 2011 Minutes of September 14, 2011 Minutes of September 28, 2011 Motion by Commissioner Charles Erekson and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to approve meeting minutes of September 14 and 28, 2011. Motion carried 5 -0 with Vice Chair Marcia Jensen and Commissioner John Bourgeois excused. WRIT'l. "EN COMMtJNICATIONS Chair Marico Sayoc noted that there was a desk item for Item #l, Item #3 and Item 44. €1l 1 5 Page 2 of 25 REQUESTED CONTINUANCES -- NONE SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS -- NONE VERBAL COMMI. NIC A`:HONS (AUDIENCE) -- NONE CONSENT CAL ENDAR - -.NONE Planning Manager Sandy Baily introduced Associate Civil Engineer Maziar Bozorginia. CONTINUED I?UBLIC HEY-VRINGS 3 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Applications S -0646 and S- 06 -64, Subdivision Application M- 06 -09, Variance Al.) licatiorn V- '.11.- 001,1Vli:ti:gated Negative Declarations ND -08 -02 and. ND- 08 -03. Requesting approval of a lot line adjustment, a variance to allow reduced driveway length and to construct two new single family residences with reduced setbacks that exceed the allowable Floor Area :Ratio on property zoned R -1:8. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a. result of this project and Mitigated Negative Declarations are recommended. APN 529 -23 -015 & 016. PR.OP:I: RTY 0WN1:?:R /A.:PPI:.,ICANT: Jake Peters; Dan. Ross respectively. PROTI C ":1' PLANNER: Suzanne Davis. Staff Report Exhibit 1 (Part 1) Exhibit 1. (Part 2) Exhibit 2 (Part 1) Exhibit 2 (Part 2) F.`xhi.bits 3 -7 Exhibit 8 Exhibits 9 -11. Exhibit 1.2 (Plans for 339 Bella Vista Avenue) Exhibit 13 (Plans for 341 Bella Vista Avenue) Desk Item and Exhibit 14 Chair Marico Sayoc opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis presented the staff report.. Page 3 of 25 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore - -Asked if these dots will still be nonconforming if the lot lines are adjusted. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Confirmed that the lots will still be nonconforming with the lot line adjustment. Commissioner Charles Erekson - -Asked why it is possible to consider a lot line adjustment when a merger of the two lots is not possible. Town Attorney Judith Propp -- Commented that under the Subdivision Map Act, the parcels need to be owned by a single owner before a merger can be considered. However, the parties can agree and jointly apply to the Town for a lot line adjustment. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell - -Asked when the application was denied for the previous owner of the two lots. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Commented that the previous application was denied in 2003. The new owners purchased the property in 2006. Dan Ross, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project and handed out copies of his presentation along with the landscape plan. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell - -Asked about the proposed allowable floor area and if the applicant was aware of the FARs (Floor Area Ratios) when he purchased the property. Dan Ross -- Commented that he was aware of the FARs but he was told that they would be able to build something that is livable by today's standards. Staff agreed that an 800 square foot house is not livable and that a compromise would have to be found because it is a challenging site. Chair Thomas O'Donnell - -Asked staff what the applicant was advised regarding the FARs. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Commented that she did not personally meet with these applicants in the beginning. When she picked up the project, the houses were already designed and in environmental review. She worked with the applicants to make the houses smaller and to work around the significant trees on the property. FAR is discretionary, but staff would not indicate how much floor area is appropriate to exceed the FAR. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore - -Asked why the houses were not put on grade. -- Commented that the house at 145 Bella Vista Avenue is on grade. llttD:// losaatos .aranieus.com /MinutesViewer.Dhn ?view id =2 &clip id =890 1/28/2012 Page 4 of 25 Dan Ross -- Commented that the first level is down and no matter where you stand on the lot, you will be looking into the townhomes. -- Commented that the first floor is over the roof and the second floor is more over the townhomes. -- Commented that the house at 145 Bella Vista Avenue is similar to their plan and it is on grade. If they were to build up the grade, it would not follow the slope of the hill. The flags (on display in chambers) are the width and depth of the footprint of the living area of the home. Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu- Nguyen -- Commented that in order to build the grade up they would need a lot of fill. Staff would not recommend that. Commissioner Margaret Smith - -Asked if the plans have significantly changed since Mr. Cannon (Consulting Architect) reviewed them in 2007. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Commented that no significant changes in the plans have been made. The houses got a little smaller and Mr. Cannon's comments were incorporated in the design. Dan Ross - -Asked for his neighbors to stand to show support even though they may not all speak. Chair Marico Sayoc - -Asked staff to do a head count of the supporters. Curtis Leigh --Commented that he has lived on Maggi Court since 2004 and that he is a developer in the bay area. - -Asked why the Town is going to such great lengths to give all the requested variances, particularly the square footage variance. The house should be shrunk and moved back. Eleanor Leishman -- Commented that she lives at Bella Vista Avenue and asked why this proposal would be considered when one was rejected in the past. -- Commented that the size and scale on the plans show disrespect to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS &G) and asked if the Town will enforce them. -- Commented that the project has significant environmental impacts and may cause a danger to the people living below. -- Commented that sewage will be pumped up to street level on Bella Vista Avenue. -- Commented that there will be unavoidable noise, light pollution, traffic congestion, and a danger to pedestrians and bicyclists. - -Asked if the properly were to be sold today if it would be legally buildable and how it would be zoned. - -Asked that the Town's safety standards be upheld. Page 5 of 25 Jak Van Nada -- Commented he lives on Euclid Avenue and that zoning laws seem to be changing at an unprecedented rate. The old zoning laws and General Plan made Los Gatos the town that residents know and love, -- Commented that the current mood of the Council is to over - develop and over - densify the space that is remaining in the name of progress. -- Commented that the average FAR of the existing homes in the staff report is 23 -112 percent and the proposed homes have an average FAR of 37 percent. - -Asked why staff is recommending variances on the driveway length, -- Commented that current development is changing to the detriment to the Town. David Leishman -- Commented he lives on Bella Vista Avenue and that his wife's family moved into this house in 1958. -- Commented the proposed development is good for the developer and landowner, but not for most of the neighbors. - -Asked how many supporters of this project actually live in this community. Tim Boyd -- Commented that he lives at 101 Bella Vista Court and he is concerned that the notice to the neighbors was not property conducted. He never received notice of the neighborhood meeting or the notice for a traffic calming meeting. -- Commented that no sign has been posted on the property in accordance with Town guidelines. -- Commented that the impact on traffic is a nightmare. The location is on a blind curve and the traffic moves too fast. Adding two homes will make it worse. -- Commented that the driveway variance will impinge upon the public right -of -way and affect the students walking to school as well as the bicyclists. -- Commented that all of the houses except one that are listed in the staff report are on the east side of the street on flat lots that can build to higher FARs. Commissioner Margaret Smith - -Asked what side Mr. Boyd lives on. Tim Boyd -- Responded that he lives on the east side. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Clarified that Mr. Boyd lives on Bella Vista Court as opposed to Bella Vista Avenue. -- Commented that staff notices property owners and occupants within 300 feet and every unit within a complex. A notice was sent to 101 Bella Vista Court addressed to occupant. Dave Schoenwald -- Commented that he lives at 143 Bella Vista Avenue next door to the referenced property at 145 Bella Vista Avenue which is on grade. The difference is that there is much less of a grade at 143 and 145 than the subject properties. -- Commented that 145 Bella Vista Avenue used to be the garage for 143 Bella Vista Avenue. He believes that a variance was granted for 143 and 145 to put in a garage and he has to park on the street because the garage and driveway are unusable. There is an on grade garage Page 6 of 25 and driveway at 145 Bella Vista Avenue and it is nearly impossible to back out in the mornings due to a very short driveway. -- Commented that in February 1997, the Commission denied a project because it impacted views and character of the neighborhood and he does not know what has changed since then. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Asked Mr. Schoenwald what the square footage is of his house. David Schoenwald -- Commented that his house is 1,700 square feet and the slope is significantly less than the proposed properties. Commissioner Charles Erekson - -Asked Mr. Schoenwald why his garage and driveway are unusable. David Schoenwald -- Commented that his garage is not on grade and both the garage and driveway are unusable due to slope and depth. It is nearly impossible to get a car down and backing out onto the street is horrendous. The driveway at 145 has a short approach to the garage and it is difficult to back out into traffic safely. Mary Ann Lown -- Commented she lives on Maggi Court and gave a PowerPoint presentation showing how privacy on Maggi Court will be impacted. -- Commented that she is concerned about the removal of trees. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore --Asked Ms. Lown if she has the same impacts as those shown. Mary Ann Lown -- Commented that she has similar impacts. Commissioner Margaret Smith - -Asked Ms. Lown what year she bought her home. Mary Ann Lown -- Commented that she bought her home four years ago. Rob DiNapoli -- Commented that he has lived on Bella Vista Avenue across the street from the subject property for 14 years. These parcels have remained vacant since 1938 because the property is on a 52 percent slope on a cliff that is covered by Oaks. -- Commented that Bella Vista Avenue is a very narrow street with no sidewalks and it has become an important pedestrian and bicycle right -of -way because it connects downtown to other parts of East Los Gatos without having to get onto Los Gatos Boulevard. It has also become a thoroughfare for children going to school. -- Commented that the proposed homes are positioned on a blind corner traveling southbound. -- Commented that Bella Vista Avenue provides sustainable traffic for pedestrians and bicycles Page 7 of 25 and urged the Commission to preserve Bella Vista Avenue as a safe. corridor and to deny the request for variances. Art Adams -- Commented he lives on Bella Vista Avenue, it is very narrow and the proposed house is 100 feet away from a blind curve. -- Commented that many people attended a traffic calming meeting on Tuesday night and he asked why the Town is considering adding homes when it is already trying to reduce traffic on the street. Tim Coughlin -- Commented he lives on Bella Vista Avenue across from the development and he takes exception to 145 Bella Vista Avenue being used as a precedent. It is a poor example of design and does not represent the neighborhood. It has a driveway where you cannot park a car without hanging out onto the street and that is what is being proposed here tonight. -- Commented that the neighbors have chosen not to have curbs, gutters and sidewalks. -- Commented that they would like to see undergrounding of the utilities if the project is approved because the trees currently camouflage the wires. -- Commented that bicycle safety is an issue. The Town obtained federal funds to have a bike route on Bella Vista Avenue and residents were assessed part of the cost. Adding more density with this type of driveway will impact the safety of pedestrians and bicycles. Ken Lown -- Commented he lives on Maggi Court and he opposes the project. The requested variances are not minor. They are beyond the scale and mass of the neighborhood and the homes will tower over Maggi Court. -- Commented that the project benefits only the applicants with no positive value to the surrounding neighborhood or the Town. - -Asked how staff can suggest that the project is consistent with the HDS &G. -- Commented that his backyard will no longer have privacy and that the noise and light from these homes will have a negative impact. Anne Curry -- Commented that she lives on Bella Vista Avenue and she welcomes development, but it needs to be fair and apply to everyone. -- Commented that she lives in a 1920's Craftsman bungalow. They would love to increase the size of their home, but her house came with plans that were denied by the Town to increase square footage. They bought the house anyway because it is a beautiful house. Commissioner Margaret Smith - -Asked Ms. Curry what the square footage is of her house. Anne Curry -- Commented that her home is on the east side and has three bedrooms with 2,400 square feet. Leo Cunningham - Commented that he lives on Bella Vista Avenue and noted that he is married to Vice Chair Marcia Jensen. httn:// Iosaatos .Qranicus.com /MinutesViewer.DhD ?view id= 2 &cliu id =890 1/28/2012 Page 8 of 25 -- Commented that he opposes the project because the hill is too steep and the lots are too small for homes of this size. -- Commmented that these are major variances. - -Asked that the Commission be careful not to overdevelop the Bella Vista neighborhood. The street is intended for and very well utilized by pedestrians and cyclists, -- Commented that the hillside around the street is an important view area for the residents on Bella Vista Avenue as well as serving as a gateway coming eastbound on Highway 9. -- Commented that the street is very narrow and is over utilized by traffic. -- Commented that, in terms of fairness, the applicant knew of the restrictions when they purchased the property and the price was discounted in accordance with the risk. Kathy Murtfeldt -- Commented that she has lived on Bella Vista Avenue since 2005 and the very large trees and the larger lot was a major attraction. They paid a premium price for their home and believed their investment would be secure. -- Commented that they remodeled their home in 2009 and had to follow the Town's requirements; her experience was very different from this one. - -Asked how a 1,900 square foot home can be considered if the proposed lot is zoned for a 795 square foot home. - -Asked how eight variances can be given to one project. - -Asked how it is possible to get approval to remove mature trees. -- Commented that the traffic and pedestrian flow on Bella Vista Avenue needs to be considered. Robert Murtfeldt -- Commented that he lives on Bella Vista Avenue and that they did not receive a notice for Mr. Ross's meeting, but did receive a notice for tonight's meeting. -- Commented that traffic is a major concern and that this project is on a blind corner. -- Commented that the reduced setbacks and increased FARs are major concerns. -- Commented that this project will create more of a safety hazard to the neighborhood. -- Commented that he is opposed to the project because it violates the Town's codes and guidelines. He is most concerned about the reduced setbacks and increased FARs. -- Commented that this is a flawed attempt to overbuild on two small hillside lots. -- Commented that approval will set a terrible precedent for the Town. Christy Ross -- Commented that she lives on Johnson Avenue and is in favor of the proposal. -- Connrnented that Mr. Ross is civic minded and environmentally conscious. His current home is beautifully landscaped and they preserved the trees that were there when they built their home. -- Commented that the goal is to preserve the large Oak tree on the lot and that any removed trees will be replaced by new ones. -- Commented that when you live close to Town, it is a close community. You are close to your neighbors and have less privacy. Vitaliy StulsId -- Commented that he lives on Maggi Count and is concerned about privacy, violation of guidelines, significantly exceeded FARs, safety, convenience, traffic, construction problems, and lack of communication on the project, Page 9 of 25 -- Commented that they have 25 feet separating their patio from the proposed property and the privacy issues are unacceptable. Noise and light are also concerns. They will have to keep their curtains closed at all times. -- Commented that they are concerned about safety and the risk of that house going into their house in the event of an earthquake. - -Urged the Commission to deny the project. Patrick Tillman -- Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and the back wall of the proposed home will be very close to his bedroom window. The cellar looks down into his bedroom from both levels. There will be a significant loss of property values and privacy to the neighborhood due to this development. -- Commented that Dan Ross was a member of the General Plan Update Advisory Committee and is now a member of the North Forty Specific Plan Advisory Committee. Mr. Ross told him that he is getting help from a Planning Commissioner and that is why he is not even submitting plans that comply with the FAR. Commissioner Margaret Smith - -Asked Mr. Tillman if he received a notice of the neighborhood meeting. Patrick Tillman -- Commented that he did receive notice of the neighborhood meeting, but when Mary (Badame) showed up, she was advised by Ms. Davis that there was no meeting. Erin Johnson -- Commented that she lives on Maggi Court. -- Commented that she is speaking about abuse to the cellar policy and the blatant disregard of rules. This project is defiant of the General Plan and drastically exceeds the FAR. -- Commented that the square footage should be reduced to reduce the visible mass. -- Commented that a wine cellar is a luxury and the rules should not be broken to make it desirable. -- Commented that getting story poles installed was difficult and they are still waiting for the posted sign for tonight's meeting. - -Asked why the Town is accommodating Mr. Ross and his cousin. This project is not representative of this Town. -- Commented that she is very opposed to this project. Renee Stratulate -- Commented that she lives on Maggi Court at the bottom of the hill and she shares the comments already made. Stressed that this is not about Mr. Ross. -- Commented that when the property was purchased it was discounted for risk, so if it complies with the FAR and it is economically unviable, that is just the way it is. William Schweickert -- Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and that he is opposed to the project and shares the points already made. -- Commented that he did want to summarize that the mass and scale is way out of compliance with the community. http: / /Iosgatos. granicus. com/ MinutesViewer .php ?view_id= 2 &clip_id =890 1/28/2012 Page 10 of 25 -- Commented that he had an opportunity to buy the home at the end of Maggi Court but he chose not to buy it because he was afraid it would fall. That slope is nowhere near this proposed slope, He is concerned about earthquakes and a 60 foot wall. -- Commented that he is concerned about flooding during rainfall. -- Commented that he will be looking at a 60 -foot wall with nothing to look at except some windows at the top. The variances are way out of scale with the hillside, the slope, and the community of homes in the neighborhood. Edgar Corral -- Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and he is opposed to the project. -- Commented that focusing on speculative investments by developers may help the Town meet revenue expectations but at a cost to long term stakeholders and the reputation to the community. -- Commented that Mr. Ross was aware of the history of the project. -- Commented that Maggi Court residents will lose value due to this development. -- Commented that the proposed project is irresponsible, it ignores the HDS &G and the large economic impact on the Bella Vista community, Forrest Straight -- Commented that he lives on Maggi Court and is a builder by profession. He has never seen such a disregard to rules and regulations. -- Commented that the Coastal Oak trees will live for many years and are very desirable. -- Commented on the existing two arborists' reports. -- Commented that he hired two tree experts who concluded that two of three Oak trees are in good health and that all three can live another 100 years. Spoke of a treatment that can save the trees. Commissioner Margaret Smith - -Asked Mr. Straight what year he bought his home. Forrest Straight -- Commented that he bought his home around 2003 and considered that a home might be built, but the project was denied. