Loading...
Attachment 10Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 FINDINGS: CONS ID ERA TIONS: ACTION : EXHIBITS : been completed confirming that the proposed project i s in compliance with the adopted MND and the proposed project will be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted in 2010. No additional CEQA findings are required . • • • • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and adopted in 2010 for a similar single-family development application. The proposed application is in compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subject to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010. As required by the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines that the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. The project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan . As required by Section 29 .20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. Previously received with May 11, 2016 Desk Item Report: 1. Email s from appellants, received May 11, 2016 Previously received with June 8 , 2016 Staff Report: 2 . Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations 4. Recommended Conditions (nine pages) 5. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (three pages) 6 . Town Council Resolution (2001-128) 7 . December 8, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes (15 pages ) 8. Consulting Architect's Report (three pages), dated February 24, 2016 9. 2010 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15 , 2010 10. Project Data Sheet 11. Letter from Anthony Badame ( 13 pages), received March 24, 2016 12. March 29, 2016 Development Review Committee Minutes (three pages) 13. Appeal letter, received April 8, 2016 (four pages) 14. May 11, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes (six pages) Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 BACKGROUND: 15. Applicant's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May 27,2016 16. Public comment received through 11 :00 a.m., Thursday, June 2, 2016 1 7. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2, 2016 18. Development plans ( 16 pages), received March 22, 2016 Previously received with June 8, 2016 Addendum Report: 19. Letter from appellant (58 pages), received on June 2, 2016 Previously received with June 8, 2016 Desk Item Report: 20. Revised neighborhood outreach statement (one page), received June 6, 2016 21. Applicant's response to Appellant's letter (five pages), received June 8, 2016 Received at June 8, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting: 22. Communication from appellants (11 pages), received June 8, 2016 23. Presentation by appellants (15 pages), presented June 8 , 2016 24. Communication from applicant ( 5 pages), received June 8, 2016 Received with this Staff Report: 25. Presentation by applicant (37 pages), presented June 8 , 2016 26. Revised Recommended Conditions (10 pages) 27 . Revised Development plans (15 pages), received July 11, 2016 28. Revised Project Data Sheet 29. Consultant Reports ( 10 pages) 30. Addendum to 2010 adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (101 pages), dated August 2016 31. Communication from appellants (23 pages) 32. Communications from applicant (110 pages) 33. Revised Findings On June 8, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Development Review Committee (DRC) approval of the Architecture and Site application to construct a 4,357-square foot single-family residence. The Commission opened the public hearing, asked questions of the appellants and applicant, and continued the matter to July 27, 2016 to allow the applicant to work with the neighbors and consider design modifications. On July 27, 2016 staff and the applicant requested a continuance to August 24 , 2016 in order to review the revised project and prepare an Addendum to the adopted MND (Exhibit 30). Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 19 Highland A venue/S-15 -077 August 24, 2016 ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site In discussing the project, the Commission r ecommended that the applicant consider: reducing the size, bulk, and mass of the house; increasing the setback from the intermittent tributary to 20 feet; reducing the extent of retaining walls; and aligning the foundation more closely with the LRDA, in order to fit the house more closely into its natural surroundings. On July 11, 2016, the applicant submitted revised development plans (Exhibit 27) in response to Planning Commission comments made at the appeal hearing. On August 10, 2016, one of the appellants, Lisa Roberts (78 Alpine Avenue), submitted a letter regarding the revised project (Exhibit 31 ). Analysis of the four major Planning Commission recommendations is below in italic type. Reduce the size, bulk, and mass of the house The square footage of the revised project has been reduced by 4 29 square feet, and the building footprint has been reduced by 620 square.feet. By shifting the house location to the south, the bulk of the house is reduced by setting it further into the hillside, especially as viewed.from the driveway on the southern edge of the property. The massing has been reduced by three feet in length overall. Consistent with HDS&G roof standards, the floor plans and associated rooflines have further broken the massing into smaller building components to reflect the irregular forms of surrounding natural features. Increase the setback from the creek to 20 feet As illustrated on the Site Plan, (Exhibit 27, G2) the revised project sh(fts the house location to the south to maintain a minimum setback/ram the top of bank o.f 20.feet. Please note that the revised project proposes cantilevering a deck and bay on the northern elevation of the house. Reduce the extent of the retaining walls The driveway and fire truck turnaround were redesigned to more closely follow the natural grade and maintain a 10-:.foot setback from the top of bank. These changes and the modification to sh(fi the house location to the south reduced the length of the retaining walls to 21 O.feet, where the project previously proposed 653 feet of retaining walls. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 Aligning the foundation more closely with the Least Restrictive Development Area The Regulatory Constraints Exhibit (Exhibit 32) illustrates the available area with slopes less than 30 percent (LRDA), setback from the top of bank, building setbacks, and property lines. The Footprint Comparison Exhibit (Exhibit 32) illustrates the reduced size of the revised project footprint. Consistent with the HDS&G D esign objectives, which e ncourage architectural design that is responsive to site constraints and opportunities, while continuing to require building outside of the LRDA, the revised project is set further into the hillside. B. Hillside Development Standards While the HDS&G define exceptions for building height and maximum floor area as major exceptions, any deviation from the standards may be granted after carefully considering the constraints of a particular site. The revised project continues to request consideration of development on slopes greater than 30 percent. Given the constraints of the site and the Commission's direction to reduce the mass of the house; staff believes the revised project is an appropriate development proposal for the subject site. C. Neighborhood Compatibility Based on Town and County records , the residences in the area range in size from 680 square feet to 6,249 square feet. The F ARs range from 0.20 to 0.43. As indicated in the cover sheet (Exhibit 27 , A 1.1 ), the revised project proposal is for a 4,031 square-foot home and 617-square foot garage for a total of 4 ,648 square feet on a 45,240-square foot parcel. Per HDS&G Table 1, Reduction of Net Site Area on Sloping Lots, with an average slope of 28. 76 percent, the net lot area is reduced to 19 , 779 square feet. Per HDS&G Table 2, Maximum Allowed Gross Floor Area, the maximum allowable floor area for the lot is 5, l 00 square feet ( 4, 700 square feet for a home, and 400 square feet for a garage). The Neighborhood Analysis table below includes the gross rather than net lot area (lots in the area would be subject to a slope reduction based on topography). While 400 square feet of garage space does not count towards the FAR per the HDS&G, garage square footage is included in County records and is therefore included in the neighborhood analysis below for comparison. The provided floor areas may also include cellars . Addresses have been included on the map in Exhibit 2 for additional reference and site context. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 Neighborhood Analysis Table ADDRESS Living 50 Al pine A venue 3,120 54 Alpine Avenue 4 ,602 58 Alpine Avenue 5,451 66 Alpine A venue 3,779 74 Alpine Avenue 2 ,040 76 Alpine Avenue 3,644 78 Alpine Avenue 4,429 106 Alpine A venue 3,633 118 Alpine Avenue 3,922 15 Highland A venue 3,625 63 Highland A venue 2 ,417 25 Highland A venue 4 ,343 140 Foster Road 4 ,834 1 Highland A venue 2 ,279 48 Jackson Street 4 ,819 52 Jackson Street 680 53 Grove Street 3,489 previous project 19 Highland A venue 4,357 revised project 19 Highland Avenue 4,031 D. Trees Garage 825 858 798 560 416 473 588 677 816 0 734 798 564 580 864 0 540 720 617 Living and garage Lot size FAR 3,945 21 , 168 0.15 5,460 31 ,240 0.15 6,249 23 ,848 0.23 4 ,339 14,922 0.25 2 ,456 25 ,7 62 0.08 4 ,117 8,51 1 0.43 5,017 22 ,151 0.20 4,310 20,037 0.18 4 ,738 20,036 0.20 3,625 18 ,763 0 .19 3, 151 128,485 0.02 5,141 67,879 0.06 5,398 220,936 0.02 2,859 111 ,427 0.02 5,683 20,006 0.24 680 11 ,550 0 .06 4,029 39,526 0.09 5,077 45,240 0.10 4,648 45,240 0.09 The revised project proposes to remove seven, rather than 15 protected on-site trees. The tree protection measures within the 2010 arborist report (Exhibit 9), are included in the recommended conditions of approval. The applicant commissioned revisions to their May 10, 2016 arborist' s report to reflect the revised project (Exhibit 32). While the revised project proposes saving several trees adjacent to the main floor and retaining wall excavation on the south side of the house, the revised project will continue to be required to provide canopy replacement pursuant to Town Code standards for any trees required to be removed as part of the improvements. The applicant is working with a landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings and will work with staff to provide species and locations appropriate for the site, in conformance with the HDS&G. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 August 24, 2016 In response to the appellants ' concern that the proposed removal of a single large coast live oak in poor condition could affect habitat for special status bats, a Biological Evaluation Peer Review was completed by Live Oak Associates, Inc. on July 21, 2016. While the peer review confirmed , consistent with the 2010 MND, that the removal would not represent a significant loss of bat roosting habitat, the peer review did outline a two-step tree removal condition for the tree , which the applicant has agreed to , in order to address any remaining concerns regarding common bat species. E. Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were circulated based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2010. No comments were received on the document and the Planning Commission adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 5) when the project was approved on December 8, 2010. The current application includes minor modifications to the original approved project, and an Addendum to the adopted MND (Exhibit 30) has been prepared, including a brief explanation of why a subsequent MND, pursuant to 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, is not required. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The applicant has revised the proposed project design to address the June 8 , 2016 Planning Commission concerns and has met with the appellants . The revised project reduces the size, bulk and mass ; increases setbacks from the creek; and reduces the length of retaining walls. The revised project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan and the HDS&G, with the exception of the request for consideration of development on slopes greater than 30 percent. Should the Planning Commission determine that the project revisions meet the direction provided at the June 8, 2016 meeting, the Commission can make the findings to approve the Architecture and Site application as outlined in the recommendation section below. B. Recommendation The following actions are needed to approve the Architecture and Site application: 1. Make the CEQA finding that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subjected to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010 (Exhibit 33); and Hillside Development Standards+ Guidelines V Section A · Design Objectives While the applicant has elected to maintain the majority of the footprint and overall floor plan of the originally approved project, greater care has been taken to blend the new home into the natural landscape as well as conform directly with Hillside Design Guidelines V, satisfying section A overall design objectives by being sited appropriately along the topography lines, the materials and colors are respectful of the natural surroundings , the overall style is reflective of the rural character. and placement is compatible and respectful to both the creek and the neighbors . .../ 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 .../ 4 . Respectful of the rural character of the hillsides Hillside Development Standards + Guidelines V Section A· Design Objectives The major difference between this house and the previous approval is the arch itectural style. T h e proposed design has been reviewed by COG I Larry Canon , the Town's consulting architect. Only two recommendations were provided and the applicant has incorporated both recommendations into the project: * Extend landscaping along road ... see landscape plan for extensive landscap ing along the road * use one roofing matenal!or tne enttre nouse ... a dart< oronze metal roottnat ts non- reflectiv e, fire safe, and com patible with the modem rustic style of the home has been selected. 8/17/2016 J 10 Rebuttal The neighbors intent? TO B L OCK THE PROJECT NO MATTER WHAT Unfortunately, at the most recent meeting on 5/18/2016, only the Smullens showed. Mr. Pearson preferred to not have to bring this project to the Planning Commission, rather resolve any outstanding items wi th his neighbors and move forward in an honest and neighborly manner. Afte r making such modifications to the plans as color, style, materials, new landscape efforts. additional biological , creek and civil work as well as additional arborist studies, 3 0 models, etc., Mr. Pearson and his team were told by the appellants that their inten t was to appeal. no matter what efforts have been made (unless "the size of the home was sign ificantly reduced, and made single story"), that they are supporting one another in continuing the appeal to Town Council should the Commission uphold the Planning Department's and DRC approval of the proposed project. This relentless and un-neighborly approach requiring Mr. Pearson to spend sign ifica nt extra money and time on specialists to continue to prove and re-prove that the project is consistent with Town and State guidelines on both technical and design fronts it fra nk ly abhorrent. The proposed project is compliant with Hillside Guidelines. and efforts have been made to take into account neighbors needs and concerns. The applicant respectfully requests that th e Planning Commission once again uphold the approval by the DRC. with limited, if any, conditions. Rebutt al T he neighbors are neighborly and are participating in the process appropriately? T he applicant has made many attempts to socialize the plans with the neighbors, as well as hear a nd accommodate their concerns and feedback. Mr. Pearson has made multiple emails, phone calls. and meetings with most of the neighbors over the past severa l months in a neighborly fashion . A brief itemization of the contact has been written by the owner. Mr. Pearson i s b affled by the continued efforts of some of the neighbors to block this previously approved project from moving forward, especially as multiple attempts have been made to satisfy their concerns . While there are some neighbors contesting the project. there are also neighbors in support of this d evelopment and their acknowledgement letters are also attached. Roberts-Rohen letter dated 12/712010, they end their letter of onginal support with a paragra ph stating the following : ·eandid/y, there wt/1 always be neighbors who oppose development because they prefer a vacant wooded lot fn their neighborhood to the construction o f another home. Such a view does a temble disservice not just to the property owner who only wishes to build a home to live in, it creates the impression that the planning and building standards of the communi/y are alway s subject to, and can be disregarded by, the will of a few neighbors who would utilize the publiC planning process as a de facto eminent domain proceeding. While the Commission can and should listen to all those interested in the application, we h ope the Commission approves the application because the proposed home would be a welcome and desirable addition to the neighborhood a nd our community. • 8/1 7/2016 21 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -Augus t 24, 2016 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yz. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER! APPLICANT: Ed Pearson TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans . Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of approval (August 24, 2018) unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 3. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 4 . EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. 5 . DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder 's Office that requires all exterior materials be maintained in conformance with the Town's Hillside Developme nt Standards & Guidelines. 6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town 's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report , dated February 15 , 2010, on file in the community Development Department, except as otherwise noted. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. a. The removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the extent feasible. A pre- construction tree survey shall be conducted prior to any grading or construction work to determine if any trees planned to be substantially trimmed or removed are identified as protected trees. b. If tree remo va l, pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are necessary, s uch activities shall be conducted outside of the breeding season (i.e., between September I and January 31 ), to avoid impacts to nesting birds . 1. If tree removal , pruning, grubbing and demolition activities are scheduled to commence during the bird breeding season (i.e., between February I and August 31 ), a preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of work. The preconstruction survey shall include the project footprint and up to a 300-foot buffer, access and sight-lines permitting. If no active nests of migratory birds are found , work may proceed without restriction and no further measures are necessary. If work is del ayed more than two weeks, EXHIBIT 2 6 the preconstruction survey shall be repeated , if determined necessary by the project biologist. 