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore - -Asked Mr. Straight where his townhouse is located. Forrest Straight -- Commented that he is at the bottom of the hill to the right of the stairs. Mary Badame -- Commented that she lives on Maggi Court. -- Commented that she wanted to clarify that 145 Bella Vista Avenue has a 26 degree slope, it followed the FAR and was not subject to the HDS &G. -- Commented that Mr. Ross bought his property in December 2004, after the HDS &G were established so he knew what he was buying. -- Commented that the staff report is inaccurate and misleading. It incorrectly states the parcel sizes. The arborist's report has a date different than noted in the staff report. -- Commented that there is an eight year history of prior site development at this location Page 11 of 25 that should have been included in the Background section of the staff report. -- Commented that the consulting architect's comments that are pertinent to the neighbors' privacy concerns that cannot be mitigated were omitted from the staff report. -- Commented that the comparison of the proposed project to 52 Oak Hill Way is an unacceptable comparison. -- Commented that the reference to the August 4 neighborhood meeting in the staff report is inaccurate. She did attend and had a conversation with Ms. Davis. Brad McCurdy -- Commented he is an architect retained by the Maggi Court residents. -- Commented that variances are intended to address unique hardships created by zoning regulations that are misapplied to specific conditions on a lot. The issues requiring variances in this proposal have been created by the applicant's design. -- Commented that this proposal does not meet Town guidelines for FARs and setbacks. -- Commented that merging the lots would have been a more appropriate proposal. -- Referenced the Zoning Code regulation requiring a legal lot in the Town to be at least 5,000 square feet in area and any parcels under the same or substantially same ownership that do not meet this 5,000 square foot requirement shall be considered merged. Those lots should have been merged under Town policy. -- Commented that even the smaller of the two houses would require all of these variances even if the lots were merged because it would be 218 square feet more than the allowable square footage for the entire combined parcel. - -Urged the Commission to reconsider what a variance is, what it means and why it should be denied in this case. Lee Quintana -- Commented that she lives on Palm Avenue. -- Commented that the Zoning Code for nonconforming lots states that if a lot is in a residential zone and is recognized by the Town as a lawful, separate, nommerged lot pursuant to Zoning Code 29.10.070, a single family dwelling may be erected if architecture and site approval is obtained. -- Commented that the FAR should be lowered due to the extreme slope of the lot. -- Commented that garages are not required by Code; only parking spaces. -- Commented that there are findings that need to be made in order to exceed the FAR and the fact that the homes are visible from the homes below is an issue. Andreas Kuehle -- Commented that he lives on Boyer Lane because he wanted an urban environment. Even though he paid a lot of money for his property, he looks right into his neighbor. Part of living in an urban environment is a lack of privacy. Noelle Masters -- Commented that she lives on Johnson Avenue and she walks her children to school down Bella Vista and deals with the traffic issues. -- Commented that they developed a property on Los Gatos Boulevard responsibly and believes that Mr. Ross will do the same. -- Commented that more energy should go toward privacy issues and working out ways of benefiting all parties. Page 12 of 25 -- Commented that she hopes some middle ground can be met so Mr. Ross can pursue this property. Debra Chin -- Commented that she owns a business in Los Gatos and lives on Maggi Court. -- Commented that she is outraged by the lack of objectivity shown in the staff report and cannot see how the project is consistent with the HDS &G. This project would have a significant negative impact on the quality of life and privacy for the neighbors in the surrounding community. -- Commented that each of the homes exceeds FAR by over 1,000 square feet. --Asked why staff is recommending a soft; approval. -- Commented that Mr. Ross has not complied with conditions relating to privacy and that guidelines should be adhered to on a fair and consistent basis. --Asked the Commission to direct the applicant to revise the plans to be in compliance. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore - -Asked where her home is located. Debra Chin -- Commented that her home is in that line below. Andrew Wu -- Commented that most of his issues have already been addressed. -- Commented that he does not live in this neighborhood, but he was before the -- Commission on a similar project. -- Commented that he disagrees with Mr. Ross about the houses being livable by today's standards. -- Commented that the invasion of privacy issue cannot be mitigated. Ian Macrae -- Commented that he lives on Bella Vista Avenue and is concerned by the impact of construction on this site. There is no space for cement trucks or lumber delivery on this site. - -Asked how traffic calming is going to be accomplished during construction of these two homes. -- Commented that the elimination of the trees is unconscionable. -- Commented that he empathizes with Mr. Ross but this property is just too steep. Gary Schloh -- Commented that he wanted to share his experience with the home that he owns on Charles. The site is approximately 3,200 square feet and it is flat. They added a second story to make the house 1,900 square feet and they were under FAR by 200 square feet. To maximize the square footage would have taken away too much open space. Dan Ross -- Commented they have spent six years on this process. -- Commented that the townhomes on Maggi Court are 1,600 square feet townhomes on 1,300 square foot lots. They received variances for two balconies attached to one another, attached walls, no open green space, very few heritage trees left, many have no driveways, narrow roads, Page 13 of 25 and you can see into their homes from Bella Vista Avenue and the trail. They do not have absolute privacy right now. -- Commented that the proposed driveway will not go into the road. -- Commented that the slope averages about 30 feet. A big contribution to their slope is their lot line goes into the trail that was cut into their lot to create emergency access. -- Commented that the house that was denied before was one 6,000 square foot house across both lots on both floors. -- Commented that his participation on a public committee is because he wants to be involved in the Town. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore - -Asked about the removal of trees. - -Asked about the shadow study. Dan Ross -- Commented that everything within the footprint will be removed. They plan to keep everything outside of the footprint in order to keep some mature landscaping. -- Commented that new mature trees would be planted if the trees did not survive during construction. Commissioner Margaret Smith - -Asked Mr. Ross about the comparable homes on Bella Vista Avenue and if he would consider smaller homes. Dan Ross -- Commented that they have spent a lot of time considering smaller homes. The box is 907 square feet. They could consider a smaller garage footprint. The garage is 21 feet x 21 feet. Chair Marico Sayoc - -Asked about removing garages and using the space for living space. - -Asked about construction management. - -Asked about the process and what they thought could be built on this site. Dan Ross -- Commented that they have to provide parking so a pad would have to stay in the same place. -- Commented that he met with Engineering staff this week regarding a construction plan. They would build the driveway and garage first to create a working pad for the next phase of work. -- Commented that they closed escrow in December 2003, and the HDS &G were approved in January 2004. They would not have purchased the property if they did not believe something livable could be built there. Six years of working on this does not indicate any favoritism on this project. They took some risk but they did speak with staff regarding codes, variances and guidelines, and they reviewed the slope. They were also advised that the lot line adjustment would make sense to help preserve the biggest tree on the lot. They worked a lot on mass and scale. Chair Marico Sayoc closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Page 14 of 25 Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell - -Asked about the findings to support a lot line adjustment. Town Attorney Judith Propp -- Commented that there are no specified findings because lot line adjustments are not subject to the Subdivision Map Act. Under the Permit Streamlining Act there are no specific findings as long as it conforms to the Town Code rules in regard to the General Plan. -- Commented that it has to comply with the Subdivision Ordinance and the Town did not adopt any specific findings for lot line adjustments in its Ordinance. Chair Marico Sayoc - -Asked about a Class 3 bike lane. - -Asked about exceeding FAR and visible mass to neighbors. Assistant Civil Engineer Trang Tu- Nguyen -- Commented that there is no striping or special consideration for Class 3 bike routes. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Commented that FAR was not applied from HDS &G; it was applied from the R -1 Town Code section because it is more restrictive. There are no specific findings for the FAR in Town Code. There are findings listed for reduced setbacks but they are not considered a variance. There is a section that allows reduced setbacks and they are commonly granted on nonconforming lots and it is usually dependent upon whether it is appropriate for the lots and if it is compatible with the neighborhood. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell -- Commented that the applicant's worthiness is not what is being considered, but rather the application of laws. -- Commented that since it is a nonconforming lot it does cause some difficulty, but the applicant has a right to build on his property but not beyond what the law allows. -- Commented that this is a very difficult lot. -- Commented that garage access is very difficult and a driveway not well considered could be a problem. -- Commented that he would start with what the law allows at 785 square feet for one house and 835 square feet for the other. Perhaps they should be bigger, but he believes that the proposed sizes are too big. -- Commented that he has trouble with the cut and fill variance, the amount of excess in the FAR, the driveway setback, and the basis for the variances. -- Commented that a basement has not been effected here to reduce mass and scale. -- Commented that the staging problem is valid and will cause real problems for the neighbors. - -Asked why the lot line adjustment is being considered at this time. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Corrected that the Town Code does have provisions for exceeding the FAR. The deciding body may allow a FAR in excess based on the design theme, sense of scale, exterior materials and details of the proposed project. The applicable provisions in this case are that it is consistent with the HDS &G and that the lot coverage, setbacks and FAR of the proposed project are compatible with the development of surrounding lots. Page 15 of 25 Planning Manager Sandy Baily -- Clarified that only one variance is being requested tonight and that is for the driveway length. Specific findings are required for a variance. The other ones are deviations or exceptions to the HDS &G rather than variances and do not require specific findings, Commissioner Joanne Talesfore - -Asked if the HDS &G states that all standards and guidelines must be met to grant an exception to the FAR and if this project would be considered an exception. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Commented the FAR is considered an exception. The HDS &G is not being applied because that would have allowed more floor area. The R -1 FAR formula was applied to the properties because it was more restrictive. Commissioner Margaret Smith -- Commented she has visited the site at various times of the day because of her concernfor pedestrian safety 'so she °cannot support - 'a - driveway 'var' ance -- Commented the impact on the hillside and the homes below is a concern. However, homeowners have to accept some responsibility when buying homes where homes can be built above them. -- Commented that the design is very attractive but these homes are too massive. The lot line adjustment is reasonable but the hornes«are -larger than tl- ey,:need to be, Commissioner Charles Lrekson -- Commented he is not concerned about the lot line adjustment, but smaller homes aremore reasonable. The style is appropriate for the neighborhood, but the size is not. -- Commented that he would not support such a FAR increase due to topographical constraints and the proximity to the residents below. -- Commented that he would not support the reduced rear setback for 339 Bella Vista Avenue because it would increase the impact on the residents below the site. -- Commented that the length of driveway meets the requirement, but it cannot be developed entirely on the site. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore -- Commented that the Commission has worked with applicants to make projects work, but this one is more challenging with extreme privacy concerns from neighbors. She looked at the site from one of the condominium patios and the loss of trees is startling. -- Commented that the bulk ad mass is a concern. The homes would have to be xeduced in size and be sited with the least impact on the neighbors' privacy. -- Commented that she is bothered by a variance creating two nonconforming lots. -- Commented that the driveway is an issue because it ;is on ,a. blind corner: Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell -- Commented that while it is the right for a property owner to build on what their property is zoned for, it is not the Commission's job to aid them to do it in a way that is more commercially satisfactory to them. It is fair to say that the Commission attempts to be fair, and it is not suggesting that any increase in the FAR would be denied, but the .requested FAR is too much, littp:// los�- .2ranicus.com /MinutesViewer. id =2 &clit) id =890 1/28/2012 Page 16 of 25 -- Commented that careful consideration should be given to what the neighborhood is. The west side is so different from the east, so he would discount the east side in defining the neighborhood. -- Commented that these are two very bad lots. Town Attorney Judith Propp -- Commented that there are no specific findings for lot line adjustments, but the government code does caution local agencies to limit its review and approval to a determination if the parcels, with the adjustment, will conform to the local General Plan or building ordinances. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell - -Asked if you start with and end up with two nonconforming lots, if that is consistent with the government codes. Town Attorney Judith Propp -- Commented that the Subdivision Map Act will not allow you to create nonconforming lots when you do a subdivision. Lot line adjustments are for four or less parcels and are not subject to the rules of the Subdivision Map Act. There is nothing in the Town's Subdivision Ordinance that prohibits that. It is up to the Commission to decide if it is a reasonable action and consistent and conforming with the General Plan. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis -- Commented that if there were structures there, staff would not want to create a nonconforming setback that was currently not there. Chair Marico Sayoc --Commented that while the Commission sympathizes that these are terrible lots, the standards and guidelines need to be followed. The °burden is on the applicant to justify the need for exceptions. -- Commented that while the; applicant wants an increased FAR for <a livable home, it also has to be livable for the neighbors. Commissioner Charles Erekson - -Asked what period of time the applicant would need if the item were continued. Chair Marico Sayoc reopened the public hearing. Dan Ross --Commented he would like a date as soon as possible. Planning Manager Sandy Baily -- Commented that the earliest would be January 11. Chair Marico Sayoc closed the public hearing. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell -- Commented that the Commission has not given any guidance to the applicant and it may be helpful to tell him what it is looking for. He would want a dramatic reduction in.size. Page 17 of 25 Commissioner Margaret Smith -- Commented she does not have a problem with the lot line adjustment. The homes -must be, appreciably smaller -:in -scale and mass and the driveway must be addressed. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell -- Commented that he is troubled by size, bulk and mass, setback, cut and fill, and, for safety purposes, the driveway. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore -- Commented that she has issues with -the setbacks especially between the two homes, the driveways tree_removals lot line exception, and she would want an architecture reduction while keeping the Maggi Court residents in mind. -- Commented that she would --like to see =a neighborhood meeting-on this project: Commissioner Charles Erekson -- Commented he would judge the lot line adjustment by the benefit derived by the parcels after an adjustment. -- Commented that his concerns are the driveway issue due to the blind curve and that the -sizes of the homes needlobe significantly reduced wit11 consideration for the homes on the west side of Bella Vista Avenue, Chair Marico Sayoc -- Commented that she would find it difficult to agree with the driveway variance due to bicycle traffic•: �° -- Commented that the slope and the architectural style blend well. Motion by Commissioner Charles Erekson and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to continue Architecture and Site Applications 5 -06 -46 and 5- 06 -64, Subdivision Application M- 06 -09, Variance Application V -11 -001, Mitigated Negative Declarations ND -08- 02 and ND -08 -03 to January 11, 2012, with the direction reflected in the Planning Commission's comments. Motion carried 5 -0 with Vice Chair Marcia Jensen and Commissioner John Bourgeois excused. Planning Manager Sandy Baily -- Commented that the item is continued to a date certain, therefore there will be no additional public notices. Chair Marico Sayoc called for a break at 10:03 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 10:14 p.m. Vice Chair Marcia Jensen joined the meeting. Commissioner John Bourgeois joined the meeting. N EW PUBLIC 11:1 APIN( S 2. 800 Blossom Dill Road Planned. Development Application PD -11 -001. Mitigated This Page Intentionally Left Blank Letter of Justification. Revised plans for 339/34 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos. Dear Town of Los Gatos Planning Department, Planning Commission: RECEIVED BACKGROUND: DEC TOWN OF LOS GATOS From beginning, during escrow process, we spent significant time with Planning Stla'f&ING DIVISION understand guidelines as they related to these lots. At that time it was encouraged that we model our plan after the recently approved and constructed home at 145 Bella Vista, with similar western down slope. We researched the previous submittal for 339/34 which was 1 large home proposed over both lots. The application was incomplete, denied. Town Staff commented 1 larger home over 2 lots wasn't congruent with neighborhood. What was done at 145 Bella Vista would be more appropriate. It was pointed out that most homes on west side of Bella Vista have reduced driveway and front setbacks. The FAR numbers were explained, and that homes on non - conforming sub 800o square foot lots were eligible for exceptions in order to create a "live- able home by today's standards ". I purchased my lot on December 23, 2004. Mr. Peters purchased his'lot on December 23, 2004 We hired a Design team, Civil Engineer, Geotechnical /Soils Engineer and Arborist with experience working in Los Gatos, and a history of providing high quality work. We followed Town Guidelines to prepare appropriate reports. These reports were Peer Reviewed by Town Consulting Architect and Engineers, and found satisfactory. Along the way, Town Staff /Engineers and Consultants have made recommendations. We have agreed to suggestions and changes that have been recommended by Town Planning Staff and Town Public Works /Engineering. MAIN ISSUES: 1) Driveway Variance. Garages are sited where they are to address driveway slope, goal of saving Oak at middle of lots, overall height. If we shift garage farther back, it will move garage closer to townhomes, increase height, and increase slope of driveway from street to garage. Town Engineer can give detail on allowable slope. Our driveways are 18'6" to 22' from edge of pavement to garage doors. This is typical, 7 out of 10 homes on west side of Bella Vista have driveways shorter than this. (See chart). Our driveways, as well as neighboring home driveways, cross into public right of way to edge of pavement. The Public right of way is the down- sloped area not likely to ever be built on by Public Works. 2) Setback Exceptions: Our homes are 24' -25' from edge of pavement. 7 out of 10 homes on west side of Bella Vista are closer to street than our proposal. Shortest distance being 13'. (See Chart). We are requesting a front set back exception to property line for both homes. For 441, we are requesting a side setback exception, next to land bordering Highway 9. After reducing rear right corner of 339, the rear right and left corners are 23' to property line, now meeting guideline. We have bump -outs at middle of home, requiring setback exception. Considering width of trail at bottom of lot, we are very close to 20' to neighbor's fence. These type of front setback exceptions exist around town, on down slope of Glenridge, Oak Hill, Edelen, etc. A house on my street on Villa has a garage that abuts sidewalk, with o' setback to sidewalk. 3) FAR /Mass and scale. Our basic footprint above grade on main level of home is 907 square feet. The garage footprint is 21'X 21' or 441 square feet. The primary change to our plan from October meeting is to 339 Bella Vista. We have removed a 21' wide by 6' EXHIMT 1 6 deep area behind the garage. This will increase distance of 339 Bella from townhomes, removes patio/balcony and pushes stairwell underneath garage, reducing useable square footage in this area. This smaller area under garage is changed from Bedroom /Bathroom to Study /Media Room. The area under 907 square foot main level remains as 2 bedrooms. It's important to note the finished floor area of the area under garage to garage ceiling is 2o', and is farther away from townhomes. The finished floor of the lower level main house to main level ceiling wall plate is 21', 6 ". The roof slopes away from the back of house. This is NOT 35' of structure bearing down on townhomes below. Maggi Court neighbors below will see 20' tall garage and 21', 6" tall home. Shielded by existing trees, new landscaping /trees and fencing. It's important to note Maggi Court townhomes are 1650 square feet plus 550 square foot garage on 1350 square foot lots. They are 35' tall, in many instances with NO driveway, reduced front, side and rear setbacks. They are attached homes, with attached front and back balconies. They have lot coverage of 150% + / -, and we are 50% +/- ? It's hard for me to accept Maggi Court argument that we should not receive any variance or exception when you look at the variances /exceptions that have benefitted them, as well as other neighbors on the west /down slope side of Bella Vista. This is our 3rd reduction /change to our original plan mirroring 145 Bella Vista. 