11. If active nests (i.e. nests with eggs or young birds present, or hosting an actively breeding adult pair) of special-status or migratory birds are detected, the project biologist shall designate non-disturbance buffers at a distance suffi cient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, species, and the type/duration of potential disturbance. nt. No work shall occur within the non-disturbance buffers until the young have fledged , as determined by a qualified biologist. The appropriate buffer size shall be determined in cooperation with the CDFW and/or the USFWS. If, despite the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer it is determined that project activities are res ulting in nest di sturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFW and the USFWS s hall be contacted for further guidance. tv. If project activities must occur within the non-disturbance buffer, a qualified biologist shall monitor the nest(s) to document that no take of the nest (i.e., nest fai lure) will re s ult. If it is determined that project activities are resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately and the CDFW and the USFWS shall be contacted for further guidance. c. Tree number 56 shall be removed via a two-step process over two consecutive days outside of the bat winter torpor season, i.e. outs ide of the time period fro m mid-October through end of March, under supervis ion of a qualified biologist. The afternoon of the first day, limbs would be removed using chainsaws and chipped on site. The tree would then be removed the second day, with no biologist supervision required. 7 . CREEK SETBACK: The proposed residence shall maintain a minimum setback of20 feet from the creek/drainage course. 8. GENERAL: All existing trees shown to remain on the plan and newly planted trees are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on site. 9. NEW TREES: New trees to be planted shall be double-staked, using rubber tree ties and shall be planted prior to occupancy. New tree selection to conform to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, Recommended Native Trees for Hillside Areas (Appendix A). 10. TREE NUMBER 30: Tree number 30 shall be protected and retained. Tree protection measures shall be reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with the arborist report. 11. IRRIGATION and WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: All newl y planted material shall be irrigated by an in-ground system. Special care shall be taken to avoid irrigation which will endanger existing native trees and vegetation. The final landscape plan shall meet the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. 12. STORY-POLES : The story poles on the project site shall be removed with i n 30 days of approval of the Architecture and Site application. 13. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 2: With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 15, 201 0) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist's report. These include recommendations under the Design Gui delines section addressing tree retention and relocation , so il disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainages facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development , encompassing fencing, removal ofhardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The report recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. 14. CULTU RAL RESO URCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 3: In the event that archaeological trace s are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified , and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. 15 . CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEAS URE 4: If human remains are discovered , the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remain s are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not s ubject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. 16. CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 5: Ifthe Community Development Director find s that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisio ns for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will fo llow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5( e). If the site i s found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public R eso urces Code Section 21083 .2. I 7. CULTURAL RES O URCES -MITIGATION MEASURE 6 : A final report sh all be prepared when a find is determin ed to be a s ignificant archaeological s ite, and/or when Na tive American remains a re found on th e site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and li st of identifi ed reso urces, the di sposition and curation of these resources, an y testing, other recovere d information, and conclusions. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL Building Division 18. AIR QUALITY-MITIGATION MEASURE I: To limit the project's construction- related dust, criteria pollutant, and precurso r emissions, the following BAAQMD- rec ommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be impl eme nt ed. a. All exposed surfaces (e.g. parking areas, staging areas, soi l pile s, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks tran sporting soil , sand , or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet po wer vacuum street sweepers a t least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speed s on unpa ved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways , drivewa ys, and s idewa lk s to b e paved shall be completed as soon as po ssible. Building pads sha ll be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seedi n g 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). 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. 19. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction of the new single family residence. Separate building permits are required for site retaining walls , water tanks, or swimming poo ls; separate electrical, mechanical , and plumbing permits shall be required as necessary. 20 . CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 21. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 22. SOILS REPORT: A soils report , prepared to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official , containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer specializing in soils mechanics . 23. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS : A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation in spection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to approved plans . Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or regi stered civil engineer for the following items : a . Building pad elevation b . Finish floor elevation c. Foundation comer locations d. Retaining Walls 24 . RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a . Wooden backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom wall s, at water closets, showers and bathtubs located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b . All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on the acces s ible floor. c. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5' x 5' level landing on both sides of the door, no more than 1/2-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance on the strike side. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 25 . TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE : All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined on the plans. 26. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase 11 approved appliance a s per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 1 0-feet of chimneys. 27. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: This project requires a Class A roofing assembly. 28. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. 29. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. 30. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying that the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 31. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Ins pection form must be completely filled-out, signed by all requested parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www .losgatosca.gov. 32. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print. 33. APPROVALS REQU IRED : The project requires the following agencies approval before is suing a building permit: a. Community Development -Planning Division b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: ( 408) 3 78-401 0 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of paid receipt is required prior to permit is suance. f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000 TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Divis ion 34. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of- way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities . The storing of goods and material s on the si dewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unles s an encroachment permit is issued. The Developer's representati ve in charge shall be at th e job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. 35. APPROVAL: This application sh all be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer 36. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5 ,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any building permit. 37. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or his/her representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection. 38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer's operations . Improvements such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway, and pavement shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti , etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 39. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours , protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 40. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department 41. INSPECTION FEES : Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any permits. 42. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. 43. GRADING PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required for site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Code. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 44. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 45 . SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations b . Toe and top of cut and fill slopes 46. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for onsite retaining walls. Onsite walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works. 47. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE 1: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for liquefaction on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, concrete slab-on-grade construction , excavation, drainage , on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans . 48. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by the Town. The Applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. Approval of the Applicant 's soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 49. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVA TlON : During construction , all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant 's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an "as-built" letter/report prepared by the Applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy pennit is granted. 50. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS : The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Limited Geotechnical Study Lands of Orphan and Supple mental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update Pearson Property by Upp Geotechnology, dated November 22 , 2013 and December 22 , 2015, respectively, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town 's consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant. 51. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground , as required by Town Code Section 27 .50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities . 52. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE : The Developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued . The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses. 53. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation Di strict): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. A sanitary sewer clean-out is required for each property at the property line or location specify by the Town. 54. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture 's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the Town Engineer. 55. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00a.m. and 9:00a.m. and between 4 :00 p.m . and 6:00p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer s hall work with the Town Building and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not 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. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. 56 . CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors , heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays . The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 57. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum employee parking, materials storage area , concrete washout, and proposed outhouse locations. 58. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate one or more of the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum . e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 59. DUST CONTROL: Blowing du st shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping di s turbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 60. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 61. SITE DRAINAGE : Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING-Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 1 0 ' minimum from adjacent property line and /or right of way. 62 . SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis . Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT washed into the Town 's storm drains. 63 . GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued. The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 64. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE. Building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building code (CBC) Chapter 7a. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701 A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. 65 . AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work. 66. WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTIONS. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies . The applicant, or any contractors and subcontractors shall contact the water purveyor supplying the site and comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems , and /or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record . Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by the Fire Department until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 67. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND REQUIRED . Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. 68 . PREMISE IDENTIFICATION . Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from the s treet. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background . N:\DE V\CON DITN S\20 16\Hi ghland-19 _ Rev ised .doc 11 July 2016 To : Lo s Gatos Planning Department I Sally+ Joel: The following is a short list of the modification s made to take into con sideration the comments from neighbors and the recent planning commi ssion . 1. Building Footprint reduced by 620 sq . ft . 2. Total sq . ft . reduced by 429 sq . ft. 3. Trees to be removed decrea sed from 14 to 6, with one additiona l dead tree to be removed . 4 . Previous retaining wall length 653', revi sed plan 210'. 5. Hou se has been rece ss ed into hillside as sugge sted in HDSG . 6 . Di stance of building footprint to tree #30 has incre ase d from 15' to min. of 20' 7. Ove rall h eights and m ass ing have been r educe d. 8 . Hou se footprint i s 20' from creek bank at closest point . 9 . LRDA is encroached into 1182 sq . ft . Plea se note that studio3 desi gn will provid e a letter of justification with diag ram s further showing these items, as well as additional information. I hop e that you find thes e change s to be in keeping with the spirit of the comm e nts given -we have made great efforts to modify the de sign to alleviate the neighbor's concern s while maintaining the over all desig n effort . Thank you, Ed Pearson ,EXHIBIT 2 ? I N D E X T h e p r o p o s e d p r o j e c t i s t o c o n s t r u c t a s i n g l e f a m i l y h o m e i n a n H R - 2 1 / 2 z o n e . T h e s i t e i s o n a p r i v a t e r o a d o f f H i g h l a n d A v e . S u r r o u n d i n g p a r c e l s r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m a p p r o x . 1 / 4 a c r e t o 3 a c r e s . H o m e s i n t h i s a r e a t y p i c a l l y r a n g e i n s i z e f r o m a p p r o x . 1 , 3 0 0 s q . f t . t o 5 , 5 0 0 s q . f t . W h i l e t h e p r o j e c t d i f f e r s f r o m t h e p r e v i o u s l y a p p r o v e d h o m e f o r t h i s s i t e , t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e h o m e w i l l r e m a i n t h e s a m e a n d t h e f o o t p r i n t w i l l r e m a i n a l m o s t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e p a s t a p p r o v e d h o m e . U n l i k e t h e p r e v i o u s a p p r o v a l , t h i s d e s i g n w i l l f u l l y c o m p l y w i t h t h e m a x i m u m h e i g h t f o r r e t a i n i n g w a l l s e n c o u r a g e d b y t h e H D S + G g u i d e l i n e s . T r e e r e m o v a l w i l l f o l l o w t h e p r e v i o u s l y c o m p l e t e d a r b o r i s t r e p o r t a n d n e w l a n d s c a p i n g w i l l b e c o m p r i s e d e n t i r e l y o f a l m o s t a l l n a t i v e s p e c i e s . T h e s t y l e o f t h e h o m e i s b e s t d e s c r i b e d a s c o n t e m p o r a r y w i t h s o m e r u s t i c e l e m e n t s . I t w a s d e s i g n e d w i t h a s t e p p e d f o u n d a t i o n ; k e e p i n g a l o w p r o f i l e w h i l e r u n n i n g p a r a l l e l t o t h e c o n t o u r s o f t h e e x i s t i n g h i l l s i d e . L o w p i t c h e d s h e d r o o f s w i l l b e u s e d t o m i n i m i z e a e s t h e t i c i m p a c t s . E x t e r i o r m a t e r i a l s i n c l u d e a d a r k t a u p e c o l o r i n t e g r a l s t u c c o w h i c h f a l l s b e l o w t h e L R V v a l u e o f 3 0 . K e e p i n g f u r t h e r w i t h t h e d e s i g n s t y l e , h o r i z o n t a l w o o d s i d i n g w o u l d b e i n c o r p o r a t e d o n s o m e a r e a s . T h e r o o f i n g m a t e r i a l w o u l d b e a d a r k b r o w n s t a n d i n g s e a m m e t a l . L O C A T I O N M A P P R O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N O w n e r : E d P e a r s o n 2 3 9 T h u r s t o n S t . L o s G a t o s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 0 3 0 ( 4 0 8 ) 2 0 5 - 7 3 0 5 A 2 . 2 P r o p o s e d F l o o r P l a n s A 2 . 1 C o v e r S h e e t : G e n e r a l N o t e s + I n f o r m a t i o n A 1 . 1 P R O J E C T I N F O . P r o p o s e d R o o f P l a n P R O J E C T D A T A P A R C E L M A P A 3 . 