145 Bella Vista is 8' wider, and is closer to. street by 2 -3' and garage is 12' from edge of pavement: 339 and 341 are 31' feet apart. The only remaining material architectural change would be to eliminate the lower levels. However, removing the lower levels would have virtually no effect on Maggi Court neighbors as the lower level would be replaced by an engineered structure, to support the upper level. Other points of Interest: Slope: Our slope is similar to other homes on west side of Bella Vista. Our numbers are skewed by drop off at top of lot and man -made cut by HOA below us to create trail at bottom of our lot. Portion of trail impedes on our property. Our slope, particularly in the middle portion of lot is in the 30's similar to 145 Bella Vista and other homes. Grading: We are exporting approximately 335 cubic yards of dirt, total, for both houses. I'm told this is reasonable, and that a hillside home development can be known to export as much as 2000 cubic yards. Traffic: Public Works has stated that traffic calming measures are being worked on now. Visibility /Safety could be improved if the land to the north of us, owned by HOA below us, was trimmed to improve eye level views along the curve in the road. Neighbor Meetings: I met with Maggi Court neighbors in 20o8 (when they accused me of rushing project through), and 2010. In 2011, I notified them of my willingness to meet prior to October PC meeting. None responded to my request. I was scheduled for August 10th, 2011 PIanning Commission meeting. They asked for postponement to prepare, I agreed. The neighborhood has had my email address and phone number since 2oo8. Not a single neighbor has reached out to me to meet individually. At our 20o8 and 2010 meetings, Pat Tillman was their appointed spokesperson. He fired questions as if it were a deposition, there was very little 2 way dialogue. He's called me names, and has been generally threatening in nature. At the 2008 meeting, two suggestions were made: Change the area under garage from open storage to enclosed living space, and move deck on 339 from rear of house to side of house to distance deck from townhomes. We did both. In 2011, I did ask for meetings with 7 Bella Vista neighbors across the street from us. None responded. I had brief conversations with 2 Bella neighbors in prior years. It is disappointing neighbors aren't willing to sit down face to face and work through concerns and compromise to try and achieve a solution. Privacy: Maggi Court neighbors do not have absolute privacy now. You can see into the townhomes from Bella Vista Avenue, and from trail at back of lot. On our own we have reduced rear facing window count, removed 2 rear facing balconies, and reduced size of decks. We've raised the height of balcony rails to 6' feet to block any direct eye contact. We've prepared landscape plan to create separation and further block /soften views. When neighbors stated they didn't want trees removed, I stated we would have replacement trees, they complained there would be too much shade. These homes are under the existing canopy. There are existing trees between the garage and townhomes that already create shade. Summary: The disappointing part of this process is neighbors are left to fight over issues, when neither side can claim they fully understand rules, guidelines and nuances loo %. Deb and I had 30 supporters at the October meeting, 27 Los Gatos neighbors, and more watching from home. The comments I received was this should be less a "mob- ocracy" or "anger- fest ", and more about what is fair to the applicant based on what has been granted to nearby neighbors. When the meeting is dominated by anger and generalizations, it diminishes the work of the applicant, Town Planning Staff, Town Public Works /Engineering and Town Consultants. Particularly when opponents don't study the technical work, then generalize incorrectly. I've had neighbors in the Bella Vista / Maggi Court area tell me they are in disbelief over what I've been subjected to, and they won't speak publicly for fear of retribution. We appreciate the consideration of the Planning Commission, and respectfully ask for a final (hopefully approving) vote on this proposal. Best regards, Dan Ross This Page Intentionally Left Blank Z �o 0 / o Q -J(D LL Z 0 2 z \ 0 CL This Page Intentionally Left Blank t PATRICK K. TILLMAN Attorney at Law RECEI JAN 17 2012 January 17, 2012 Steve Rice, Mayor Los Gatos Civic Center 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Marico Sayoc, Chairperson Los Gatos Planning Committee 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Greg Larson Los Gatos Town Manager 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Sent via e-mail to sriceWos atosca. -gov Sent via e-mail to maricosayockyahoo.com Sent via e-mail to mana�ei(a�losatosca.oy Wendie Rooney, Director Sent via e-mail to wroonej!k oWatosca.kov Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue Applications Applicant: Dan Ross Gentlepersons: I live with Mary Badame at 150 Maggi Court, Los Gatos. Applications are pending for construction of two (2) homes to be built at 339 & 341 Bella Vista Avenue, Los Gatos, directly above us. The applications should be rej ected. 2021 The Alameda, Suite 160, San Jose, CA 95126 ) 674_9(70 T+nr• 4diM (15 -9775 F_s.enil• nnf�nlnL� The history of this project and the inconsistent application of the law warrant special attention by the Planning Commission and Town Council. Something is terribly wrong when Town personnel recommend a project with umpteen HDS &G exceptions /waivers, that is directly contrary to its prior recommendation(s), will seriously invade our privacy and the privacy of six to eight (6 - 8) other townhome owners in our complex, recommend a project that, in fact, will be a "nuisance" within the legal definition, and inflicts a collective financial loss on us of well over $800,000. As to the exceptions /variances requested, several seasoned contractors testified at the 10 -12 -11 Planning Commission hearing that they have never seen an application ask for this many exceptions, variances, and /or favors. A local architect, well familiar with the process, testified that the exceptions /variances are directly related to Applicant's design (aka mass & scale), not undue hardships created by zoning regulations and /or specific conditions of these lots — the standard for granting exceptions /variances. Approving /granting any number of Applicant's requests would re -set the bar for new construction applications — set a precedent contrary to the letter and spirit of the HDS &G. Procedurally, the Applicant's last presentation to the Planning Commission took place 10- 12 -11. The Commission rejected the proposal and advised Applicant to "dramatically" ... "significantly" reduce the size of both homes. In an e -mail dated 12 -19 -11 @ 10:54 a.m., Suzanne Davis, Senior Town Planner, advised a member of our neighborhood that they received the revised plans' "late Thursday," 12- 15 -11. (Exhibit 10) These revised plans were meant to be addressed by the Planning Commission at the meeting set for 01- 11 -12. The delayed submission eliminated the staff's ability to evaluate them for the 01 -11 -12 Commission meeting, so the next Planning Commission meeting to address this project will be 02- 09 -12. ' Consistent with Applicant's regard for the HDS &G, the Planning Commission, Town Council, and his neighbors, and contrary to the "`dramatically" .. `significantly' reduce" admonition of the Planning Commission, in the "revised plans" he reduced the Lot 1 home by 128' and Lot 2 home by 49'. (Exhibit 10) HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN Adopted as part of the Los Gatos General Plan. Pursuant thereto, in January 2004, the Town adopted Standards to be used in the review of Hillside Development Applications: HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES ( "HDS &G "). Consequently, the HDS &G are part of the Los Gatos General Plan ... and the law. (Town of Los Gatos 2020, GENERAL PLAN, Community Design, H. Hillside Development, pg. CD 21) The Town of Los Gatos Hillside Area and Viewing Platform Map (Exhibit 1) depicts large blocks of hillside acreage covered by the General Plan and the HDS &G. You will note thereon three (3) very small fingers of land, and only three (3), all on Bella Vista Avenue, well away from the main- covered area. They are equally protected Special thought went into providing these three (3) fingers of land stated protections, probably because Bella Vista Avenue runs a ridge for 3 /4 of a mile, a ridge that drops dramatically (50 °, often 60 -80 °) 40 -80' immediately from the shoulder of the road. In one (1) section the ridge provides a nice backdrop for the Los Gatos High School baseball field. The Applications that are the subject of this letter apply to the middle finger (ironic) of land on Bella Vista Avenue, above referenced. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES CHDS &G "). F. Standards versus Guidelines. "The Hillside development Standards and Guidelines contain both standards and guidelines. Standards are mandatory nondiscretionary regulations that must be followed The words "Shall" or " p rohibited " denotes a standard of mandatory regulation. Guidelines are discretionary.... Development plans must demonstrate full compliance with all standards, and substantial compliance with all applicable guidelines whenever site conditions require and there is not a substantial reason why the guideline should not be followed.... " (Emphasis added) HDS &G @ pg. 10 3 THE STANDARD EVIDENCE CODE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA "Shall" and "May" Construed. "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive. Evid. Code § 11 INTERPRETATION OF LOS GATOS REGULATIONS Construction — Intent of Legislature or Parties — General Subversive to Particular Provisions. In the construction of a statute the intention of the legislature, and in the construction of the instrument to intention of the parties, is to be pursued, if possible; and when a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter is paramount to the former. So a particular intent will control a general one that is inconsistent with it (Emphasis added) Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. § 1859 K! 1 1 PROPOSED PROJECT - Violations The project should be rejected for the following reasons: 1. Traffic Safety 2. Lot line change 3. Grading Standards 4. Building height, bulk, & mass 5. Set -backs 6. Floor Area Ratio ( "FAR ") 7. Architectural Design for Privacy & Respect for Neighbors 8. Tree Preservation 9. Geologic instability 10. Fire Hazard 11. Drainage 12. Shade 13. Neighborhood support 1. Traffic Safety. Applicant requests a variance for his driveway, allowing him to make it shorter. Several families living on Bella Vista Avenue testified at the 10 -12 -11 Planning Commission hearing that the driveway(s) for this project are dangerous to children, joggers, bicyclists, young drivers, Mothers shuttling their High School children to school early in the morning, and basically anyone codling down the road. The road curves, the view is blocked; it's guesswork pulling out. Several Planning Commissioners seemed concerned. This application has been pending for over five (5) years, yet no one in Planning identified the problem, let alone attempted to solve it. I'll spare you the legalese on roadway and roadside safety, the Town has an attorney who should be well familiar with the concept of negligence and /or deliberate misconduct. In sum, the Town of Los Gatos is obligated to make our streets reasonably safe. It is now on notice that if anyone gets hurt as a result of this traffic condition, the Town of Los Gatos will be held accountable in a Courtroom. Let's hope they are only minor injuries, with ample coverage ... and do not involve children. t = a 2. Lot Line Change. The proposed lot line change is illegal. (State: Gov. Code §66412(d); Los Gatos General Plan: "Lot line adjustments are reviewed according to Section 66412(d) of the Government Code of the State of California... . If the lots are currently nonconforming as to size, they cannot become more nonconforming (smaller)." 2 Aside from that illegality (above), the representations made by Applicant to the Planning Committee (10- 12 -11) that the lot line change is designed to save a protected tree appear to be an outright lie, not a mistake. (Exhibit 2) By design, the lot line moves North, taking land from Lot 2, giving it to Lot 1. The new lot line will pass through the center of a large, protected Oak Applicant was not allowed to cut down. (Tree #2) What Lot 2 gave up was unusable land — the building footprint for Lot 2 could not be placed in the Southern-most part of the lot beyond its own 8'- Southern setback from the same tree. With the new lot line, Lot 1 now has an 8'- Northside setback. Without this gift, the proposed home on Lot l simply would not fit. In essence, between Applicant and his cousin, they agreed to share the area dedicated as unbuildable because they could not get.permission to cut down that tree. This tactic, this gift to Lot 1, still leaves Lot l a non - conforming lot. Credibility is always an issue when discretion is being exercised. The Town should not disregard' this charade between family members to make themselves appear to be friends of the environment ... or this Town; they are neither. a I can not provide you with a citation of the Los Gatos regulation from which I take this quote. I can not figure it out from the Town's website. Instead, see Exhibit 13. 3 The proposed 17' foundation "cuts into the hillside for both homes, each —8' from this old /large /sprawling tree (44.6 inch trunk diameter @ 3', 45 -65' canopy), will kill it, anyway. (02 -08 -05 Arborist's Report @ pg. 17, Tree #2) M t 3. Grading Standards. 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) (Emphasis added) HDS &G @ pg. 17 The Applicant proposes two (2) grade cuts totaling 17 feet The first is 4'/2'. Three (3) feet later, another 12 1 /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 6 -10' of the downhill edge of the house sticks up —6' above the natural slope, indicating the cuts should be even more drastic. The above passage from the HDS &G is a "Standard;" full compliance must be demonstrated (HDS &G, Standards versus Guidelines, page 3) "These are maximum numbers ..." (above) Per the HDS &G, only a reduction to this "maximum" is allowed. (See above) Accordingly, what Applicant seeks is not within the authority of the Town to provide. Note: The elevation diagrams, e.g. A -6, provided by Britt /Rowe, do not accurately depict the slope, ergo the "cuts." Instead, they depict homes on a 30 slope. The average slope is conceded to be +50 °, with Lot 2 being +60 °. Use a protractor (provided) and see if it makes a difference in how you look at this excavation. (Exhibit 11) The proposed "cuts" clearly demonstrate that the proposed construction is inappropriate for this site — the two (2) proposed homes will not blend with the contours of this +50 hillside - +60° for Lot 2 - but instead, stick out grotesquely. 7 4. Building height, bulk, & mass. a. Height. Standards: 1. The maximum allowed height for homes in hillside areas shall be 25 feet Building height shall be measured in compliance with provisions of the Town's Zoning Ordinance. 2. The maximum allowed height is a building's tallest elevation shall not exceed 35 feet measured from the lowest part of the building to the highest part, except buildings extending above a ridgeline or that are visible from a viewing platform where the maximum height from the lowest to highest points shall not exceed 28 feet 3. Ridgeline and visible homes shall not extend more than 18 feet above the existing _ rg ade 4. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure, excluding cellars, shall not be more than four feet above the existing grade to ensure that buildings follow slopes. 5. Three -story elevations are prohibited. (Emphasis added) HDS &G @ pgs. 35 -36 The height of these proposed homes from the rear base to the 2 nd floor roofline is 36'; 8' above the "shall not exceed" limit. (See #1 & 2, above) Applicant's architect, Britt /Rowe, says: "There is no view of the site from Downtown, Hwy 9 corridor, Hwy 17 or other viewpoints given its location." (Undated letter stamped "RECEIVED" 09- 01 -07) You most certainly can see them from Hwy 9, and had Applicant properly "netted" the property, you could see it even better. The houses are not supposed to extend more than 18' above the existing grade (# 3, above), yet, by design, much of the house is close to 25' above existing grade. (A -7 Diagram) The "existing grade" (and foundation) at the downhill -most point is —6' below the lowest part of the house — it's elevated by that —6'. (See #4, above) With the attached garage, these houses are three (3) story structures. (See #5, above) 0 b. Bulk & mass. Standards: 1. Buildings shall be designed to minimize bulk, mass and volume so as not to be prominently visible from a distance or from surrounding properties. 2. Buildings shall be designed t o _conform to the natural tonoaraphv of the site and run with the contours. Blending with the existing terrain reduces the appearance of bulk. (Emphasis added — the whole thing) HDS &G @ pg. 36 Lot 2's front -yard setback is only 5 /z'. The downhill setback at the Northern- most point is only 12'. The home is 36' tall; its downhill foundation starts at the ceiling level of our 2" floor living room. You can't stuff more home into such a narrow lot, nor make it any more prominent for the downhill residents — we can wave to them from our bed. As to the rest of Los Gatos, these chesty houses will be clearly visible. As to mitigation, trees are not viable cover for these homes, even really big ones, because, inter alia, there is no space between them and the downhill trail for them to grow. With respect to the design "conform[ing/ to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours, ( #2, above) this project is depicted in the "Don't do this" diagrams under this section. (HDS &G @ pg. 37 & 41) Applicant recognized the fact that this project was an elephant before he bought it. He knew the previous owner of this property sold it because he could not get his proposed project approved (2000 — 2003) in large part because it exceeded the FAR. (Exhibit 3) I believe the prior home proposed was smaller than either of Applicant's proposed homes and was to cover both lots. To sidestep the HDS &G "standards" (above) and the same problems the prior owner encountered that were re- iterated to him by Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner, Applicant has been making friends with Town employees. ANYONE standing on the trail at the foot of these lots, looking up, understands my point. You have an obligation to orient yourself to this problem before making decisions on it — it's not too inconvenient to do so, the lots are within walking distance of Town Hall. I 5. Set - backs. Lot 2 is 5 1 /2 ' from the front property line. They claim it's 12 1 /2' from the rear property line but that includes 5' of the gravel walkway /trail at the base of the hill that drops (80 °) 3 -5' from the natural grade of the hill. The topsoil is so soft that the 3 -5' drop crumbles down to the trail. Aside from stuffing the house into a narrow property, there is no mention of a retaining wall at the base. "To limit the intensity of new development ... " "Building setbacks shall increase as mass and height increase." (Emphasis added; Gen. Plan, CD -2, 2.1) If the application is to build homes 3 -4 times the FAR, increasing the setbacks is more appropriate; in fact, it's mandated ( "shall "). To gauge what is appropriate, here, start with a FAR -sized home and work up. Applicant requests set -back waivers /variances of 50 -90% of minimum Standards set for homes anticipated to be 25 -30% (per FAR) the size of those proposed. 4 I threw in "Height" to give this panel a better concept of "stuffing." Also consider the project's downhill foundation is 15 -20' above our foundation, and starts just below our 3` floor. The height standard listed above is per HDS &G @ pgs. 35 -36. W61 Lot 2 339 Lot 1 341 Required (29.40.270) Front 5.5' 7' 15' Rear 12' 25' 25' Northside 12.6' 8' 20' Southside 8' 2' 20' Hei ht 36' 36' 28' Lot 2 is 5 1 /2 ' from the front property line. They claim it's 12 1 /2' from the rear property line but that includes 5' of the gravel walkway /trail at the base of the hill that drops (80 °) 3 -5' from the natural grade of the hill. The topsoil is so soft that the 3 -5' drop crumbles down to the trail. Aside from stuffing the house into a narrow property, there is no mention of a retaining wall at the base. "To limit the intensity of new development ... " "Building setbacks shall increase as mass and height increase." (Emphasis added; Gen. Plan, CD -2, 2.1) If the application is to build homes 3 -4 times the FAR, increasing the setbacks is more appropriate; in fact, it's mandated ( "shall "). To gauge what is appropriate, here, start with a FAR -sized home and work up. Applicant requests set -back waivers /variances of 50 -90% of minimum Standards set for homes anticipated to be 25 -30% (per FAR) the size of those proposed. 4 I threw in "Height" to give this panel a better concept of "stuffing." Also consider the project's downhill foundation is 15 -20' above our foundation, and starts just below our 3` floor. The height standard listed above is per HDS &G @ pgs. 35 -36. W61 6. Floor Area Ratio ( "FAR") A. Design Objectives: Maximum allowed gross floor area. The maximum allowable gross floor area for homes subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines is determined using a floor area ratio (FAR) adjusted for slope as provided in Table 1, below. However, achieving the maximum floor area allowed is not guaranteed due to individual site constraints. The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than designing to the FAR The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square footage is not a goal. Greater weight shall be given to issues, including but not limited to, height, building mass and scale, visual impacts, grading and compatibility. (Emphasis added) HDS &G @ pg. 27 Allowable floor area for a 5240 sq. ft. lot (currently 4,106 sq. ft. Lot) on a concededly 50° slope (it's steeper) is 723 sq. ft. The Applicant proposes to build a 2728 sq. ft. home — four (4) times the maximum allowed. (Note: the proposed cellars do not meet the definition set forth in Resolution 2002 -167. All of that space must be included in the FAR comparison. And further note: Applicant has a history of miscalculating it. (.EXHIBIT 3)) The FAR adjustment increases as the slope increases, i.e. 10 -20° slope = 10% adjustment, 20 -30° slope = 30% adjustment, and tops out at 30° slope, i.e. 30 40 , 60°, 80° slope, same adjustment — 60 %. Lot 2 of the project has a +60° slope. Applicant admits the average slope for the two (2) lots is +50 °. Is the winning argument: the steeper the slope the greater the need for disregarding the FAR adjustment? Based on the Planning Department recommendations, it is. The HDS &G dictate otherwise. Here, Applicant wants FAR completely eliminated. Oh, but wait: Exceptions to maximum floor area. The Town Council or Planning Commission may approve residential projects greater than the maximum allowed floor area (but it is not guaranteed) whela all of the following conditions apply 1. The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms. 2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors. 3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or any accessory building will be minimized. 4. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met. ... 9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. (Emphasis added) HDS &G @ pg. 29 -30 The Planning Commission /Town Council may not approve residential projects in excess of the FAR without satisfying items 1 -9, above — all of them. Here, at least five of nine (5 of 9) conditions, above itemized, cannot be met. (Also see 29.40.075(c)) As to Applicant's plea: I just want to be treated like the owners of 145 Bella Vista Avenue. Who wouldn't? Recall, that applicant pulled a fast one (1) by demanding adherence to the Town Code to get approval of two (2) cellars for one (1) house thus eliminating 2053 square feet of area from the FAR. They forced removal from the FAR calculation more living area than they had to claim. 145 Bella Vista Avenue is not a fair comparison because: 1. Two (2) cellars, eliminating 2053 sq. ft. from FAR. ( "... Mr. Kennedy is pushing the envelope .. . 11 -0 1 -0 1 Hearing Trans. 228:19 -20) 2. 24 slope (versus 50 -60° slope). 3. FAR, as written, was strictly enforced. 4. Built before HDS &G enacted. 5. Downhill is a baseball field (no residents). 6. Minimal tree removal. 5 Two (2) cellars; that was a good one, prompting the Town to change the definition of a cellar. 