2 P r o p o s e d F r o n t ( E a s t ) + R i g h t ( S o u t h ) P r o p o s e d R e a r ( W e s t ) + L e f t ( N o r t h ) A 3 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 Z O N I N G = H R - 2 1 / 2 F L O O D Z O N E = N O N E H I S T O R I C Z O N E = N O N E O C C U P A N C Y = R 3 S I N G L E F A M I L Y D W E L L I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E = V - B R E Q U I R E D P A R K I N G : 2 C O V E R E D G A R A G E S P A C E S A L L O W E D P R O P O S E D S E T B A C K S : F R O N T S E T B A C K : 3 0 ' - 0 " > 3 0 ' - 0 " R I G H T S I D E S E T B A C K : 2 0 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " L E F T S I D E S E T B A C K : 2 0 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " R E A R S E T B A C K : 2 5 ' - 0 " > 2 5 ' - 0 " C R E E K S E T B A C K : 1 5 ' - 0 " > 2 0 ' - 0 " + + + B U I L D I N G H E I G H T : 2 5 ' - 0 " / 3 5 ' - 0 " L o w t o H i g h 3 4 ' - 0 " / L o w t o H i g h ( B U I L D I N G H E I G H T D E R I V E D F R O M A V E R A G E G R A D E E L E V A T I O N A L O N G B U I L D I N G E D G E A N D R I D G E E L E V A T I O N ) G R O S S L O T A R E A = 1 . 0 4 A C R E S = 4 5 , 3 0 2 S F A V E R A G E S L O P E = 2 8 . 7 6 % N E T L O T A R E A / L O T A R E A R E D U C T I O N : ( 1 0 0 % - ( 3 0 % / ( 3 X 8 . 7 6 ) X 4 5 , 2 4 0 = 1 9 , 7 7 9 S F G R O S S F L O O R A R E A P E R H D S T A N D A R D S / F A R : A L L O W A B L E F L O O R A R E A = 4 , 7 0 0 S F G A R A G E A L L O W A N C E = 4 0 0 S F M A X I M U M A L L O W E D T O T A L = 5 , 1 0 0 S F M A I N L E V E L : 2 , 3 7 9 S F U P P E R L E V E L : 1 , 6 5 2 S F T O T A L H A B I T A B L E H O U S E : 4 , 0 3 1 S F G A R A G E : 6 1 7 - 4 0 0 = 2 1 7 S F T O T A L : 4 , 2 4 8 S F S I T E C O V E R A G E : B U I L D I N G F O O T P R I N T : 2 , 3 7 2 S F C A N T I L E V E R E D B U I L D I N G : 4 0 4 S F D E C K S / P A T I O S : 4 2 9 S F D R I V E W A Y : 3 , 5 8 3 S F H O A / C C R : N O N E W E L O R E Q U I R E M E N T S : N O T A P P L I C A B L E , U N D E R 5 0 0 S F O F I R R I G A T E D T U R F A N D N O P R O P O S E D P O O L O R F O U N T A I N O N S , I T E . C i v i l E n g i n e e r : P e o p l e s A s s o c i a t e s C o n t a c t : V e l i m i r S u l i c 1 9 9 6 T a r o b C o u r t M i l p i t a s , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 0 3 5 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 9 5 7 - 9 2 2 0 f a x : ( 4 0 8 ) 9 5 7 - 9 2 2 1 C O V E R S H E E T I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E : N T S S t r u c t u r a l S - 1 S e c t i o n s A 4 . 1 S e c t i o n s A 4 . 2 D e s i g n e r : S t u d i o 3 D e s i g n C o n t a c t : B e s s W i e r s e m a 1 5 8 5 T h e A l a m e d a # 2 0 0 S a n J o s e , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 1 2 5 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 2 9 2 - 3 2 5 2 f a x : ( 2 5 3 ) 3 9 9 - 1 1 2 5 S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 1 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 L a n d s c a p e P l a n L - 1 T h e f o l l o w i n g c o d e s a r e c u r r e n t l y i n e f f e c t : 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a R e s i d e n t i a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a P l u m b i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a M e c h a n i c a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E l e c t r i c a l C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E x i s t i n g B u i l d i n g C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a E n e r g y C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a F i r e C o d e 2 0 1 3 C a l i f o r n i a G r e e n B u i l d i n g S t a n d a r d s C o d e C O D E S U S E D GENERAL N O T E S 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R T h e r e s i d e n c e h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e p a s s i v e a n d a c t i v e s u s t a i n a b i l i t y m e a s u r e s b y b e i n g s e n s i t i v e t o s o l a r e x p o s u r e o n c e r t a i n f a c a d e s , m a t e r i a l s s e l e c t i o n s a n d L O W - E g l a z i n g . T h e h o m e h a s b e e n d e s i g n e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e H i l l s i d e D e s i g n G u i d e l i n e s : p l a c e m e n t o f t h e b u i l d i n g i s a s p a r a l l e l t o g r a d e a s p o s s i b l e , t h e r e b y m i n i m i z i n g g r a d i n g a n d e x i s t i n g s l o p e s . T h e f o u n d a t i o n a n d b l u e p r i n t a l s o s t a c k b a c k f o r s i m i l a r r e a s o n s . M a t e r i a l s a r e e a r t h t o n e i n c o l o r s a n d m e e t o r e x c e e d L R V r e q u i r e m e n t s t o b l e n d w i t h t h e n a t u r a l e n v i r o n m e n t . S h e d r o o f s a n d s h i f t s i n m a s s i n g a r e u s e d t o l e s s e n t h e o v e r a l l b u l k a n d m a s s . T h e h o m e i s n o t a t h r e e s t o r y h o m e , r a t h e r a s p l i t l e v e l s e t u p t o a c c o m m o d a t e t h e h i l l s i d e g r a d e d i f f e r e n c e s , s p e c i f i c a l l y a t t h e g a r a g e a r e a . A t n o p o i n t a r e 2 s t o r i e s o f h a b i t a b l e s p a c e s t a c k e d o v e r t h e g a r a g e a t t h e l o w e s t l e v e l . T h i s s t a g g e r e d e f f e c t h e l p s t o m i n i m i z e g r a d i n g a t t h e h i l l s i d e f o r b o t h t h e h o m e i t s e l f a n d t h e d r i v e w a y a c c e s s . 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y F I R E N O T E S 1 . T h i s p r o j e c t i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e d e s i g n a t e d W i l d l a n d - U r b a n I n t e r f a c e f i r e a r e a . T h e b u i l d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f C a l i f o r n i a B u i l d i n g C o d e ( C B C ) C h a p t e r 7 A . V e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e s h a l l b e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h C B C S e c t i o n 7 0 1 A . 3 . 2 . 4 . 2 . A n a u t o m a t i c r e s i d e n t i a l f i r e s p r i n k l e r s y s t e m s h a l l b e i n s t a l l e d t y p e 1 3 D . S e c t i o n R 3 1 3 . 2 a s a d o p t e d a n d a m e n d e d b y L G T C . 3 . P o t a b l e w a t e r s u p p l i e s s h a l l b e p r t o t e c t e d f r o m c o n t a m i n a t i o n c a u s e d b y f i r e p r o t e c t i o n w a t e r s u p p l i e s . T h e o w n e r a n d a n y c o n t r a c t o r s / s u b c o n t r a c t o r s s h a l l c o n t a c t t h e w a t e r p u r v e y o r s u p p l y i n g t h e s i t e o f s u c h p r o j e c t , a n d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h a t p u r v e y o r . 2 0 1 3 C F C S e c t i o n 9 0 3 . 3 . 5 a n d H e a l t h a n d S a f e t y C o d e 1 3 1 1 4 . 7 . 4 . A p p r o v e d h o u s e n u m b e r s s h a l l b e p l a c e d i n s u c h a p o s i t i o n t o b e p l a i n l y v i s i b l e a n d l e g i b l e f r o m t h e s t r e e t f r o n t i n g t h e p r o p e r t y . N u m b e r s s h a l l b e 6 " t a l l a n d i n c o n t r a s t w i t h t h e i r b a c k g r o u n d . C F C S e c t i o n 5 0 5 . 5 . C o n s t r u c t i o n s i t e s h a l l c o m p l y w i t h a l l a p p l i c a b l e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e C F C C h a p t e r 1 4 , i n c l u d i n g F i r e D e p a r t m e n t S t a n d a r d D e t a i l a n d S p e c i f i c a t i o n S 1 - 7 . SHADOW STUDYN.T.S.1. All material and wor k m a n s h i p s h a l l c o n f o r m w i t h r e q u i r e m e n t s t o t h e 2 0 1 3 C R C , 2 0 1 3 C B C , 2 0 1 3 CEC, and 2013 CMC.2. Notes and details o n d r a w i n g s s h a l l t a k e p r e c e d e n c e o v e r t h e s e G e n e r a l N o t e s . 3. Dimensions as indic a t e d a r e t h e d i m e n s i o n s t o b e u s e d . D o n o t s c a l e t h e d r a w i n g s . 4. No changes are to b e m a d e o n t h e p l a n s w i t h o u t t h e k n o w l e d g e o f t h e E n g i n e e r w h o s e s i g n a t u r e appears herein.5. The design adequac y a n d s a f e t y o f t h e e r e c t i o n , b r a c i n g , s h o r i n g , a n d t h e t e m p o r a r y s u p p o r t s i s t h e sole responsibility of th e C o n t r a c t o r . 6. The General Contra c t o r s h a l l i n s u r e t h a t t h e r e i s a f u l l t i m e , q u a l i f i e d S u p e r i n t e n d e n t a t t h e j o b s i t e a t all times.7. Provide special insp e c t i o n f o r a l l t i m e s a s r e q u i r e d b y I B C a n d L o c a l C o d e a u t h o r i t y . SPECIAL I N S P E C T I O N N O T E S FOUNDATION INSPE C T I O N S : A p a d c e r t i f i c a t e p r e p a r e d b y a a l i c e n s e d C i v i l E n g i n e e r o r L a n d Surveyor shall be subm i t t e d t o t h e p r o j e c t B u i l d i n g I n s p e c t o r a t f o u n d a t i o n i n s p e c t i o n . T h i s c e e r t i f i c a t e shall certify compliance w i t h t h e r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e s o i l s r e p o r t a n d t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g pad elevation and on-si t e r e t a i n i n g w a l l l o c a t i o n s a n d e l e v a t i o n s h a v e b e e n p r e p a r e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e approved plans. Horiz o n t a l a n d b v e r t i c a l c o n t r o l s s h a l l b e s e t a n d c e r t i f i e d b y a l i c e n s e d S u r v e y o r o r registered Civil Engine e r f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s : a. Building pad elevati o n b. Finish floor elevatio n c. Foundation corner l o c a t i o n s d. Retaining wallsPRIOR TO FINAL INS P E C T I O N : P r o v e a l e t t e r f r o m C a l i f o r n i a L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t o r L a n d s c a p e Architect certifying the l a n d s c a p i n g a n d v e g e t a t i o n c l e a r a n c e r e q u i r e m e n t s h a v e b e e n