12 � 6 I 1 7. Architectural Design for Privacy and Respect for Neighbors: A. Design Objectives The standards and guidelines in this section are intended to encourage architectural design that is: 1. in harmony and visually blends with the natural environment, 2. responsive to site constraints and opportunities, 3. compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and respectful of neighbors and 4. respectful of the rural character of the hillside (Emphasis added) HDS &G @ pg. 31 The proposed homes are contrary to items 1 — 4, above. These homes are not in harmony with anything or anybody; they are stuffed into our backyards, towering over us, pointed directly into our bedrooms that are on the 3 floor. Highlighting /explaining the abuse and disregard for items 1 — 4, above, would add +20 pages to this letter. A quick visit to the site by those responsible to vote on the project would serve the same purpose. B. Design to be neighbor friendly. Protecting the privacy of the neighboring homes is a high priority in the siting and design of a new house or addition. The following design standards shall be followed to the greatest extent feasible to ensure privacy to surrounding neighbors. Standards: 1. Privacy impacts shall be addressed and resolved during the constraints analysis phase and initial design stage, not with mitigation measures imposed as an afterthought. Sight lines shall be studied so that windows and outdoors areas are placed to maintain privacy. 1.1 Guidelines: 1. The following design guidelines should be implemented to the greatest degree feasible where privacy impacts are of concern; a. Minimize second -story windows facing close neighbors properties. b. Orient upper floor windows, decks, and balconies to avoid impacting the privacy of neighbors. c. Incorporate screening measure (e.g., solid railing walls, lattice work, or planters) to obscure lines of sight to neighboring properties d. Limit the size of decks and balconies to six feet in depth in areas where privacy is a concern. This will limit their use to passive activities. e. Use landscaping to screen view to your neighbor's living areas most sensitive to privacy. Use evergreen trees and shrubs to provided year round privacy. f. Existing vegetation that protect privacy should not be removed. g. Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities, and mechanical equipment (e.g., air conditioning and pool equipment). h. Locate outdoor activity areas adjacent to neighbors' out door activity areas rather than in close proximity areas (bedrooms). (Emphasis added) HDS &G @ pg. 32 "Privacy impacts," are "standards" - they must be (aka "shall ") "addressed" and "resolved." They were "addressed" in the MND dated June 2011 (Exhibit 8), but not "resolved." The audacity of the MND "resolutions" listed is not surprising having dealt with their ilk in other settings. That Planning Department personnel could walk the project and agree with their report /declaration absolutely amazes me. Seriously, it's not possible. With respect to the Guidelines (items a -h, above), due to the placement of each home, none of these guideline "resolutions" will eliminate or even alleviate the privacy invasion — the proposed homes are too close; the proposed homes are too big - we will be intimately familiar with their daily activities, and they ours. I addressed most of these items, and voiced my opinion of the reliability of the Mitigated Negative Declaration in a letter dated 07- 01 -11, previously submitted. (Exhibit 9) 14 In my letter to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department, dated 07- 01 -11, I addressed the issue of these homes being a nuisance within the definition of the California Civil Code. It bears repeating: "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." (Cal. Civil §3479). Approving either of these homes is relegating us to living in a fishbowl. I think that qualifies as a nuisance. 8. Tree Preservation Standards: 1. Existing trees shall be preserved and protected in compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Regulations and any additional tree protection specifications adopted by the town. HDS &G @ pg. 54 The arborist's report indicates that 13 of 20 "regulated" trees, including 3 -4 Black Oaks over 100 years old, can be eliminated — they say they are diseased. "Degenerative diseases" are not really diseases, they're a sign of aging, e.g. degenerative disc disease. Five (5) more trees will be "adversely impacted" by the construction ... so they, too, will be dead. These trees add character to our Town and our neighborhoods (uphill and downhill). Because you can cut them down does not mean you should. In their place will be two (2) spanking new, fat -faced homes staring down over the Town and our complex ... separating the two (2) surviving trees (of 20). Also see 07 -01 -11 correspondence re: MND (Exhibit 9, pg. 6) G In City of Monte SeMno v. Padgett (2007) 149 Cal.App.4' 1530, the City alleged that the height of a fence and location of a few trees was a nuisance. I think I can make my case, here. 7 With the proposed Grading (See: "3. Grading Standards," supra), one (1) of the two (2) trees allowed to live (Tree #2) will be dead without the need to cut it down, other than for firewood. In essence, of 20 "regulated trees," only one (1) will survive the construction. 1 5 9. Geological Hazards: Standards: 2. Construction shall be avoided in areas with geological hazards (e.g., slope instability seismic hazards, etc.) as identified in the in the site specific geological investigations and reports, unless adequate mitigation design measures are proposed to achieve a low level of risk. HDS &G @ pg. 23 The hillsides of Los Gatos are notoriously soft. In the Town's file, the Geological Report compares the project site with the visible portion of the Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road directly beneath Bella Vista Avenue (overpass area). The pictures within the report clearly show soft dirt twenty feet (20') deep. Bedrock appears to be something deeper than 22 feet — the maximum depth of their borings — so we do not know where the bedrock is (how deep ?). Several geological reports in the Town's file itemize serious concerns about the area and insufficient data being provided, all of which concerns are eventually blown off with a simple: no problem. The proposed two (2) houses will cut away the alluvial soil in two (2) large swatches, each —60' x 30', with "cuts" up to 17' deep. Lot 2 is only 50' deep. Couple this removal with the need to remove surface vegetation for a good distance to each side of the two (2) houses. We have two (2) homes in soft dirt. Worse, the project weakens the hill's slide resistance. Bella Vista Avenue residents, the road itself, and the downhill complex — ours — are at risk. 10. Fire Hazards: Standards: 1. Building locations shall be selected and structures designed to minimize exposure to wildfires. 3. Development shall have adequate fire access. 4. A dependable and adequate water supply for fire protection and suppression purposes, as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, shall be provided for all properties ... HDS &G @ pg. 24 8 "Alluvial soil" is sediment deposited by moving water. 16 1 1 Guidelines: 1. Development shall avoid areas subject to severe fire danger. In order to achieve this, development should: a. be set back from the crest of the hill b. not be located at the top of a canyon c. not to be located on or adjacent to slopes greater than 30 °. d. not be located within densely wooded areas HDS &G @ pg. 25 The applicable area is at the crest of a ridge and slopes downward in excess of 50° (60° for Lot-2). Access to the back of these proposed homes is poor, at best — only via a narrow, gravel, downhill trail running parallel with the rear —face of these homes. The trail has no water supply. A fire at either of the proposed homes would likely burn both of them to the ground, then run downhill to the Maggi Ct. Properties, less than 25 feet away. Because of the steep slope and limited access, the back of these homes is secure from fire fighting equipment and effort. Applicant may have solved the tree -fire issue by cutting them all down, however, the house -fire issue remains. Has the Fire Department been consulted? It's not in the Report. ' Note: the proposed homes would be approximately 25 feet away laterally and tower over the condos on Maggi Court, making it an easy jump for ambers. Trees between us — for privacy ?? (proposed but not functional idea) - that would only enhance the threat/risk. 17 11. Drainage Standards: 1. Runoff shall be dispersed within the subject property to the greatest extent feasible. Runoff concentrated that requires larger drainage facilities shall be avoided. 2. Upslope drainage shall not negatively impact downslope development. 3. Natural drainage courses shall be preserved with any native vegetation intact and shall be enhanced to the extent possible, and shall be incorporated as an integral part of the site design in order to preserve the natural character of the area. HDS &G @ pg. 21 The roofs of these two (2) houses are massive (combined area of +3024 sq. ft.) During the rainy season we can expect substantial runoff to a drainage system. Doubtful it will be pumped uphill to Bella Vista Avenue, but instead, allowed to run downhill using a gravitational system ... and into our complex. With respect to the vegetation currently protecting us from excessive drainage, it will be gone, e.g. most of Lot 2 (60 -70 %) will be covered by the building with the balance being cleared away from the homes. A quick rejection of this argument is cavalier. It was certainly an issue in a less threatening site addressed by Suzanne Davis Senior Planner. (Also see "HDS &G - Inconsistent Enforcement," infra) 10 Note: the Town file reflects uphill pumping of sewage /drainage. Again, doubtful. Regardless, if the pump fails, or is not turned on, this water (and sewage ?) will flow freely into our back yards ... along with a good portion of the hillside. 19 12. Shade. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA; 14 Cal. Code of Regs. § 15070) requires a shade /shadow report. A Negative Declaration is required. (Pub. Res. Code §21080) Casting a shadow over our residence for "more than three (3) hours" is presumed to have a "significant" impact on us. If the shadow /shade lasts only 21/2 hours and therefore not technically "significant," what is it? Inconsequential? The Shadow Study diagram (A -9; Exhibit 12) is not accurate. First, the lines depicting sun rays in Winter are bass - ackwards. They have the sun higher at 9:00 a.m. than at 12:00 p.m. Second, the 12:00 noon angle shows 30 °; the 339 Bella Vista home towers +50' above us, that keeps the shadow on our home. Third, the diagram is supposed to depict how the shadows affect the buildings around them; no buildings are depicted. We are only 25' away. Please see comp. (Exhibit 12) Finally, Mary read a Shadow Report written by Geier & Geier that was in the Town's file. It reported shadows on our property for in excess of three (3) hours. She asked for a copy. Suzanne Davis refused to provide her with a copy. That report is no longer in the Town's file. (Also see "HDS &G - Inconsistent Enforcement," infra, for further Suzanne Davis references) 13. Neighborhood support. Of the 69 pages of public comments made part of the 10 -12 -11 Planning Committee meeting record (Exhibit 11 of Hearing record), not one (1) neighbor supports this project. 10 HDS &G - Inconsistent Enforcement Dan Ross is the primary, if not exclusive applicant on this project. The other named owner is his cousin who lives in Utah and probably not involved, at all. Pre -Dan Ross history of this site is appropriate. The Planning Department of Los Gatos stated: COMMENTS /CONCERNS: 11. The Town sets a high priority in preserving its hillsides, natural views, and the character if its neighborhoods. This site is in a very visible location that has the potential to greatly impact these views and the character of this neighborhood. The Planning Department can not recommend approval of the design as submitted because of its potential to greatly impact these views, is not in keeping with the residences in the area, and has potential privacy impacts with the residences of the Bella Vista Development that is now under construction. The applicant should consult with an architect to develop a design that addresses the massiveness of the rear elevation, articulates the bulk of the second story from the lower story, minimizes privacy and view impacts, minimizes grading and retaining walls, and preserves the sites existing trees. ... (Emphasis added) Bella Vista Proj. App. PRJ -97 -020 Ree: 02 -12 -97 Similar concerns were voiced by the MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL on April 3, 2003 DISCUSSION The Planning Commission considered this matter on February 26, 2003 The Planning Commission unanimously denied the appeal due to lack of progress. The Commission further directed M the applicant to, should they resubmit an application, incorporate the following: Merge the two lots, APN 529 -23 -015 and 529 -23 -016; Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot; ... (Emphasis added) Mr. Ross knew or should have known the history of this property when he purchased it on or about 12 -23 -04 for the focused purpose of building on it. He's a seasoned developer of SFD (He has owned +10 homes in Santa Clara County and developed several). In 2005 -2006, Mr. Ross' (Applicant's) Application — this project — was reviewed by Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner. Among the "DEFICIENCIES" he noted: 06 -14 -06 (Exhibit 3) 2. Reduced driveway variance 3. FAR calculation is not correct 4. Max height exceeded 9. Cellar exception to FAR incorrectly calculated 12. Provide a Letter of Justification/Description detailing how the proposed project is compatible with surrounding neighborhood, complies with HDS &G, complies with the General Plan. Justification for the variance, reduction in required setbacks, and exceeding the FAR is also necessary. 13. Speak to the neighbors (he did not) Mr. Paulson, Assistant Planner, was taken off the case and it was assigned ( ?) to Suzanne Davis Appropriate, here, is the attitude Suzanne Davis — and this Town — had toward enforcing the HDS &G circa 2006, prior to her taking the Dan Ross project. In a project she was assigned from before 05 -08 -06 until 09 -24 -08 (107 Colorado Court, Los Gatos), a vacant lot way up in the hills, a SFD project objectionable to possibly one (1) neighbor from afar, her report to the Planning Commission (05- 08 -06; Exhibit 4) recites the same, numerous objections I set forth, above; she quotes the same nine (9) "criteria for allowing an exception to the FAR" and references that Applicant to the 11 same HDS &G as apply here. (Ibid; 05 -10 -06 Report, pgs. 4 -5) She says the house proposed is too large (Ibid @ pg. 3), she's concerned about the +30° slope (it wasn't much more, if it was even a 30° slope; Ibid), the height (30') was too great (Ibid @ pg. 5), the grading cuts too deep (less than this project; Ibid), drainage is questionable (Ibid), too many trees will be cut down (fewer than this project; Ibid @ pg. 6), and ironically refers Applicant to specific violations of the HDS &G and General Plan. (Ibid @ pgs 7 -8) You don't see that detail = itemized violations — in her report on Mr. Ross. The Colorado Court Applicant was invited to re- submit plans, which they did. Ms. Davis' response — there was none, the case had been transferred to Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner — the same guy taken off this project. His response was "wake up," comply with the FAR, comply with the HDS &G, and comply with the General Plan. (Exhibit 5; 09 -24 -08 Report) To date, 107 Colorado Court has not been developed. Back to this project; not to be deterred by Mr. Paulson, Assistant Planner, after the initial application of Mr. Ross was denied, instead of modifying his Plans, he becomes a member of the 2020 General Plan Update Advisory Committee. He remained on the Committee through 2010. Mr. Ross was present for every committee meeting I could confirm. Very frequently, almost always, present was Wendie Roonev who, we all recall, signed off on the Environmental Impact Report re: Mitigated Negative Declaration submitted on behalf of Mr. Ross (Exhibit 8) and the 10 -12-11 Staff Report with the "soft approval" recommendation. Also present was Suzanne Davis who, too., signed off on Mr. Ross' "soft approval" Staff Report. In 2010, to further ingratiate himself with those from whom he wants special favors, Mr. Ross completed the Los Gatos Chamber of Commerce Leadership Program. From early 2011 to present, Mr. Ross has been an active member of the North -40 Advisory Committee. A primary member of the North -40 committee is Wendie Roonev I don't have attendance records for this committee but I'd bet Dan Ross was present and helpful as often as he possibly could. Mr. Ross and his wife make it known that they are strong supporters of Council Member Diane McNutt, being named "Individual" endorsers of note in at least one (1) campaign brochure /handout for her November 2010 election. (Exhibit 6) 99 In March 2011, Mr. Ross graciously volunteered his band, The Blue Rockers, to play at a Friends of the Library fundraiser. (Exhibit 7) Mr. Ross and Suzanne Davis are " Facebook friends." GIVE THIS ONE MORE THOUGHT. Dan Ross stands to make a substantial profit from this project ... at our expense — a conflict. The Senior Planner ( Suzanne Davis with oversight responsibilities on this project, has provided or will provide The Town's recommendation on this project. One (1) of them had to ask the other to be my facebook friend. The other had to acknowledge — Yes, I would like that. A developer asked a Town planner? A Town planner asked a developer? Before? Or after the assignment of this project? No scenario bodes well. Mr. Ross advised me — twice (2x) - along with a group of others from our neighborhood, that he was getting help from someone in the Planning Department on this project. Mr. Ross advised me — twice (2x) - along with a group of others from our neighborhood, that he was told by some member of the Planning Department not to bother submitting plans compatible with the FAR on this project. Dan Ross is one (1) of you: a representative of the residents of Los Gatos. OTHER 1. City of Monte Sereno v. Padgett (2007) 149 Cal.App.4 1530 2. Los Gatos Citizens for Responsible Development vs. Town of Los Gatos (09- 14 -11), Case# 1- 11 -CV- 209214 [The Netflix issue] I think we are all aware of the problems created by selective enforcement of the law. And if the Town is not going to enforce the law, do you really want to make all these exceptions for an insider? TI EXHIBITS Exh. # Item 1 Hillside Development areas 2 05 -16 -06 Correspondence: Dan Ross to Town of Los Gatos 3 06 -14 -06 Report — Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner (Bella Vista) 4 05 -08 -06 Report — Suzanne Davis (Colorado Ct) 5 09 -24 -08 Report - Joel Paulson, Assistant Planner (Colorado Ct) 6 November 2010 Election Brochure 7 March 2011 Friends of The Library fundraiser 8 June 2011 EIR: MND 9 07 -01 -11 PKT complaint re: MND 10 12 -15 -11 E -mail re: Submission of Revised Plan 11 Grading diagram (modified) & protractor 12 Shadow diagrams (2) 13 Lot line Regulation — Town of Los Gatos ') 4 7 i CONCLUSION The presentation(s) made to you by Applicant and your own staff is not accurate, not reliable, tainted, not in compliance with the law, and very favorable to a Town insider. For the Town to approve either of these Applications, it must waive virtually every major Hillside Standard it codified and be deliberately complicit in Applicant's invasion of our privacy. The law should be uniformly applied. Using the "Dan Ross Model," one (1) could argue that the HDS &G should not be enforced at all — they certainly did not apply to Dan. I like Town Councilperson Diane McNutt's comment to Wendie Rooney a North -40 advisory committee member and speaker at the hearing of 01- 10 -12: I want a presentation that "reflects the Town's values and priorities." She gets it. Why is this attitude and direction not impressed on Town planners? Or Town advisors (Dan Ross)? The applications should be rejected; the law and integrity of the planning process dictate you do so ( "shall "). Respectfully, Patrick K. Tillman cc: Mary Badame TowndL.osGatos.draft ?5 . . . . . . . . . . . Fil MIT - 4"M 11L I Im I May 16, 2006 To: Town of Los Gatos Planning Department From: Dan Ross Re: Letter of Justification - Single Family Residence with no demolition. I am writing on behalf of myself, owner of 341 Bella Vista Avenue and Mr. Jake Peters; owner of the adjacent lot at 339 Bella Vista Avenue. We have the mutual goal of each building a home, and have decided to pursue this process jointly to achieve some economies of scale as well as present a more cohesive plan to the Town and surrounding neighbors. We'd like to offer the following points: 1) Our plans have,been designed around Town guidelines, fit into FAR requirements and follow the General Plan recommendations. 2) We have taken our design cue from the surrounding homes on Bella Vista, as well as the Townhomes on the downslope of our lots. Our goal is to build homes that successfully integrate into the existing neighborhood. 1. 3) Our "footprint" cue comes from 145 Bella Vista, a more recent approved and constructed home on the same West downslope side of Bella Vista as our lots. 4) After site and tree location /arbodst analysis, we are asking for a lot line adjustment as part of this application. Viewing then lots, it makes sense to move my Northem lot line approximately 15' to the North. This will put one of the large Oak trees on the lot line, between the proposed homes. Our goal is to save this tree, and make two nonconforming lots more equally proportionate, as it relates to the mass and scale of each proposed home and surrounding homes. Mr. Peters and I are in agreement on this. 5) We propose to use fencing /landscaping at the back of our homes between the existing townhomes to mitigate privacy issues and visual impact. There are numerous homes on this side of Bella Vista. We are asking for the same privileges enjoyed by the other properties in this vicinity. We are asking for a front setback variance, due to the downslope of the lot. Town engineering has reviewed this, they have stated that 18' of driveway from garage to edge of pavement is acceptable. Other setbacks are within guidelines. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, L l ' t i � �,, Dan Ross 408 - 314 -5626 PyRa 341 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S -06 -64 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 Requesting approval of a lot line adjustment and to construct a new single family residence which exceeds the allowed Floor Area Ratio and a variance for driveway backup on a nonconforming parcel zoned R -1:8. APN 529 -23 -016 PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Dan Ross PLANNING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS June 14, 2006 This application for Architecture & Site Approval is INCOMPLETE because of the deficiencies and/or concerns noted below: DEFICIENCIES: 1. The property owner needs to sign the application. 2. A Variance is required for the reduced driveway backup. A $2,992.50 fee is required for the Variance application. Please not that this fee will be increased on July 1, 2006. 3. The FAR calculation is not correct, please provide the correct FAR calculation. 4. The maximum height from the lowest point to the highest point is 35'. -It appears that this proposal exceeds this standard. 5. Please provide a table of the existing trees over 4" in diameter including size, species, canopy -_ spread, and whether they are proposed to be removed or saved. 6. Please show the height to existing or proposed grade on all elevations, whichever grade is lower. Label existing and proposed grade. 7. Please fill out a Single Family Residential Data Sheet (Attached), 8. Please provide a color and materials board. Proposed colors shall not exceed an LRV of 30 and shall blend with the surrounding vegetation. A deed restriction for the exterior color will be required. 