c o m p l e t e d p e r t h e California Public Resou r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 a n d G o v e r n m e n t C o d e S e c t i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . PROVIDE DEFENSIBL E S P A C E / F I R E B R E A K L A N D S C A P I N G P L A N : P r e p a r e d b y C a l i f o r n i a L i c e n s e d Architect or Landscape A r c h i t e c t i n c o n f o r m a n c e w i t h C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c R e s o u r c e s C o d e 4 2 9 1 a n d Government Code Sect i o n 5 1 1 8 2 . BUILDING M A T E R I A L S ROOFING: Standing s e a m m e t a l GUTTERS AND DOW N S P O U T S : G a l v a n i z e d m e t a l ( s q u a r e s h a p e ) EXTERIOR LIGHTS: D o w n w a r d / d o w n w a r d d a r k s k y EXTERIOR FINISH: St u c c o a n d w o o d s i d i n g ENTRY DOOR: (Selec t i o n b y O w n e r ) GARAGE DOOR: Carri a g e H o u s e ( S a n M a t e o S e r i e s ) ROOF SOFFITS: Stuc c o ROOF/ FOUNDATION V E N T S : " B a n g u a r d V e n t s " u n d e r e a v e / s o f f i t v e n t s , r i d g e v e n t s , a n d f o u n d a t i o n vents S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r : C o r n e r s t o n e S t r u c t u r a l E n g i n e e r i n g G r o u p , I n c C o n t a c t : C h a d 4 0 F e d e r a l S t r e e t S a n F r a n c i s c o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 4 1 0 7 p h : ( 9 1 6 ) 8 9 7 - 9 6 4 9 e m a i l : c h a d g @ c o r n e r s t o n e s t r u c t u r a l . n e t T i t l e 2 4 : F R I E n e r g y C o n s u l t a n t s , L L C C o n t a c t : N i c k B i g n a r d i 2 1 N . H a r r i s o n A v e . , S u i t e 2 1 0 C a m p b e l l , C A 9 5 0 0 8 p h : ( 4 0 8 ) 8 6 6 - 6 8 3 2 e m a i l : n i c k @ f r i c o n s u l t i n g . c o m D o o r + W i n d o w S c h e d u l e A 5 . 1 M e c h a n i c a l / E l e c t r i c a l P l a n M E - 1 T i t l e 2 4 R e p o r t T - 1 B l u e p r i n t f o r a C l e a n B a y A 1 . 2 T i t l e 2 4 R e p o r t T - 2 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s 7 M A Y 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S MATERIAL BOARD G 2 T i t l e S h e e t G 1 S i t e P l a n G 4 U t i l i t y P l a n G r a d i n g & D r a i n a g e P l a n G 3 T r e e I n v e n t o r y P l a n G 5 S e c t i o n s a n d D e t a i l s G 6 E r o s i o n C o n t r o l P l a n G 7 C o n d i t i o n s o f A p p r o v a l ( P e n d i n g ) G 8 P R O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 1 8 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 2 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S P R O P O S E D R O O F P L A N I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E : 1 / 8 " = 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 2 . 2 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S F R O N T ( E A S T ) + R I G H T ( S O U T H ) E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 3 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S R E A R ( W E S T ) + L E F T ( N O R T H ) E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 3 . 2 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S S E C T I O N S I N T E R I O R S R E M O D E L S + A D D I T I O N S N E W C O N S T R U C T I O N 1 5 8 5 T H E A L A M E D A S U I T E 2 0 0 S A N J O S E C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 1 2 6 t 4 0 8 . 2 9 2 . 3 2 5 2 f 2 5 3 . 3 9 9 . 1 1 2 5 S C A L E 3 / 1 6 " : 1 ' S T U D I O T H R E E D E S I G N A 4 . 1 A . P . N . 5 2 9 - 3 7 - 0 3 3 P E A R S O N 1 9 H I G H L A N D A V E . L O S G A T O S C A L I F O R N I A 9 5 0 3 0 1 D E C E M B E R 2 0 1 5 2 2 J A N U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 1 0 F E B R U A R Y 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 3 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 - P L A N ' G P C C R 2 9 M A R C H 2 0 1 6 1 1 J U L Y 2 0 1 6 - P C C O M M E N T S ID Qty.Size Latin Name Common Name Notes AB 5 24" box Acer p. 'Bloodgood'Japanese Maple CO 6 24" box Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud HA 9 15 gal.Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon PI 6 15 gal.Prunus i. lyonii Catalina Cherry UC 4 15 gal.Umbellularia californica California Laurel CJ 40 1 gal.Ceanothus 'Joyce Coulter'Wild Lilac CS 28 1 gal.Coleonema 'Sunset Gold' Pink Breath of Heaven CH 40 1 gal.Cotoneaster 'horizontalis' Rock Cotoneaster RP 39 1 gal.Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus' Rosemary 3T R N K 5 ' O A K 1 0 " O A K 10 " O A K 1 2 " O A K 1 0 " O A K T2 1 8 " O A K T B W A L L 430 420 440 410 420 430 T1 4 E 3 0 " E U C T2 0 T6 6 T5 7 IP T A G M A G N A I L T5 4 T5 9 T6 2 T6 3 T6 5 T2 3 T2 2 T1 8 T1 1 T1 3 T2 9 T 3 0 T3 3 T3 2 T3 1 T3 4 T4 2 T4 0 T3 9 T3 8 400 T4 4 T4 5 T4 3 T4 7 T5 0 N 4 8 ° 2 3 ' 3 7 " E 9 8 . 4 0 ' S 0 7 ° 0 2 ' 5 0 " W 3 7 . 0 0 ' N 60°0 8 ' 3 3 " W 7 1 . 5 8 ' N 4 2 ° 1 7 ' 0 8 " W 1 4 0 . 0 0 ' S 5 2 ° 2 7 ' 5 2 " W N 67°20'06" W 1 6 7 . 5 2 ' S 3 7 ° 4 2 ' 7 " W 6 8 . 9 7 ' S 82°1 9 ' 0 2 " W 4 4 . 5 3 ' N 75°14'43" W 309.40' N 1 9 ° 5 4 ' 5 8 " W 7 1 . 6 2 ' 26. 4 0 ' CO N S T R U C T I O N LANDS OF PEARSON 1.04 Acres A.P.N. 529-37-033 BE N C H M A R K 44 0 . 4 6 T2 7 T1 T3 5 T3 6 T4 1 T9 T4 6 T8 40 8 40 8 412 410 408 406 404 4 0 9 41 8 42 0 42 2 Drawing No. Scale Project IDProject Manager Drawn By Reviewed By Date CAD File Name L1 1/16" = 1'-0" Date 1 of Drawing Title Project Title Landscape Plan Pearson Residence 19 Highland Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consultant Design Firm Ecotone Landscape P.O. Box 320201 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 357 0354 No. Date Revision NotesAppr No. Date Issue Notes 3-HA T1 1 7-CH Undisturbed Landscape1-CO 1-UC 3-PI 3-PI 1-AB 3-HA Landscape Plan La n d s c a p e P l a n Pe a r s o n R e s i d e n c e 19 H i g h l a n d A v e . Lo s G a t o s , C A 9 5 0 3 0 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 6-CJ 5-CH Ex. Densely Wooded Area Ex. Densely Wooded Area Plant List L1 1-UC 1-CO7-RP 6-CJ 5-CJ 6-CJ 5-CS 11-RP 7-CS 1-UC 8-CJ 6-CH1-UC1-CO 7/10/16 www.ecotone-la.com mark@ecotone-la.com (408) 357-0354 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 1-CO 3-HA 4-RP 10-RP 5-CJ 1-AB 8-CH 1-CO7-RP1-CO 6-CH 4-CH4-CH5-CS 5-CS1-AB 6-CS 1-AB 4-CJ1-AB 19 ~ighland Avenue modified project-PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/ CONDITIONS PROJECT PERM ITTED Zoning district HR-2 1/2 same - Land use va c an t Sin gl e-fa m ily - General Plan Designation h ill si de re sidentia l same - Lot size $ Gross square feet 45,2 40 same 40 ,000 sq . ft. minimum $ Net square feet 19,77 9 same - Exterior materials: $ siding N/A Cedar si din g a nd - smoot h stu cco $ trim N/A none - $ windows N/A Fiberglass clad wood - $ roofing N/A Stand ing Seam metal - Building floor area: $ first floor N/A 2,379 $ second floor N/A 1,652 4 ,700 sq. ft. maxi mum $ garage N/A (61 7)217 400 sq . ft. exemption $ cellar N/A N/A exe mpt $ accessory structure(s) N/A N/A included in FAR $ total (excluding cellar) N/A 4,248 5,10 0 sq . ft. maximum Setbacks (ft.): $ front -185' 30 f eet minimum $ rear -61 ' 25 f eet minimum $ left side -20 ' 20 f eet minimum $ right side -24 ' 20 f eet minimum Average slope (%) 28 .76 same - Maximum height (ft.) 25'/35 ' 25'/35' 25 feet maximum Building coverage (%) no m ax imum Parking garage spaces -3 fou r sp aces min imu m in uncovered spaces 3 add it ion t o two in garage - Sewer or septic sewer - N: DEV·Mami A&S 19 Hig h land p rojectdata.\\"pd "EXHIBIT 2 8 Town of Los Gatos Addendum to the Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 August 2016 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared by: Kimley-Horn and Associates 100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95113 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION A. Determination This document constitutes an Addendum to the December 10, 2010 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (2010 IS/MND, included in this document as Attachment 1) (Geier & Geier Consulting, Inc., 2010) originally prepared and adopted for approval of the 19 Highland Avenue Project (hereafter referred to as the Original Project). This Addendum evaluates whether modifications/refinements to the proposed single-family residential home design, as revised July 11, 2016, (hereafter referred to as the proposed project) would result in any new or substantially more significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the 2010 MND. Similar to the Original Project, the proposed project would consist of the development of one single-family-home and driveway at 19 Highland Avenue. The proposed project differs from the Original Project because of changes to the architectural design of the proposed house and modifications to the project footprint to increase setbacks from the adjacent stream, reduce the number of trees to be removed, and avoid the need to export soils from the proje ct site. As verified in this Addendum, the analyses and the conclusions in the 2010 MND remain current and valid. The proposed revisions to the Original Project, in the form of minor changes to the project design, would not cause new significant effects not identified in the MND nor increase the level of environmental effect to substantial or significant, and, hence, no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant effects. No change has occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects than were identified in the 2010 MND. In addition, no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause new or substantially more severe significant environmental effects which have not already been analyzed in the 2010 MND. Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. This Addendum incorporates the mitigation measures detailed in the 20 10 MND. With this Addendum, the proposed project would still be within the framework of the evaluation for the Original Project as documented in the 2010 MND. B. Background An IS/MND was circulated based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 2010. No comments were received on the document and the Planning Commission adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program when the Original Project was approved on December 8, 2010. The Town approved a time extension in 2012 after which the property owner passed away and the property was placed on the market. The applicant and current property owner purchased the property in 2015 and submitted a new application derived from the previously approved project plans. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 2 Refinements to the project design constitute minor modifications to the original project that was evaluated in the 2010 MND, which necessitate subsequent environmental review/documentation under CEQA. Section 15164(b) of the CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 (further described below under Section I.C) apply. The Town of Los Gatos (Town) is the Lead Agency under CEQA and has prepared this Addendum to address the potential for new or more severe environmental impacts as a result of implementing the proposed project on the project site. C. Purpose of This Addendum The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the proposed project as currently proposed would result in any new or substantially greater significant effects or require any new mitigation measures not identified in the 2010 MND prepared for the original project. This Addendum, together with the 2010 MND will be used by the Town when considering approval of the proposed project. D. CEQA Framework for Addendum For a proposed project with modification from an original approved project, State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) provide that an Addendum to an adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the following conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred:  Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;  Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or  New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of MND adoption, shows any of the following: A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND, 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 3 B. The project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed in the MND, C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative, or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Based on the analysis and evaluation provided in this Addendum, no new significant impacts would occur as a result of the proposed project, nor would there be any substantial increase in the severity of any previously-identified significant environmental impact. In addition, no new information of substantial importance shows that mitigation measures or alternat ives that were previously found not to be feasible or that are considerably different from those analyzed in the 2010 MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment. Therefore, no conditions described in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines has occurred. For this reason, an addendum is the appropriate document that will comply with CEQA requirements for the proposed project. E. Adoption and Availability of the Addendum In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(c), an addendum to an adopted MND need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted MND and presented to the decision-making body. The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the adopted MND prior to making a decision on the project (CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(d)). Although not required, this Addendum is also available for public review at the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department, 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, California 95030, and will be made available as an Attachment to the Staff Report that will be provided when the project is scheduled for consideration by the decision -making body. 2.0 Project Description A. Project Location The project is located at 19 Highland Avenue in the Town of Los Gatos, within Santa Clara County (Assessor’s Parcel Number: 537-11-030). Please see Figures 1 and 2: Regional Map, and Vicinity Map, respectively. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 4 B. Proposed Project Components The proposed single-family residence would have three levels with the garage set to the lowest grade, stepping up to two floors of living space. The first floor of living space exits at grade to a dirt patio at the rear of the residence. The residence has a mode rn/contemporary architecture with roof forms that slope with the hillside. The proposed materials include: cedar siding and smooth finish stucco, with a standing seam metal roof. The proposed project is in compliance with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) inclusive of grading and drainage criteria, allowable floor area, height, and architectural and landscape design. The only exception requested is in regard to development on slopes greater than 30 percent. The limited area of development on slopes greater than 30 percent is consistent with the approved placement of the residence from 2010. The proposed project has reduced HDS&G exception requests compared to the 2010 original project. The layout of the proposed project is shown in Figure 3 : Site Plan, the proposed grading for the site is shown in Figure 4: Grading and Drainage Plan, and the trees that are proposed to be removed are shown in Figure 5: Tree Inventory Plan. The proposed project includes landscaping along the perimeter of the development envelope, including trees to replace those trees that are proposed to be removed. The proposed landscape plan is shown in Figure 6 : Landscape Plan. C. Comparison of the 2010 Original and 2016 Proposed Projects The proposed project includes changes to the project design that reduce the overall impact of the proposed project compared to the original design. Examples of the design features that minimize the physical impacts on the project site include a reduction in the overall lot coverage by 1,065 square feet (approximately 14%); an increase in the creek setbacks to the garage and residence, and driveway; elimination of the need to export soil; a reduction in the overall length of retaining walls by 54%, and a reduction in the number of trees to be removed from 16 to 7 (a 56% decrease). These changes are tabulated in Table 1: Comparison of Project Components which provides a comparison of the 2010 original project and the 2016 proposed project. Although the floor area of the proposed project is approximately 211 square feet more than the original project, the proposed floor area is consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Moreover, the modified footprint of the home is 270 square feet less than the original project. The maximum proposed height is the same as the original project. Similar to the original project, the modified residence has been designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours. The proposed project includes non-reflective colors and materials. The colors and materials of the proposed project residence (dark and light brown tones) are more compatible with the natural surroundings than the original project’s colors and materials which included taupe, “ochre” (yellowish or orange-brown), and “terra cotta” (brownish red). The proposed project would use stone and wood, a more natural element, compared to the original project which was planned to be stucco (with the exception of the stone wall covering the crawl space). 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 5 Table 1: Comparison of Project Components 1The difference in earthwork quantities account for soil shrinkage during the compaction process. 2010 Original Project 2016 Proposed Project Lot Size 1.04 acre 1.04 acre General Plan Hillside Residential, 0-1 unit/acre Hillside Residential, 0-1 unit/acre Zoning HR-2 ½, Hillside Residential Zone (2 ½ to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre) HR-2 ½, Hillside Residential Zone (2 ½ to 10 acres per dwelling with a minimum lot size of one acre) Floor Area: Main Level: Upper Level: Garage/Storage: Subtotal: (garage credit) Total Floor Area: 2,310 square feet 1,535 square feet 592 square feet 4,437 square feet -400 square feet 4,037 square feet 2,379 square feet 1,652 square feet 617 square feet 4,648 square feet -400 square feet 4,248 square feet Maximum Height Maximum Elevation: 25-feet 35-feet 25-feet 35-feet Lot Coverage - Residence - Driveway - Deck/Patios Total Lot Coverage ~ 2,642 square feet ~ 2,880 square feet ~ 1,927 square feet 7,449 square feet 2,372 square feet 3,583 square feet ~ 429 square feet 6,384 square feet Property Setbacks - Front: - North (left) Side: - South (right) Side: - Rear 190.0-feet 20.0-feet 24.0-feet 63.5-feet 185.0-feet 21.0 feet 25.0 feet 65.0 feet Creek Setbacks: - Residence/Garage: - Driveway: Minimum 10-feet Minimum 1-foot Minimum 20-feet Minimum 10-feet Area outside LRDA: ~1,363 square feet 1,182 square feet Grading: 342 cubic yards cut 188 cubic yards fill 154 cubic yards of export 439 cubic yards cut 429 cubic yards fill 0 cubic yards of export1 Retaining Wall Height: < 3 feet height: 0 feet 3-6 feet height: 394-feet > 6 feet height: 63-feet < 3 feet height: 106-feet 3-6 feet height: 104-feet > 6 feet height: 0-feet Retaining Wall Length: ~457-feet ~210-feet Tree Removal Proposed: 31 trees Removed: 15 trees Remaining to Remove: 16 trees Proposed: 7 trees (including one dying tree) 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 6 3.0 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects The 2010 MND identified mitigation measures that would reduce or eliminate potential environmental effects of the original project to a less than significant level. All of the mitigation measures approved for the original project would also apply to the proposed project and no new mitigation measures are necessary. No new or substantially more significant adverse impact has been identified. 