9. Any portion of the cellar area that is 4' above grade counts as floor area. It appears that most of the proposed cellar area will be counted as floor area. 10. You should continue the sections to show the roadway. 3 sections for each home shouyld be provided and make sure the section references are accurate. 11. The cellar stairway connections need to be explained further. 12. Please provide Letter of Justification/Description detailing how the proposed project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, complies with the Hillside Design Guidelines, complies with the General Plan. Justification for the Variance, reduction in required setbacks, and exceeding the FAR is also necessary. Include a neighborhood plan showing the square footage of surrounding homes. 13. You should speak with the neighbors to address any concerns they may have. 14. Parcel square footage information should be provided pre and post Lot Line Adjustment, 15. Please provide a letter /memo illustrating how you have addressed. all of the . deficiencies /comments included in this document. CVUsIWT Date: Mav 8 2006 For Agenda Of: May 10. 2006 Agenda Item: 4 REPORT TO: The Planning Commission FROM: TK ecto f Community Development LOCATION: Site Application S -06 -022 R)kquestingApproval to construct a new single family residence on property zoned APN 527 -56 -033. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Stewart and Colette Fahmy FINDINGS: None CONSIDERATIONS: ® As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architecture and Site applications. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. ENVIRONMENTAL It has been determined that the project could have significant impacts on ASSESSMENT: the environment. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration will be prepared prior to final consideration of the project. EXHIBITS: A. Location map (one page) B. Considerations for the review of A &S applications (three pages) C. Letter from Dawn & David Andersen (one page), received October 14, 2005 D. Letter from Vernon & Sherian Plaskett (one page), received October 19, 2005 E. Letter from Jack & Laurie Goldstein (one page), received March 28, 2006 F. Letters from Jerry S. Glembocki (two pages each), received October 17, 2005 and April 11, 2006 G. Letter from Robert & Judith Kuechler (one page), received April 11, 2006 H. Letter from Janet Mushet (two pages), received April 18, 2006 I. Project data sheet (one page) J. Applicant's letter (two pages), received April 20, 2006 K. Development plans (7 sheets), received April 12, 2006 The Planning Commission - Page 2 107 Colorado Court/5 -06 -22 May 10, 2006 A. BACKGROUND Site Description The subject property is located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of . Santa Rosa Drive (see Exhibit A). The are a number of large oak trees located within the proposed building site and the majority of the lot has slopes greater than 30 %, making it extremely challenging to develop. Although the property is 40,075 square feet, the allowable floor area is 4,300 square feet due to the applicable slope reduction. Previous Approval In 1997, the Development Review Committee approved plans for a new 5,923 square foot house with a 909 square foot garage and a swimming pool. However, that application expired in 1999 and is no longer valid. The approval was made prior to the adoption of the new General Plan in 2000 and prior to the adoption of the new Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines Chronology of Project 9/28/2005 Architecture and Site application filed (staff met with the applicant on several occasions prior to submittal). 10/12/2005 Staff Technical Review meeting. Many concerns were raised and many technical deficiencies were identified. 10/20/2005 Meeting between applicant, architect and staff (including Randy Tsuda, Assistant Community Development Director). 3/13/2006 Applicant submitted preliminary plan revisions in response to technical review comments and staff concerns. 4/4/2006 Meeting between applicant, architect and staff (including Bud Lortz, Community Development Director). Applicant was informed that staff could not support the proposed project. 4/12/2006 Revised plans submitted for referral to Planning Commission. 4/18/2006 Development Review Committee meeting. Status of Project Staff has advised the applicant on numerous occasions that the plans are in need of major revisions to comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (HDS &G). Staff typically tries to work with an applicant to evolve a project to the point where it can be approved or approved with conditions. While the applicant has reduced the overall house size from that of the initial submittal, the project remains significantly noncompliant with the HDS &G. The applicant believes that the project has merit, that it is consistent with other homes within the Alta Vista subdivision, and does not wish to reduce the house size further. The Planning Commission - Page 3 107 Colorado Court/S -06 -22 May 10, 2006 Staff has forwarded the plans and supporting information to the Planning Commission so that direction can be provided to the applicant fora significant redesign of the project or the application can be denied. The ' technical and peer reviews (includes arborist, architect, geotechnical and environmental evaluations) have not been completed in the interest of saving the applicant time and expense and saving staff and Town consultants from expending significant time to completely analyze plans that are significantly noncompliant with the,HDS &G. Recommended conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. If the Commission decides to remand the project for significant redesign, the technical reviews and evaluations and conditions of approval will be completed before the application is returned to the Commission for final action. B. REMARKS Exhibit I provides general project data. The applicant has also submitted a letter of justification (see Exhibit J). Staff has summarized the main issues relative to the proposed project for the Commission's consideration and discussion as follows: House Size The proposal is for a 5,775 square foot house with an attached 1,230 square foot garage. The total floor area is 6,605 square feet excluding 400 square feet of the garage. In addition, there are 1,875 square feet of covered terraces and porches. The total floor area exceeds the maximum allowable FAR of 4,400 square feet (4,800 square feet including the 400 square foot garage exemption). Most of the property consists of slopes in excess of 30% and a new home cannot be built within the least restrictive development area (LRDA) of the site. However, Staff believes the encroachment outside the LRDA should be minimized as much as possible and that the size of house is too large for the site. The proposed project is located predominantly on slopes in excess of 30 %, impacting most of the mature oaks trees and requiring a significant amount of grading and retaining walls. The Planning Commission - Page 4 107 Colorado Court/S -06 -22 May 10, 2006 The following table compares the proposed residence with other homes on Colorado Court. Address house garage total sq. ft. lot size FAR 471 Santa Rosa Drive 9,305 822 10,127 46,174 0.22 108 Colorado Court 5,542 822 6,370 41,818 0.15 109 Colorado Court 4,578 1,020 5,598 45,302 0.12 111 Colorado Court 4,798 1,008 5,806 88,427 0.07 112 Colorado Court 5,239 780 6,019 42,253 0.14 114 Colorado Court 3 ,896 611 4,507 50,030 0.09 I x average 5,560 844 6,405 - 0.13 107 1 Colorado Court 5,775 1,230 7,005 40,075 1 0.17 The house at 471 Santa Rosa is not representative of the average home size within the Alta Vista subdivision and does not meet current hillside requirements. At the time the house was approved, both the Commission and Town Council indicated that it would not be supportive of a future project that is similar in size, scale and massing to this home. Even with this house included the applicant's proposal exceeds the neighborhood average for house and garage size and FAR. As stated in the HDS &G, achieving the maximum floor area is not guaranteed due to individual site constraints. The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than designing to the FAR. The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square footage is not a goal. Greater weight will be given to issues including but not limited to height, building mass and scale, visual impacts, grading and compatibility. Criteria for allowing an exception to maximum allowed floor area (pages 29 and 30 of the HDS &G) is as follows: 1. The development will not be visible from any of the established viewing platforms. 2. There will be no significant impacts on protected trees, wildlife habitat or movement corridors. 3. Any grading necessary to accommodate the building area that exceeds the allowed FAR or an accessory building will be minimized. 4. All standards and applicable guidelines are being met. The Planning Commission - Page 5 107 Colorado Court/5 -06 -22 May 10, 2006 5. Compliance to Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards are shown using computer methods. The compliance margin must be at least 10.0. 6. The house will be pre -wired for future photovoltaic (PV) installation. 7. A minimum of 25% of hardscape material is permeable (certain types of interlocking pavers, grasscrete, pervious concrete, etc.). 8. A significant cellar element is included in the design, unless it conflicts with other standards. 9. There will not be a significant visual impact to neighboring properties. The project does not comply with items 2, 3, 4 and 8. The Commission should discuss these issues and provide direction on the overall bulk and mass, the size of the proposed home and the overall development area. Building Height The proposed house is 30 feet eight- inches at the highest point. This exceeds the 30 foot height limit established by the Zoning Ordinance and would require approval of a variance. The maximum height allowed by the HDS &G is 25 feet, and any increase in height would require approval of an exception. Swimming Pool The proposed pool is located on a slope that exceeds 30% which is prohibited by the HDS &G. The HDS &G also states that due to topographic constraints not every lot will be able to accommodate a pool. The applicant should eliminate the pool. Grading Cuts in excess of the HDS &G grading criteria are required to construct the proposed house, driveway and pool. The standards allow a maximum cut of eight feet, excluding cellars within the house footprint, and a four foot maximum cut in all other areas. A cut of 15 -feet is proposed in the northwest house corner and a high stem wall is proposed. The driveway requires a 14 -foot fill and fill depths of up to 10 feet are proposed around the rear deck (three feet is allowed by the HDS &G). The Planning Commission - Page 6 107 Colorado Court/S -06 -22 May 10, 2006 Estimated grading volumes total 2,126 cubic yards (596 cubic yards of cut and 1,530 cubic yards of fill). The grading break down is shown in the following table: Retaining Walls The table on the following page shows that retaining walls have been limited to less than five feet; however there are numerous walls needed to support the proposed design and the total length of the walls is significant. Generally when a large number of retaining walls are needed, the development is not appropriate for the site. Drainage Roof rainwater leaders will be required to be discharged onto energy dissipaters that are designed to spread out the water so it enters landscaped areas as sheet flow. Runoff from the site should not be collected into a pipe system, concentrated and discharged down slope as shown. Provisions for drainage behind the retaining walls will also be required. Tl '� "',7 °^F , �� .,+ El m o e , NINE ,u..n.aA ,S.. G u,.( l and sc a pin g Retaining Walls The table on the following page shows that retaining walls have been limited to less than five feet; however there are numerous walls needed to support the proposed design and the total length of the walls is significant. Generally when a large number of retaining walls are needed, the development is not appropriate for the site. Drainage Roof rainwater leaders will be required to be discharged onto energy dissipaters that are designed to spread out the water so it enters landscaped areas as sheet flow. Runoff from the site should not be collected into a pipe system, concentrated and discharged down slope as shown. Provisions for drainage behind the retaining walls will also be required. The Planning Commission - Page 7 107 Colorado Court/S -06 -22 May 10, 2006 Trees There are lb Coast Live Oaks on the site that are concentrated on the front half of the property. Eleven of the oak trees are proposed to be removed, and two others will be severely impacted by construction. Three of the oaks can potentially be saved .under the proposed plan. The Consulting Arborist has not yet evaluated the plans to evaluate the feasibility of maintaining any of the existing trees. Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS &G: • The house and driveway have not been sited within the LRDA. • The overall square footage exceeds the maximum allowed and justification is not sufficient to grant an exception. • The height limitation is being exceeded by five .feet. • Amount of development is extensive (building area is extremely limited by site constraints); the site may not be able to support the proposed pool. • Tree removals are significant. • Total grading volume is significant and cut and fill criteria has been exceeded. • Extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to construct the proposed project. General Plan Conformance The project may be in conflict with the following policies and implementing strategies from the General Plan: L.P.8.4 Emphasize preserving the natural land forms by minimizing grading. Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the property. L.P.8.8 Existing specimen trees shall be preserved and protected as a part of any development proposal. L.I.8.10 Hillside Design Standard: Houses shall be designed to step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads. CD.P.2.3 Mass Grading in New Construction: Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided. Siting of the house must consider natural topography. The Planning Commission - Page 8 107 Colorado Court/5 -06 -22 May 10, 2006 CD.P.2.4 Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures up and down the hillside, a maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation following the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. CD.P.2.6 Hillside landscaping: Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the following goals in mind: A. Preservation and use of native /natural vegetation D. Following the natural topography E. Preservation of natural trees, vegetation C. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission should deny this application because a complete redesign is required for the project to comply with the HDS &G. However, the Commission may refer this application back to staff with specific direction to the applicant for desired plan changes. If the Commission finds merit with the proposed development to the extent that it could be approved through redesign staff suggests direction be provided on the following issues: • house size • house height • overall development area • pool/outdoor area • grading • retaining walls • tree removals The Commission may identify additional issues that have not been raised by staff. If the application is continued staff recommends that a hearing date not be specified as the length of time to complete the technical and peer reviews cannot be determined at this time. The applicant will be charged for the cost of the additional public notice. If the Commission decides to deny the application, findings for denial should be made. The Commission's input on the key issues would be helpful to the Council in the event an appeal is filed. The Planning Commission - Page 9 107 Colorado Court/5 -06 -22 May 10, 2006 Prepared by: Suzanne Davis, Associate Planner Vu -Bang Nguyen, Assistant Planner Approved by: Bud N. Lortz, Director of Community Development BNL:SD:mdc cc: Stewart & Colette Fahmy, 331 Santa Rosa Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Cherine Bassal Planning & Design, 4912 Bradford Place, Rocklin, CA 95765 N:\DEV\SUZANNE\PC\REPORTS \colorado 107 \Colorado 107- A &S.wpd k . TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT cos u io Meeting Date: September 24, 2008 PREPARED BY: Joel Paulson, AICP Associate Planner APPLICATION NO.: Planned Development S -08 -011 ITEM NO.: 3 STUDY SESSION LOCATION: 107 Colorado Court (Located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of Santa Rosa Drive) APPLICANT: Preston Scott Cohen PROPERTY OWNER: Sarwat and Colette rahrny CONTACT PERSON: Scott Cohen (617) 441 -2110 APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to construct a now residence on property zoned HR -2 1 /2, APN 527 -56 -033 RECOMMENDATION: Provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding the proposed proj ect. PROJECT DATA: ACTION: General Plan Designation: Zoning Designation: Applicable Plans & Standards: Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: Hillside Residential Hillside Residential (HR -21/2) General Plan and Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines 40,075 square feet Provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding the proposed project. EXHRff 5 Existing Land Use General Plan V �Zoning North _} - -- - Re side ntial -- -- - - , T -- - Hillside Residential - -- HR - 2 1/2 East Residential Hillside Residential HR - 2 1/2 Sou R esid e ntial �_Hi �I Re s ide l�tial_ 11_HR-_ 2 1 West 7 _ Resource T Open Space � _ l — - RC Conservation Provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding the proposed project. EXHRff 5 Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 EXHIBITS; 1. Location Map 2. Letter from Jack and Laurie Goldstein (2 pages), dated May 2, 2008 3. Letter from Reza Nikfar, received May 5, 2008 4. Letter from Jerry S. Glembocki (6 pages), received May 5, 2008 5. Letter from applicant (2 pages), dated June 18, 2008 6. Presentation from applicant (29 pages), received August 28, 2008 Development Plans (16 pages), received February 6, 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is proposing to construct a 4,380 square foot residence which contains four levels and includes an attached 853 square foot three-car garage and 2,884 square feet of cellar area, The cellar area is exempt and is not included in the floor area total noted above. Although the property is 40,075 square feet, the allowable floor area is 4,400 square feet for the home and 400 square feet for the garage due to the applicable slope reduction. The garage is accessed from and faces Colorado Court. There are a number of large oak trees located on the property and the majority of the lot has slopes greater than 30 %, making it extremely challenging to develop, General project data is included in Exhibit 5. Additional information has been provided by the applicant in Exhibits 6 and 7 which provides discussion and exhibits illustrating the proposed project and previous proposals. BACKGROUND The subject property is one of two remaining undeveloped lots in the Alta Vista subdivision and is located on the west side of Colorado Court, two lots north of Santa Rosa Drive (see Exhibit 1). Most of the neighborhood was developed in the mud- 1980s, In 1997, plans were approved for a new 5,923 square foot house with a 909 square foot garage and a swimming pool. However, that application expired in 1999 and is no longer valid. The approval was made prior to the adoption of the new General Plan in 2000 and prior to the adoption of the new Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines (HDS &G), On May 10, 2006, the Planning Commission considered an architecture and site application to construct a 5,775 square foot house with an attached 1,230 square foot garage, The total floor area was 7,005 square feet including the garage, The Commission received public testimony and discussed the project. The Commission voted 5 -1 to deny the application based on the following: Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 + The proposed project was not in compliance with the HDS &G. • A complete redesign was needed to bring the project into compliance with the HDS &G. • There was significant neighborhood objection to the proposed project. On ,tune 19, 2006, the Town Council considered an appeal of the Commission's decision, The Council determined that the Commission's decision was correct and denied the appeal. REMARKS This study session was scheduled because staff identified the need for Planning Commission input on high level issues that will impact how the project design evolves. Staff has identified several key issues for the Commission's consideration as discussed below. No formal action on this application is requested at this study session. The technical and peer reviews (includes arborist, architect, geotechnical, and environmental evaluations) have not been completed ill the interest of saving the applicant time and expense and saving staff and Town consultants from expending significant time to completely analyze plans that may need significant redesign. Recommended conditions of approval have not been prepared for the same reason. Staff and its consultants will undertake more detailed analysis prior to the Commission's formal consideration of the application. A. Site Constraints Most of the property consists of slopes in excess of 30% and there are a mm of existing trees. A new home cannot be built within the least restrictive development area (I..RDA) of the site and an exception to this requirement will be necessary. However, staff believes the encroachment outside the LRDA should be minimized as much as possible. The proposed project is located predominantly on slopes in excess of 30 %, impacting most of the mature oaks trees, and requiring a significant amount of grading and excavation. B. Mass and Scale / Neighborhood Compatibility The proposed total square footage of the structure (house, garage, and cellar area) is 8,117 square feet. While cellar area is not counted in the FAR, the Commission has raised concerns on previous projects where above ground square footage is maximized and large cellar elements are incorporated. The proposed project has two levels that contain cellar area due to the parcel's topography. The downhill elevation at the interior area of the two wings of the home presents the most visible mass of the proposed structure. While this will not be as apparent from the valley floor given the proposed retaining walls and grotto, it is still a concern that needs to be addressed because it will be visible from homes across the canyon on Madera Court. Planning Coiuinission Staff Report , Page 4 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 The following table compares the proposed project with other parcels on Colorado Count: Address House Garage Total Lot Size FAR* 471 Santa Rosa Drive 9,305 822 10,127 46,174 .22 108 Colorado Count 5,542 822 6,370 41,818 .15 109 Colorado Court 4,578 1,020 5,598 45,302 .12 111 Colorado Court 4,798 1,008 5,806 88,427 .07 112 Colorado Court 5,239 780 6,019 42,253 .14 11 Colorado Court 3,896 611 4,507 50,030 .09 107 Colorado Court Previous Submittal 5,775 1,230 7,005 40,075 .17 107 Colorado Court Current Submittal 4,380 853 5,233 40,075 .13 *FAR is based on lot size and building size fi•om Metroscan and does not include cellar area. As stated in the IIDS &G, achieving the maximum floor area is not guaranteed due to individual, site constraints. The priority is to comply with the standards and guidelines rather than designing to the FAR. The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving the allowable square footage is not a goal. Greater weight 14411 be given to issues including but not limited to height, building mass and scale, visual impacts, grading and compatibility. C. Building Height / Visibility The proposed house is approximately thirty five feet at the highest point. This condition exists at the downhill side of the junction of the two proposed wings adjacent to the proposed courtyard /reflecting pool. This exceeds the thirty foot height limit established by the Zoning Ordinance and would require approval of a variance. The other elevations of the proposed home are less than twenty five feet. However, the existing parcel is visible from the viewing platform at Selinda Way and Los Gatos - Almaden Road. As a result., the HDS &G state that the maximum, height from lowest to highest point shall not exceed twenty eight feet. Tlzc proposed project is approximately thirty '-ive feet fiom the lowest to the highest point and would require approval of an exception. Additionally, the maximum height allowed by the HDS &G when a home is visible is eighteen feet. The proposed project exceeds eighteen feet and would require approval of an exception as well. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 D. Architecture Given the existing site constraints the architect has designed a unique home that incorporates the use of two wings. The design also incorporates a below grade patio element on the south side of the proposed home. Staff has discussed this element with the applicant and determined that it is appropriate given that it serves to provide light and ventilation into that area of the proposed home and also allows for a modest outdoor area on a parcel that is constrained to the point that useable outdoor space is limited. Another element that staff has discussed with the applicant is the area located in between the two wings on the west side of the proposed home. This element contains a courtyard, reflecting pool, and grotto. This area also provides light, ventilation, and useable outdoor area similar to the below grade patio on the south side of the home, However, this is a much larger element that creates impacts relating to building height and grading. Staff has asked for additional information regarding the cellar calculation on the lowest level. It appears that the amount of soil removal in this location does not meet the intent of the cellar policy and will result in portions of the cellar area to be counted as FAR. E. Trees The applicant's arborist has identified eighteen protected trees on the subject site. Twelve of the trees are proposed to be remmoved, Based on the applicant's arborist's evaluations mine of the existing trees to be removed are in poor or very poor condition, one is in fair condition, and two are in good condition. The Consulting Arborist has not reviewed the proposal and will evaluate tree impacts after input from the Commission is evaluated by the applicant and any necessary revisions are incorporated, F. Gradin Cuts and fills in excess of the HDS &G grading criteria are required to construct the proposed project. The standards allow a maximuum cut of eight feet, excluding cellars within the house footprint, a four foot maximum cut in all other areas (up to eleven feet out proposed), and a three foot maximum for fill in all areas (up to twelve feet of fill proposed). it should also be noted that there are cuts up to approximately twenty six feet within the house footprint. While the HDS &G excludes cut depth for cellar areas within the building footprint staff is concerned that twenty six feet does not nneet the intent of the T- IDS &(i given the grading impacts. The proposed grading cuts and fills would require the approval of an exception. Estimated grading volumes total 2,804 cubic yards (2,761 cubic yards of cut and 43 cubic yards of fill), Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 G. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines The proposal does not comply with the following provisions of the HDS &G: • A house cannot be sited within the LRDA. • The height limitation will be exceeded. • Tree removals are significant. • Total grading volume is significant and cut and fill criteria will be exceeded. • Extensive use of retaining walls is necessary to construct the proposed reflecting pool and grotto. GENERAL PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES The project may be in conflict with the following policies and implementing strategies from the General Plan: L.P.8A Emphasize preserving the natural land forms by minimizing grading. Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the property. L.P.8.8 Existing specimen trees shall be preserved and protected as a part of any development proposal. L.1.S.10 Hillside Design Standard: Houses shall be designed to step down the contours rather than be designed for flat pads. CD.1 Mass Grading in New Construction: Follow natural land contour and avoid mass grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided. Siting of the house must consider natural topography. CD.P.2.4 Reducing Visible Mass: Effective visible mass shall be reduced through such means as stepping structures tip and down the hillside, a maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation fallowing the natural contours, and limiting the height and mass of the wall plane. CD.P.2.6 Hillside landscaping: Hillside landscaping shall be designed with the following goals in mind: A. Preservation and use of native /natural vegetation B. Following the natural topography C. Preservation of natural trees, vegetation e4l'. 6P Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 107 Colorado Court Study Session September 24, 2008 CONCLUSION / RECOMMENDATION Staff has carefully considered the applicable General Plan provisions, Town Code, and HDS &G, Based on the above information, staff and the applicant are looking for direction from the Commission on the following matters: • Are an exception and /or variance for height (both maximum Height and height from lowest to highest point) appropriate given the site constraints and visibility from a viewing platform? • Are the proposed architecture and materials appropriate? • Are the courtyard, reflecting pool, and grotto appropriate? • Are the proposed tree impacts appropriate? • Are the proposed grading exceptions appropriate? The Planning Commission should provide direction on each of the above items and any other issues of concern, `� ti p , , ( •epared by: ved by: Joel Paulson, Associate Planner Bud N. Lortz, �irector of Coinmunit evelopment BNL:SB :JP:mde cc: Sarwat and Colette 1~ahrny, 331 Santa Rosa Drive, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Preston Scott Cohen, Inc., 675 Massachusetts Avenue, 8 Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139 IV. MoloradoSS.doc Additional Endorsements for Di; `McNutt Page 1 of 4 This is an archive of a past election. See http: / /www. smartvoter. orq /ca /scl/ for current information. Santa Clara County, CA November 2, 2010 Election Additional Endorsements for Diane McNutt Candidate for Council Member; Town of Los Gatos This information is provided by the candidate REGIONAL LEADERS U.S. Congressman Mike Honda California State Senator Joe Simitian California State Assemblyman Ira Ruskin California State Assemblyman Jim Beall District Attorney Elect Jeff Rosen Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors President Ken Yeager Santa Clara County Supervisor Don Gage Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss San Mateo County Supervisor Rich Gordon ORGANIZATIONS Silicon Valley Association of Realtors California Apartment Association, Tri- County Division FORMER LOS GATOS MAYORS Randy Attaway Steve Blanton Joanne Benjamin Jan Hutchins John B. Lochner Linda Lubeck Speicher Mike Wasserman INDIVIDUALS Ann Atkinson Tom Atkinson Rita Baum Pamela B. Bancroft Barbara Beck Mark Beck Bonnie Becker Janice Benjamin Jim Benjamin Ken Benjamin Jan Berliner Stan Berliner F —mo Additional Endorsements for Di °, McNutt Toni Blackstock Debbie Blackwell Boyd Bowdish Jade Bradbury Beverley Bryant Carol Burt Jim Burt Don Callahan Barbara Cardillo Irene Carrion -Upson Dennise Carter Peter Carter Elizabeth Cilker Smith Brian Copeland Kim Couchee Phil Couchee Gay Crawford Jill Cronk Michael Cronk Mary P. Curtis Jane Decker Martin D. Dermer Sandra Hutchins Dixon Liz Dodson Lyn Dougherty Paul Dubois Kristen Dryden Charles Erekson Stuart Ferguson Dave Flick Shari Flick Susan Fitts Stan Garber Sandy Gordon Heidi Grassman Elke Groves Carl Guardino Charles Hackett Alice Hansen Eric Hansen Dave Henderson Bill Hirschman Teri Hope Holly Hunter Morley Chris Hutchins Duffy Jennings Marc Jensen Monique Jensen Bob King Kitty King Joan Kjemtrup Page 2 of 4 .. - ri 1_._�_..�__innl n/ 11 a...--- 1.. +....,1 1/1 AP -M1'l Additional Endorsements for Dig -McNutt Donald Knight Jonathan Knowles Anne Johnson Sara LaBerge Mike Loya Jack Lucas Michelle Mann Jeanne Martin Mary Martin Janice McCabe Mary McCall Joe McCarthy Phil Micciche Chris Miller Phil Mills John Moore Sara Morabito Mike Moresco Eric Morley Nicole Morley Sean Morley Jan Morris Ike Nassi Ronee Nassi Larry Noon Maureen O'Connell Tom O'Donnell Rick Oderio Jane Ogle Peggy O'Laughlin Keith Plottel Aana Pregliasco Larry Pregliasco Jeanne Rajabzadeh Steve Ravel James Reber Linda Rice Steve Rice Lisa Richardson Dan Ross Deb Ross Ed San Juan Dave Sandretto Nancy Sandretto Eric Schmidt Mark Sglarto JoAnn Shank Paul Shephard Connie Skipitares Ervie Smith Margaret Smith Page 3 of 4 Additional Endorsements for Di, McNutt Ken Spice Terri Spice Ed Stahl Rochelle Stone Marie Tallman Chris Tanimoto Nancy Thielmann Howard Thomas Sue Thomas Mary Tomassi- Dubois Kim Vestal Chad Walsh Mark Weiner Bill Wheelehan Dana Wheelehan Colleen Wilcox Chris Wiley Jan Willoughby Susanne Wilson Steve Yvaska Jim Zanardi Next Page; Issue Questions Candidate Page 11 Feedback to Candidate 11 This Contest November 2010 Home (Ballot Lookup) 11 About Smart Voter Page 4 of 4 The League of Women Voters does not support or oppose any candidate or political party. Created fi•om information supplied by the candidate: October 4, 2010 14:14 Smart Voter <http: / /Www.smartvoter.orgl> Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund http://ca.lwv, org ....._. ii_____-- 1.n /11/n1/,..../..,,1/. 4-- /.....,....,,++ .11,,...A-- 1, +.Y.1 1 /1 AMA 11) Town turns out to equip new lil 1 1y « all things los gatos Page 2 of 11 EXM rr TI Sandi Grenwell and Bob Long dance to the music of The Blues Rockers (Dan Ross on drums, Ed Goguen on bass) NOTICE Town of Los Gatos Environmental Impact Review Mitigated Negative Declaration Lead Agency: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Project Title and Location: 339 Bella Vista Avenue Architecture and Site Application S -06 -46 Subdivision Application M -06 -09 Negative Declaration ND -08 -02 Project Description: The project sponsor is requesting Lot Line Adjustment' and Architecture and Site approvals for construction of one single - family residence on the west side of Bella Vista Avenue, just north of Bella Vista's bridge over Los Gatos — Saratoga Road. The project sponsor proposes to reduce the project site's existing lot size from 6,049 square feet (s.f.) to 4,915 s.f., and construct a single - family residence on the reconfigured lot (indicated as Lot Two on the site plan dated October 27, 2007). This parcel's (APN 529 -23 -015) southern property line would be relocated northward and the size of the immediately adjoining parcel (APN 529 -23 -016) to the south would be increased from 4,106 s.f. to 5,240 s.f. The proposed residence would be 2,760 s.f. (including the cellar and garage). The proposed residence would have one main floor encompassing 1,038 s.f. and an attached garage (441 s.f.) at street level. Below street level, a lower floor would consist of 1,281 s.f., including a cellar area of 399 s.f. Access to the residence would be provided from Bella Vista Avenue to the garage by a proposed 19 -foot wide driveway that would be approximately 22 feet long. The proposed garage would be 441 s.f, and attached to the main floor of the proposed residence. Determination: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures listed below have been added to the project, mitigating potential impacts to a less- than - significant level. An Environmental Impact Report will not be required. Statement of Reasons to Support Finding: 1. Aesthetics: The project site is located on the west side of Bella Vista Avenue, and homes on the east side of Bella Vista Avenue ( #320 and 322 opposite the site) currently have partially obscured, distant views of the mountains to the west. Existing mature trees on the project site partially screen scenic vistas from these homes, particularly the 45 -inch oak tree located at the project's southern boundary. Since this I While this project is technically a subdivision application, it is actually a lot line adjustment because there are already two existing lots and the project would not create a new lot. JUNE, 2011 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE oak tree would be retained, distant views would continue to be similarly screened because the roof of the proposed home would be lower than this oak tree. Therefore, the proposed home would not significantly alter available distant views from homes to east, although views of trees from these homes would change to views of the proposed home. From Bella Vista Avenue, the proposed residence would appear as a one -story home. The height of the proposed residence (12 feet, 6 inches high) would be similar to adjacent proposed residence to the south. 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. 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 visible 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. The proposed project will be subject to design review as part of the Architecture and Site Review process. During this process, the proposed design is evaluated for consistency with the Town's HDS &G. As part of Architecture and Site review, the Town determined that the project would be consistent with the HDS &G policies for site planning, development intensity, architectural design, site elements, and landscape design (see Attachment 1 of the Initial Study). The HDS &G emphasizes minimizing grading and preserving natural features (including drainage channels and trees). Six of the site's 13 trees are proposed to be removed, but trees along the site margins would be retained and landscape screening is proposed along the western project boundary. This screening would help to minimize loss of privacy at the existing townhomes immediately downhill of the site since the proposed home would directly overlook these townhomes. Outdoor lighting would be provided on the exterior of the home. The proposed home would be located approximately 75 feet from homes to the east (across Bella Vista) and 40 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 75 -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 required landscape screening (see above mitigation) 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). 2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources: The 0.11 -acre project site is currently undeveloped, but the site's agricultural and timberland production potential is low due to the small size of the site, existing 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. JUNE, 2011 2 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE nearby residential development, and the site's steeply sloping topography. State farmland mapping shows the project site as "Urban and Built -Up Land," indicating that this land has already been converted to non- agricultural use. There are no existing agricultural or forestry uses /operations at or adjacent to the site. 3. Air Quality: The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is classified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as non- attainment for ozone and inhalable particulates (PM, To address these exceedances, the BAAQMD, in cooperation with the MTC and ABAG, prepared the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy (BAGS) in September 2005 and Particulate Matter Implementation Schedule (PMIS) in November 2005. The PMIS discusses how the BAAQMD implements the California Air Resources Board's 103 particulate matter control measures. The BAAQMD recently adopted the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan, which updates the BAOS. The consistency of the proposed project with the most recently adopted regional air quality plan, the CAP, is determined by comparing the project's consistency with the Los Gatos General Plan. Since the CAP is based on population projections of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that are based on the Town's General Plan in effect at the time the CAP was approved, consistency of the project with the General Plan would indicate consistency with the CAP. The project would be consistent with the use and density allowed on the project site by the Los Gatos General Plan, and therefore, the project would be consistent with the CAP. In June 2010, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted new CEQA significance thresholds and updated their CEQA Guidelines, which include these adopted thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants for both construction and operation of proposed projects. The proposed project's construction and operational emissions are expected to not exceed these thresholds when compared to screening criteria identified in the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. For single - family residential use, the screening criteria are 325 single- family units for operational emissions and 114 units for single - family residences for construction emissions. The proposed single - family residence would remain below these criteria and therefore, a detailed air quality assessment would not be required and the project's air quality impact is expected to be less than significant. However, 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines also specify that the project must also meet two other criteria: (1) the BAAQMD's Basic Construction Mitigation Measures must be implemented during construction; and (2) the project does not include demolition, simultaneous occurrence of more than two construction phases, simultaneous construction of more than one land use type; extensive site preparation; or extensive material transport (more than 10,000 cubic yards of soil). The project would meet the second criterion so that implementation of the following measure is considered to reduce the project's construction - related criteria pollutants to a less -than- significant level: MITIGATION 1: To limit the project's construction- related dust, criteria pollutants, and precursor emissions, the following BAAQMD - recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off -site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt tracked -out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. JUNE, 2011 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. MITIGATION MONITORING: Prior to issuance of any Grading Permit, the Director of Community Development shall be responsible for ensuring that these measures are properly incorporated into project plans and implemented during project construction. 4. Biological Resources: The project site consists of a steeply sloping hillside vegetated with coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) and an understory of vinca (Vinca major), an ornamental groundcover. A large number of the trees present on the site are the result of regrowth from the stumps of trees previously cut on the property. Special- Status Species Within the study area, oak woodland habitat also provides nesting habitat for special- status bird species, as well as many other migratory bird species. Site clearing activities (e.g., grubbing, grading, trenching, and tree removal or pruning) could result in direct or indirect impacts to nesting birds by causing the destruction or abandonment of occupied nests. Direct and indirect impacts on special- status and migratory bird species would be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Implementation of the following measures will reduce significant impacts on special- status and migratory bird species to a less- than - significant level: MITIGATION 2: If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are necessary, such activities should be conducted outside of the breeding season between September 1 and January 31 to avoid impacts to nesting birds. MITIGATION 3: If project construction begins during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within the project footprint and a 300 -foot buffer, by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to equipment or material staging, pruning /grubbing or surface- disturbing activities. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation is necessary. MITIGATION 4: If active nests, i.e, nests with eggs or young birds present, are found, non - disturbance buffers shall be established at a distance sufficient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, the nesting pair's tolerance to disturbance and the type /duration of potential disturbance. No work shall occur within the non- disturbance buffers until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. Buffer size should be determined in JUNE, 2011 4 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE cooperation with the CDFG and the USFWS. If buffers are established and it is determined that project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work should cease immediately and the CDFG and the USFWS should be contacted for further guidance. MITIGATION 5: If active nests are found within 300 feet of the project area, a qualified biologist shall be on site to monitor the nests for signs of nest disturbance. If it is determined that construction activity is resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFG and the USFWS shall be contacted. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction. Construction activities in the vicinity of occupied bat roosts could result in the destruction of the occupied roosts of special- status bat species. In addition, disturbance during the maternity roosting season could result in potential roost abandonment and mortality of young. Direct and indirect impacts to special - status bat species would be considered significant under CEQA guidelines. Implementation of the following measures will reduce significant impacts on special- status bat species to a less- than - significant level: MITIGATION 6: Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted to identify suitable bat roosting habitat including rock outcroppings, snags, rotten stumps, decadent trees with broken limbs, exfoliating bark, cavities, etc. Sensitive habitat areas and roost sites shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If no suitable roost sites or evidence of bat roosting are identified, no further minimization measures are necessary. MITIGATION 7: If suitable roosting habitat is identified, the following measures shall be conducted: a. A qualified biologist shall survey suitable roost sites immediately prior to the removal or grading of rock outcroppings, debris piles, man -made structures, etc. b. Removal of suitable tree roost sites shall be conducted by first removing limbs smaller than 3 inches in diameter and peeling away loose bark. The tree should then be left overnight to allow any bats using the tree /snag to find another roost during their nocturnal activity period. c. A qualified biologist shall survey the trees /snags a second time the following morning prior to felling and removal. d. Trees should be removed during the non - breeding season between September 1 and February 1 to avoid disturbance to maternal colonies or individuals. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction. Tree Removal The Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance states that the preferred tree replacement is two or more trees of a species and size designated by the Director of the Parks and Public Works Department. Tree replacement requirements are based on canopy size, which is defined in Table 3 -1 of the Ordinance, Tree Canopy — Replacement Standard. Tree canopy replacement requirements range from two to six 24- TUNE, 2011 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE 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. In order to evaluate the potential effects of the proposed project on site trees, the project applicant retained Deborah Ellis, consulting arborist and horticulturalist, to complete an arborist report. The Town retained Arbor Resources (AR) to conduct a peer review of Ellis' arborist report, and to update the peer review for the current proposal. The Ellis and AR surveys were completed in February 2005 and January 2007 and February 2011. Copies of these reports are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. Report recommendations are included as Attachment 2 of the Initial Study. The arborists' surveys of the project site indicate that there are 13 trees on the property. These include coast live oak, valley oak, a pine, and two almonds. Of these trees, eight are regulated by Town code (Nos. 3, 5 -9, 19, and 21). The proposed new residence and its access driveway would require removal of five regulated trees (Nos. 3, 5 -7, and 21) and one non - regulated almond tree (No. 4). With respect to the footprint of the new residence on the site, AR identifies additional ordinance -size coast live oak trees (Nos. 22, 23, and 24) to be retained in the vicinity of the new residence. AR indicates that the longevity and stability of two oak trees on the site (Nos. 8 and 9) and one large oak tree on the adjacent property (No. 2) would be adversely affected by the proposed project design and, makes the following recommendations: Tree No. 2 : The large live oak located on the adjacent lot (341 Bella Vista) but very close to the property boundary, would be adversely affected by implementation of the proposed design. To reduce impacts and increase the opportunity for tree survival and longevity, AR recommends that any storm drains and sub- drains located within 20 feet of the tree's trunk be established so that they are no farther than 24 inches beyond the proposed 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 pump wells farther away). Tree No. 8 : Although proposed plans indicate this tree would be retained, it would be severely affected by project construction and predisposed to premature decline and instability. 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 that would be located at roughly three feet downhill from this tree's trunk. When considering overexcavation needed to construct the walk, a cut within one to two feet from the trunk would be expected. To minimize excavation and impacts, AR recommends that the walkway be 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. Tree No. 9 : Proposed plans indicate this tree would be retained, but it would be severely affected by project construction and predisposed to premature decline and instability. This oak is situated at the street and appears to be in reasonably good health. However, its structure is formed by four relatively equally -sized trunks with very weak attachments. Removal of this tree is recommended in the applicant's arborist report, and AR concurs regardless of the proposed project. Based on its structural condition, AR indicates that no 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 would be necessary due to its low clearance and orientation toward the drive. JUNE, 2011 6 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE Development of this project in combination with the home proposed on the adjacent property at 341 Bella Vista Avenue, would have potentially cumulative effects on Tree No. 2, which is located between these two proposed homes. Implementation of tree protection measures specified by the arborists (specified below) would reduce the project's impact on this tree to a less- than - significant level, and therefore, the project's contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than cumulatively considerable. To minimize potential damage to trees that are proposed to be retained (particularly those with significant value identified above) as well as those potentially affected by the development of the proposed project (339 Bella Vista) as well as development of the adjacent lot (341 Bella Vista), the following measure will be required to reduce potential tree impacts to a less - than - significant level: MITIGATION 8: The project applicant shall be required to implement all Tree Protection Specifications made by Deborah Ellis (February 8, 2005) and Arbor Resources (January 29, 2007 and February 24, 2011). These measures are included in Attachment 2 of the Initial Study. MITIGATION MONITORING: The Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments will be responsible for ensuring that these recommendations are reflected in final project plans and are properly implemented during and after construction. 5. Cultural Resources: The project site is undeveloped and the potential for encountering cultural resources during project construction would be low due to the site's relatively steep topography and the site's elevated location away from creeks. There is typically a higher potential for encountering archaeological resources in areas adjacent to or near a river or creek. 6. Geology and Soils: The project site slopes downhill toward the north with slopes averaging 53 percent. The proposed plan estimates that approximately 247 cubic yards (c.y.) would be cut and 96 e.y. would be filled. Town requirements will include provision of a interim and final erosion control plans. Such measures would reduce potential erosion hazards to a less -than- significant level. A review of the Town's hazards maps indicates that the project site has no erosion potential, moderate shrink -swell potential, low slope stability hazard (due to slope steepness), high potential for fault rupture, and moderate potential for seismic shaking. Very low liquefaction and no debris flow hazards were identified for the site. The Town's Fault Map indicates that the site is located approximately 500 feet north of a concealed fault. Between 1998 and 2007, soil and foundation as well as geotechnical investigations were completed for the project. Several peer reviews of these investigations were completed by the Town's geotechnical consultant, Geomatrix, between December 2006 and November 2007. Copies of these studies are on file at the Los Gatos Community Development Department. These investigations involved review of available geologic maps and aerial photographs, drilling four test borings, and laboratory soils testing. These investigations concluded that the site has a low potential for liquefaction and lateral spreading. These studies also indicate that the site does not present any signs of slope instability hazards such as colluvium- filled swales, undercut cliffs or banks, or areas with recent evidence of landsliding. These analyses recommend that a soldier pile retaining /debris wall be constructed on the east side (upslope side) of the building footprints to keep the Bella Vista right -of -way stable during excavation and construction. The site lies within the seismically active Bay Area, but is not within any of the "Earthquake Fault Zones" established by the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972. The project would be subject to strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake, with a low potential for ground rupture at the site. Geomatrix indicates the closest know faults are traces of the potentially active Berrocal and Shannon fault JUNE, 2011 7 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE zones located about 1,200 feet north - northeast and 1,000 feet south - southwest of the project site. The active San Andreas fault zone is located about 2.5 miles southwest of the property. The potential for fault ground rupture on the project site is considered to be low because of the distance from these faults. However, the subject property will be 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. It should be noted that most of the Bay Area as well as surrounding residences are subject to groundshaking hazards. Compliance with seismic design parameters per the Uniform Building Code would be adequate to address regional seismic safety concerns such as groundshaking. Given the extent of grading proposed and the extensive portion of the home that would be located below grade, the following measure shall be required to reduce identified potentially significant geologic, soils, and geotechnical constraints to less- than - significant levels: MITIGATION 9: The project shall incorporate all recommendations in Ali M. Oskoorouchi's ;geological and geotechnical investigation for the proposed project (included as Attachment 3 of the Initial Study) in order to minimize the potential impacts resulting from regional seismic activity and subsurface soil conditions on the site. MITIGATION MONITORING: Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Directors of the Community Development and Parks and Public Works Departments shall be responsible for ensuring that the recommended measures are properly incorporated into the project design and implemented during construction. 7. Greenhouse Gases: "Greenhouse gases" (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as "global warming." These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth's atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on- road motor vehicles, off- highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one -fourth of total emissions. California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research is in the process of developing CEQA significance thresholds for GHG emissions but thresholds have yet to be established. GHG statutes and executive orders (EO) include EO S -1 -07, EO S -3 -05, EO S- 13 -08, EO S- 14 -08, EO S- 20 -04, EO S- 21 -09, AB 32, AB 1493, AB 3018, SB 97, S13375, SB 1078 and 107, and SB 1368. AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to reduced statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Pursuant to this requirement, the California Air Resources Board (GARB) adopted its Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies to achieve required reductions by 2020. However, on March 18, 2011, the San Francisco Superior Court issued a final ruling that effectively blocks the CARB from implementing GHG reducing actions outlined in the Scoping Plan until CARB complies with CEQA. If the decision is finalized, the CARB will have to reconsider the environmental impact of the Scoping Plan and examine alternatives to the Scoping Plan's cap and trade policy. Although implementation of certain elements of the Scoping Plan at the statewide level may be delayed, local GHG reduction policies would still apply to this project. In April 2008, the Town adopted near -term policy recommendations from the Santa Clara County Cities Association Green Building Collaborative. These policies require the submittal of a completed LEED or Build It Green's GreenPoint Rated checklist JUNE, 2011 8 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE as part of all planning applications and require all new public construction and renovation projects over 5,000 s.f. to achieve at least a LEED Silver certification. Requiring a checklist as part of a planning application does not require that the proposal incorporate green building practices. However, it will enable the Town to track the current use of green building practices and establish a baseline for future green building practices and requirements. The checklist requirement will also draw the attention of design and building professionals to the possibility of incorporating green building techniques into future projects. In addition, requiring LEED certification for new public construction and renovations will set an example and encourage sustainable practices for private developments. Short -term GHG emissions would also be generated by project - related construction activities. The BAAQMD does not have a quantitative significance threshold for construction - related GHG emissions, but the project's construction- related emissions are expected to have a less- than - significant impact on global climate change based on GHG modeling results done for larger projects. However, the BAAQMD encourages implementation of construction - related GHG reduction strategies where feasible, such as: using alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric) construction vehicles /equipment, local building materials (within 100 miles), and recycling of construction and demolition waste, to reduce construction- related GHG emissions. The proposed project would also be subject to the existing CARB regulation (Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485), which limits idling of diesel- fueled commercial motor vehicles, and compliance with this regulation would further reduce GHG emissions associated with project construction vehicles (compliance with idling limits is required under Mitigation Measure #2 in Section 3, Air Quality). Implementation of the proposed project would contribute to long -term increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) from direct sources (traffic increases and minor secondary fuel combustion emissions from space heating). Development occurring as a result of the proposed project would also result in other indirect operational increases in GHG emissions as a result of electricity generation to meet project - related increases in energy demand. Electricity generation in California is mainly from natural gas -fired power plants. However, since California imports about 20 to 25 percent of its total electricity (mainly from the northwestern and southwestern states), GHG emissions associated with electricity generation could also occur outside of California. Space or water heating, water delivery, wastewater processing and solid waste disposal also generate GHG emissions. The adopted BAAQMD's operational GHG screening criterion for single - family residences is 56 units, and the proposed project would fall well below this criterion and therefore, the project's operational GHG emissions would not exceed the BAAQMD GHG significance thresholds; consequently, a detailed, quantitative assessment of the project's GHG emissions would not be required. Although GHG emissions would be less than significant, the proposed project will be required to comply with energy efficiency requirements of the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the California Administrative Code). In addition, a GreenPoint checklist has been prepared for the project consistent with Town's adopted GHG policies and the project. The project is estimated to achieve a GreenPoint rating score of 105, which would meet the minimum advisory GreenPoint rating score of 50 points. The GreenPoint checklist considers project design elements, but also considers recycling of construction waste. S Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The project site is not included on any Hazardous Wastes and Substances Sites List. No significant public health risks are anticipated since the project site is undeveloped. There are no known previous uses on the site that would pose the potential for public health risks or presence of contaminants at the site. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality: Storm Drainage At present, the 0.11 -acre project site is undeveloped. The proposed residence would result in development of 2,063 s.f. of impervious surfaces (building, JUNE, 2011 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE driveway, and porch), covering 42 percent of the site. Such a small increase in areal extent of impervious surfaces would not be expected to result in a significant change in downstream peak surface flows or runoff volumes from the project site. Runoff from the roof of the proposed residence and garage would collect in gutters and discharge via downspouts to splashblocks at the base of the residence. All surface flows would be directed away from buildings into drainage swales, storm drain inlets, and drainage systems. Project drainage plans indicate that overland flows would collect in three storm drain inlets on the south, east, and west sides of the residence. Six -inch PVC drain pipe on the east and south sides of the site would convey accumulated drainage flows westward to detention trench consisting of a shallow gravel basin on the lower hillside of project site for on -site percolation. An overflow pumpwell would pump any excess accumulated runoff flows to an energy reduction box on Bella Vista Avenue for discharge by overland flow on the street. This storm drainage methodology is consistent with requirements on similar properties and proposes to direct drainage to public facilities and limit impact on adjacent properties. Although runoff from the proposed residence would be collected in a pipe system, storm flows would be discharged slowly into subsoils through the use of on -site infiltration areas, protecting surface water quality. Design and sizing of on -site percolation areas would be subject to review and approval by the Town, and such approval would reduce the potential for downstream flooding and erosion hazards to a less - than - significant level. Flood Hazards According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for the project area, the project site is not within the 100 -year floodplain. The Santa Clara Valley Water District's Maps of flood control facilities and limits of one percent flooding as well as the Town of Los Gatos Safety Element Flood Plain maps show the project site does not lie within a flood zone. Therefore, no significant flood hazard impacts would be anticipated. Water Quality New, more stringent water quality regulations of the Clean Water Act have recently been triggered because the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit program has failed to protect beneficial uses of Santa Clara County's creeks and the South San Francisco Bay. Evidence includes violations of ambient water quality criteria, high concentrations of toxic substances, and fish consumption health advisories. These new regulations require that all discharges shall comply with Provision C.3, New and Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. R2- 2009 -0074 of the NPDES permit program. However, single- family home projects that are not a part of a larger plan of development are not considered Regulated Projects per the provisions of C.3. In addition, the total development area would be less than one acre and, per the provisions of the State Construction General Permit, no Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be required for the project. The proposed project plans (Sheets C -1 through C -7, dated July 22, 2010) include extensive storm runoff collection and treatment facilities to address the maintenance of water quality conditions for drainage flows from impervious surfaces. The proposed project is a single family detached home and is therefore not a Regulated Project per Provision C.3. Even if both 339 and 341 Bella Vista proposals were considered combined, their total impervious area created and /or replaced would be approximately 5,050 s.f., which is below the Regulated Project threshold of 10,000 s.f. 10. Land Use and Planning: 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 0.11 -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 4,915 square- JUNE, 2011 10 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE foot lot. Since the lot is smaller than the required minimum lot size, it is considered a nonconforming lot. Nonconforming lots are considered a hardship for the owners and certain exceptions to the Town's Code (such as minimum building setbacks) may be allowed if compatible with established setbacks in the neighborhood. The project site is located adjacent to residential uses. Access is from Bella Vista Avenue and the project parcel is a residential lot that is undeveloped, located adjacent to developed residential properties to the west and east. The proposed single - family residential use would be consistent with existing adjacent and nearby single - family residential uses on Bella Vista Avenue. 11!. Mineral Resources: The Los Gatos General Plan does not identify any regionally or locally - important mineral resources on the project site or in its vicinity. 12. Noise: The Town Noise Ordinance (Chapter 16) restricts construction activities to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. This ordinance also limits noise generation to 85 dBA at the property line or 85 dBA at 25 feet. Project construction would result in temporary short -term noise increases due to the operation of heavy equipment. Construction noise sources range from about 82 to 90 dBA at 25 feet for most types of construction equipment, and slightly higher levels of about 94 to 97 dBA at 25 feet for certain types of earthmoving and impact equipment. If noise controls are installed on construction equipment, the noise levels could be reduced to 80 to 85 dBA at 25 feet, depending on the type of equipment. With controls, construction noise levels could be made to comply with the Town Noise Ordinance. Residential uses are generally considered to be noise - sensitive uses or sensitive receptors. There are single - family residences located east and west of the site. The residences to the east are located approximately 75 feet from the proposed residence, while the townhomes to the west are located approximately 40 feet from the residence. At 40 feet, the ordinance noise limit (85 dBA at 25 feet) would result in maximum noise levels of 81 dBA, respectively at the closest residences to the west and east. Temporary disturbance (e.g., speech interference) can occur if the noise level in the interior of a building exceeds 45 to 60 dBA. To maintain such interior noise levels, exterior noise levels at the closest residences (with windows closed) should not exceed 70 to 80 dBA and this exterior noise level is used as a significance threshold or criterion. Therefore, even with compliance with the Noise Ordinance limit of 85 dBA at 25 feet, construction noise levels could result in periodic speech interference effects when heavy equipment is operated on the project site. However, such levels would only occur for a short period, primarily when grading and drilling equipment are operating near the western project boundary, not during the entire project construction period. Due to the small size of this project and short duration of construction, such a temporary impact would be mitigated to a less- than - significant level by enforcement of time restrictions and noise level standards contained in the Town Noise Ordinance. Long -term noise increases associated with the project would result from increased traffic along Bella Vista Avenue and residential activities (i.e., operation of appliances and maintenance equipment such as lawnmowers, blowers, etc.). Traffic increases associated with the project would be minor and would not significantly or measurably increase ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Noise generated by project residential activities would be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residential uses and would not conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood. 13. Population and Housing: The proposed project would consist of one single - family residence on one parcel, and would not result in intensification of residential uses or significantly increase local or regional population. Since the project would not extend new roadways or utilities to any adjacent undeveloped JUNE, 2011 11 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE lands, the project would not induce new growth. The project site is currently undeveloped and no existing housing units would be displaced by the project. 14. Public Services: Services are currently provided to residential uses surrounding the project site. The project would not significantly increase demand for public services since this is an in -fill development and services are already provided to the surrounding area. The Santa Clara County Fire Department provides fire protection services to the project area. The Department has reviewed the proposed project only with respect to site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations. The required fire flow of 1,000 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) meet the required spacing. The proposed residence also would be subject to formal plan review by the Department requirements and will be required to comply with adopted model codes. 15. Recreation: The proposed addition of one residential unit would incrementally add new population to the area, and thereby increase the demand for recreational services. This incremental increase would not be significant given the small size of the project. 16. Transportation and Traffic: The Town's Traffic Impact Policy (Resolution 1991 -174) specifies that a project with a traffic impact of 19 or less additional AM or PM peak hour trips could be approved without a comprehensive traffic report if it is determined that the benefits of the project to the Town would outweigh the impact of increased traffic. However, the project would be subject to payment of a traffic mitigation fee. The project would result in a net increase of ten trips per day with one trip during the AM peak hour and one trip during the PM peak hour. According to the Town's traffic determination, traffic generated by the proposed project would represent a minor impact and no additional traffic studies would be required. The Town's Zoning Ordinance would require provision of two parking spaces for the proposed single - family residence. The project would meet the parking requirements by provision of a two -car garage and two additional parking spaces in the proposed driveway. Approximate grading quantities for the project are 247 c.y. of cut and 96 c.y. of fill, resulting in a net export of 150 c.y. of fill. Export of 150 c.y. of material off -site could generate up to 13 truckloads or a total of 26 one -way truck trips (assuming 12 c.y. per haul truck). If the adjacent home (341 Bella Vista) is constructed at the same time, a total of 28 truckloads or 56 one -way truck trips could be generated on Bella Vista Avenue. Since the Town will prohibit haul truck operations on local roads between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m. as well as 4 p.m. and 6 p.m., trucks operations would occur 6.5 hours per day. Assuming approximately five to nine trucks could be filled per hour, the 28 truckloads or 56 truck trips would occur over a one- to two -day period. Due to access limitations on Bella Vista Avenue, the Town will require the applicant to work with the Town Parks and Public Works Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This would include, but would not be limited to, provisions for the developer /owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris will be required to follow a designated route between Los Gatos Boulevard and Bella Vista Avenue (as specified by the inspector) and be covered (or at least two feet of freeboard must be maintained). These requirements will reduce potential traffic safety hazards to a less- than - significant level. 17. Utilities and Service Systems: Utilities are currently provided to adjacent residential uses. While some utility extensions may be required onto the site, no major off -site utility improvements would be expected to be required for project development since this is an in -fill development and involves development of one residence on one existing parcel. JUNE, 2011 12 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - 339 BELLA VISTA AVENUE 18. Cumulative Impacts: When the proposed project is considered together with the home proposed on the adjacent property at 341 Bella Vista Avenue, the proposed project could contribute to cumulative impacts, particularly those related to biological resources and traffic during and after construction. The project's contribution to cumulative impacts associated with construction of both proposed 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. Copies of the Initial Study used to make the above recommendation are on file and available for public inspection during regular business hours at the Town Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California. Date Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development JUNE, 2011 13 PATRICK K. TILLMAN 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 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 EXHIBIT Phone: (408) 615 -9670 Fax: (408) 615 -9715 E -mail. vatnanktlawnFfirn_rnm 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 529 -23 -016; Home and garage shall not exceed the FAR and be compatible with the characteristics and conditions of the lot; ... (Emphasis added) Why is this Applicant being treated differently? As to specific issues raised in the MITIGATED NEGATIVE 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 so, ft. homes, one (1) on a 4,915 sq. ft. lot and the other on a 5,240 sq. ft. lot. Both lots sit on a +53° (average) slope within the purview of the HDS &G. There is virtually no room in front of each house (to the road) and none between their downhill face and multiple neighbors - us. Applicant represents that there is forty feet (40') between the downhill face of the project and the neighbors — us. Again, a lie. He also omits the fact that 25 feet of that distance consists of a gravel walkway (— 10 feet wide) and our 15 foot backyards. At the Northern end of the project, these monstrosities will be built right up to the downhill lot -line. 3 c. Environmental Impact Report. He says one is not needed. Do you need an EIR to build in someone's backyard? 1. Aesthetics. a. Across the street. No problem for those living across the street that may have enjoyed the trees and /or the view, he says, the roof of the proposed homes will be lower than the canopy of the +150 year old oak trees they are killing/ removing. The Bella Vista residents will certainly be far happier looking at the new roofs. b. "Visual character along Bella Vista." Construction of these two (2) homes will look like an overstuffed backpack on the West side of the street. They detract from the serenity of that section of the street — they are out of place. c. View analysis. Applicant's report properly defines the "view analysis"' 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) ■ 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 12 1 /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. f. 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) 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 project. 9. Hydrology and Water Quality. Each of these homes will result in at least 2,063 sq. ft. of "impervious surfaces" (building, driveway, and porch) — between the two (2) of them, over 4,126 sq. ft. of impervious surface within a 100 foot distance, on a +53 (average) slope, leading down to a gravel pathway (approximately 10 feet wide), leading down to our homes. No problem. Applicant has a septic system to handle even the biggest storm. And much like they do at the better trailer parks, any excess can be pumped uphill right onto the street ... where it can accumulate ... or run downhill, right back to the project from where it came — they are downhill of the street. "And NO!!" this system is not consistent with requirements on similar properties. There are no properties similarly situated to those being addressed. 7 10. Land Use and Planning. a. "Medium Density Residential" apparently is 5 -12 units per acre. This entire plot of land is "0.11 acres." With two (2) homes on it, that would be +18 units per acre ... on +53° (average) sloped land. Are we not going in the wrong direction for density ?? b. Consistent with existing adjacent and nearby residences. Again: "NO, it's not." The only homes with any similarities, i.e. on downhill side of Bella Vista, are at least a '/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. O THER 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 2 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) O Page 1 of 2 Patrick K. Tillman From: Debra Chin [debrachin @aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:13 AM To: Subject: Update: Hearing Date Proposed for Feb. 9 See update below from Suzanne. Please send your address in to her if you would like to be copied directly on the notice for the hearing date. For those of you who have knowledge of the west side of Bella Vista, please chime in when we know the properties he is using for justification for setbacks and driveways with any perspective. Debra, The list of setbacks and driveways lengths should be in today, along with the letter of justification. The applicant was unable to measure any side or rear setbacks in the area as he did not want to trespass on neighboring properties. We will see if we can use the GIS system to estimate some side and rear setbacks before the hearing. l will be recommending that the hearing be continued to February 9, 2012 as staff does not have time to complete analysis and the report to the Commission due to the holiday closure. Courtesy notices will be sent to neighbors before the February meeting, and 1 will email those people that l have addresses for so they are aware of the delay. Suzanne - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Debra Chin <debrachin @aol.com> T _ ..._..... V < 2-ed� � f ja S S FYI - see the latest update on size - one house has been reduced by 128 sq. ft and the other by 49 sq. feet! Note that in an earlier email Suzanne said he was working on : "including a list of properties in the area that have non- conforming setbacks, and a list of house sizes and driveway lengths for the properties on the west side of Bella Vista ". I don't know if these have as yet have been submitted but it will be interesting to see what examples he is using from other properties. Chances are I will not be able to get a copy of the plans until after holidays but will keep everyone abreast of whether the date for the hearing is still on for Jan. 11th. Happy Holidays, Debra EXHIBIT 10 Page 2 of 2 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Suzanne Davis < sdavisaa.losaatosca.gov > To: debrachin < debrachin@aol.com > Sent: Mon, Dec 19, 2011 10:54 am Subject: 339 -341 Bella Vista Hi Debra, I am sorry for the delay in response to your email last week. I was waiting for the full size sets of plans which came in late Thursday. The house size for 339 Bella Vista has been reduced to 1,792 sq. ft. The garage size is unchanged at 441 sq. ft. and there is a small cellar (399 sq. ft.). The house reviewed by the Planning Commission in October was 1,920 sq. ft. The house at 441 Bella Vista is 1,780 sq. ft. with a 399 sq. ft. cellar and 441 sq. ft. garage. The plan reviewed by the Commission in October was 1829 sq. ft. with a 481 sq. ft. cellar. I advised the applicant that the Commission recommended a greater reduction. They have decided to move forward with the plans as revised. You are welcome to come in and look at the plans. The public counter is open from 8 am to 1 pm through Thursday of this week. Town offices will be closed from December 23, 2011 through January 2, 2012. Suzanne ti4I� r 0 z ti nn F-c C) ; N Qj • 3� D� Zg �� Wye JS 1 'l SW S . 0 naght C rear a vvre SREEfi..W rl r elevatl -ho onimnuwL ...me.n ntsu '° Prpp New RCsLdcRAC for: i u eym.�enrn;ee.5, N 'SCALE: noted wdrvr�..�.� eem.enncfflje �Y Q wm. a. anven.nf n.r Pn 3$9BI,LA VISTA AYENU 7 w..o µ ,e.�w • DATE. 5.5.10 p eer�aa LAS GiptoS 6R LCfovv LR ewes ufHR TT�HOWL DRAWN: `v �. n 's 'r EXHIBIT 12 u 3 a 8 '+ sr si 3ro CD o'er too ' hw.m •vn� y� , E SHEET: 6Er-t`- .4'9?el , ., •. .. 339 B ELLA VISTA AVENUE pnl]T•AUWC hinlm,ll "1iAw M1 ^A r nan nn,d SCALa: -j LOS uttforv4A a nd .In ..Th�o�i 1 ^.11af1be n Pane i "KNrnnnM a.� !� PATE, 5,4b,lo Proposed New TZCs; KZt r ...m•den b "pf�dan.nyelhl.,pm)a. •auwb nn d6/N EXHIBIT 12 I � 'H" Ve Mattel Constructlon Inc. > 5 5TUD'IE'S REOINELLI RE51DENGE 4': ;C 40; .051�.6b q 6 ....... ....... . ... z cn V . ... ....... 6 6 rn . . . ...... . ..... f . ........ . . NO 6 f i 04 ,OV .......... ......... .. . T .......... r 6 > to C? ....... ..... . . ... ... . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2; v,,- - Ep, 1 T71 I � 'H" Ve Mattel Constructlon Inc. > 5 5TUD'IE'S REOINELLI RE51DENGE 4': ;C 40; .051�.6b q 6 ....... ....... . ... z cn . ... ....... 6 rn . . . ...... . ..... NO 6 f i 04 ,OV z . T .......... r 6 C? ....... ..... . I � 'H" Ve Mattel Constructlon Inc. > 5 5TUD'IE'S REOINELLI RE51DENGE 4': ;C 40; .051�.6b q he Los Gatos CA Official Site! - Lot Luce Adjus' ° nt Procedures h' / www .losgatosca.gov /index.aspx ?NID =1190 You are here: Home > Living In Los Gatos > Town Services > Parks and Public Works > Engineering Services > Maps > Lot Line Adjustment Procedures Lot Line Adjustment Guide Lot line adjustments are reviewed according to Section 66412(d) of the Government Code of the State of California. The applicant has the option of using this procedure or completing the lot line adjustment by filing a Parcel Map. Application 1. Application for lot line adjustments (boundary changes) shall be made to the Community Development Department on the prescribed form. • All owners of record must sign the application. 2. Submitted the following items with the application: • Evidence that any holders of Deeds of Trust have no objections to the proposed boundary changes. • Title reports covering all parcels involved dated within 30 days. • The required Planning Department processing fee. • Six (6) copies of a drawing no larger than 24" x 36" showing existing and proposed boundaries, all improvements (houses, driveways, trees, etc.), and required building setbacks that may be affected by the proposed boundary change. Processing 1. All Lot Line Adjustment applications will be reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC), The DRC must limit its review to the following items: • Lot size remains conforming to the existing zoning ordinance. If the lots are currently nonconforming as to size, they cannot become more nonconforming (smaller). • Setbacks remain conforming or do not become more nonconforming. • Lot frontage and lot depth requirements remain conforming. r1) he Los Gatos CA Official Site! - Lot Line AdjuF,` _ ent Procedures r -)'/ www .losgatosca.gov /index.aspx ?NID =1190 • The existing houses do not become nonconforming as for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements of the zone. • The existing buildings meet the requirement of the Uniform Building code for fire separation or fire wall construction. 2, After final action by the Development Review Committee, the applicant will be notified by the Planning Department that the application is complete and any requirements that must be met before the certificate or map can be recorded, 3. The Development Review Committee has authority to approve this application, The Development Review Committee may approve or deny the application but may not attach conditions, except to meet the requirements of the Building or Zoning regulations, per Section 66412(d) of the California Government Code, If the application is denied, the applicant may appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Final Action 1, When the application has been approved by the Development Review Committee, the applicant shall submit the following items to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department: • Updated title reports, for all parcels, if the title reports are older than 90 days. • Two copies of the legal descriptions of the new parcel configurations, labeled "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B ". These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer. • Two copies of a map, 8 -1/2" x 11 ", suitable for reproducing and recording, showing the original parcel configuration and the new parcel configurations. Label the map "Exhibit C." These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer. • One copy of the closure calculations. • Copies of any maps referenced in the title reports or legal descriptions. • Engineering Division plan checking and processing fee. 2. The Engineering Division will review the legal descriptions, may and title reports, and prepare a document entitled "Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment ". • Any corrections that must be made will be sent your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer, and corrected documents resubmitted. 3. The Director of Parks and Public Works will sign the Certificate of Lot Line Adjustment once the legal descriptions and map documents have been reviewed and approved by the Engineering Division staff. 4, The Town Clerk's Office will send the documents to your title company with instructions for recording. Additional Information ,z he Los Gatos CA Official Site! - Lot Line Adjus' nt Procedures h' /www.losgatosca.gov /index.aspx ?NID =1190 1. Legal descriptions and map of the new parcel configurations shall be prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor, Per Sections 6731 and 8726 of the California Government Code, these are the only persons authorized to prepare such documents. 2, Your title company should provide you with new Grant Deeds for the new parcel configurations and arrange for the recording of these documents. copyright Notices I Powered by civicPlus P For further information on topics such as fees, applications, or BuildinglPlanning regulations, please contact the Community Development Department: (408) 354 -6874 www.losoatosca.cl Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Lot Line Adjustment Summary Handout What is a lot line adjustment? Lot line adjustment is the relocation of an Interior lot line between two or more neighboring parcels, Lot line adjustments are reviewed according to Section 66412(d) of the Government Code of the State of California. The applicant has the option of using this procedure or completing the lot line adjustment by filing a Parcel Map. Example illustration:, Lm2 I Let i 114ding Arta �f / I Setbacksmbeck 4 Existing lot line_ 1-proposed lot line edJuslme t How to apply for a lot line adjustment? Application for lot line adjustments (boundary changes) shall be made to the Community Development Department on the prescribed form. Application forms and pertinent information can be obtained at the Community Development Department. What items shall be submitted with the application? ❑ All owners of record must sign the application, ❑ Evidence that any holders of Deeds of Trust have no objections to the proposed boundary changes. ❑ Title reports covering all parcel involved dated withln 30 days, The required Community Development Department processing fee. Seven (7) copies of a drawing no larger than 24" x 36" showing existing and proposed boundaries, all Improvements (houses, driveways, trees, etc.) and required building setbacks that may be affected by the proposed boundary change. What is the lot line adjustment process? Once an application is accepted at the Community Development Department, all Lot Line Adjustment application will be reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC) and sent to pertinent departments and organizations for review and recommendation, 1. The DRC will limit Its review to the following Items: • Lot size remains conforming to the existing zoning ordinance. If the lots are currently nonconforming as to size, they cannot become more nonconforming (smaller). • Setbacks remain conforming or do not become more nonconforming. • Lot frontage and lot depth requirements remain conforming. • The existing houses do not become nonconforming as for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements of the zone, • The existing buildings meet the requirement of the, Uniform Building Code for firs separation or fire wall construction. 2. After final action by the DRC, the applicant will be notified by the Community Development Department that the application is complete and any requirements that must be met before recordation of the certificate or map, Note: The DRC has authority to approve or deny the application but may not attach conditions, except to meet the requirements of the Building or Zoning regulations, per Section 66412(dj of the California Government Code, 3. When the application has been approved by the DRC, the applicant shall submit the following items to the Engineering Section of the Community Development Department: ❑ Updated title reports, for all parcels, If the title reports are older than 90 days, ❑ Three (3). copies of the legal descriptions of the new parcel configurations, labeled "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B ". These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer. ❑ Three (3) copies of a map, 8%" x 11 ", suitable for reproducing and recording, showing the original parcel configuration and the new parcel configurations. Label the map "Exhibit C ", These documents must be wet stamped by your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer. ❑ Two (2) copies of the closure calculations. ❑ Engineering Section plan checking and processing fees. 4. The Engineering Section will prepare a document entitled "Certificate of Lot Line. Adjustment' Including legal descriptions, maps and title reports and send It to our outside consultant for review and approval. Note: Any corrections that must be made will be sent to your Licensed Surveyor or Civil Engineer, and corrected documents resubmitted. 5. The Community Development Director will sign the documents, once the documents have been approved and signed off by our plan check consultant. 6. The Town Clerk's Office will send the documents to your title company with Instructions for recording, How to anneal a decision? ' . r " If the application is denied by the Dsvelcpmel. Review Committee (DRC), the applicant may appeal the decision to the planning Commission. The applicant must file a written notice of appeal with the Town Clerk within 10 calendar days of the decision. Additlonal Information? Legal descriptions and maps of the new parcel configurations shall be prepared by a Registered Civil engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. Per Sections 6731 and 8726 of the California Government Code, these are the only persons authorized to prepared such documents, Your title company should provide you with new Grant Deeds for the new parcel configurations and arrange for the recordation of these documents, after the Town approves the lot line adjustment.