1) AESTHETICS The 2010 MND found that the project would have less than significant effects on scenic vistas, scenic resources, and the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings. The proposed project would remove 7 of the existing 86 protected trees onsite (nine fewer trees than originally proposed). The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to aesthetic resources beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. Despite the minor changes proposed in the house and driveway locations, the overall nature and intensity of construction would not be substantially different than under the proposed project, and all construction activities would occur within the project site as was also evaluated in the 2010 MND. No mitigation measures are required for either the 2010 original or the proposed project. 2) AGRICULTURE The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to agriculture beyond those identified in the 2010 MND because there are no prime, unique, or statewide important farmlands in the project study area. The 2010 MND did not identify any impacts to agricultural uses; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements to the project design. No mitigation measures are required for either the 2010 original or the proposed project. 3) AIR QUALITY The proposed project design refinements would not result in additional impacts to air quality beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The 2010 original project proposed a total cut of 342 cubic yards and total fill of 188 cubic yards of soil, resulting in the need to export approximately 154 cubic yards of material. The proposed project proposes a total cut of 439 cubic yards and total fill of 429 cubic yards. No export of earthwork would be required resulting in fewer construction trucks coming to and from the site during grading activities. It should be noted the additional grading is proposed to recess the home into the hillside in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The background conditions, construction equipment mix, and construction work hours identified in the 2010 MND have not notably changed and the proposed refinements would not result in any substantial change in the way the way the proposed house would be constructed. The modifications to the construction plan would not substantially chang e the intensity or duration 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 7 of total construction activities identified in the 2010 MND. Therefore, as described in the 2010 MND, the proposed project would not exceed any Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) standards or contribute to air quality deterioration beyond BAAQMD projections. As was the case for the 2010 original project, mitigation is required to limit the proposed project’s construction-related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, per BAAQMD- recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures. Mitigation Measure 1: To limit the project's construction-related dust, criteria pollutant, 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 track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. 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 taxies control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). 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. 4) BIOLOGY The proposed project design refinements would not result in additional impacts on biological resources beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The proposed project has increased the setbacks of the house and driveway from the creek that traverses the project site. In March 2016, HT Harvey updated their previous biological resources report prepared in 1997 for the project site. The biological resources report determined that the proposed project did not result in any new or more significant impacts to biological resources. This report was peer reviewed by Live Oak Associates. Both HT Harvey and Live Oak Associates recommend a project condition with 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 8 regards to completing a pre-construction tree-survey and pre-construction survey for migratory birds be included. As no special status plant or animal species were identified onsite, the project condition is proposed to ensure compliance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Live Oak Associates also recommended a project condition relative to potential day-time roosting bat habitat of non-special status bat species that could utilize tree #56 to further address neighborhood concerns regarding the potential for bat species onsite . Inclusion of these project conditions is not a result of a new or more significant impact. No new impact has been identified because potential project impacts on non-sensitive upland habitats and associated common (non-sensitive) plant and animal communities do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect, and are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required under CEQA. Tree Protection The proposed project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010. Comprehensive Tree Inventory Table(s) and Arborist Report(s) were prepared for the subject property in 2010 and in 2016. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried “protected” trees in proximity to the original project’s proposed development and located on the subject site or overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. Under the “review of potential tree impacts” the 2010 Arborist Report identified 29 protected trees that “would either be removed or considered a loss” (#3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22, 24-28, 30, 37-40, 60-62, 64 and 68). The 2010 Arborist Report recommended that an additional two (2) trees be removed due to their failing health (#s 10, 46) for a total of 3 1 trees. Based on a site survey comparison with the 2010 Arborist Report, it appears that the property owner of the original project removed 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28, 37, 64, 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55, 58, 67), for a total of 18 trees. The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. A Tree Inventory was prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC on May 10, 2016 and then revised on July 10, 2016 for the proposed project. Per the 2016 Inventory, the subject property contains a total of 86 trees1, including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot that were not previously considered. Per the proposed project, seventy-nine (79) existing mature trees (92%) are to be retained while seven (7) trees will need to be removed. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in accordance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. Potential impacts are considered less than significant and no additional mitigation is required. 1 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 45 trees previously inventoried (63 minus 18 removed). 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 9 Creek Protection There are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un-named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. In this case, the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previously determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10-feet for the driveway would result in less than significant impacts on the proposed project. Creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below the top of bank would occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. The proposed project would provide a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. In addition, establishment of a 10 -foot wide setback between the top of bank and paved surfaces is also consistent with regional and state guidelines, provided appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed, implemented and maintained. The proposed project would have no impact on the existing creek and no mitigation is required. Mitigation Measure 2: With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 125, 2010) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendation are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist’s report. These include recommendations under the Design Guidelines section addressing tree retention and relocation, soil disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainage, facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development, encompassing fencing, removal of hardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The report’s recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. 5) CULTURAL RESOURCES The extent and intensity of construction activities would not vary substantially relative to that evaluated in the 2010 MND, and mitigation measures prescribed in the 2010 MND would still be applicable and necessary to reduce potentially significant of impacts under the proposed project. The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant effects with mitigation on archaeological resources and human remains. While the proposed project would include increased excavation for building foundations and bioswales, the potential effects on archaeological resources and human remains would be the same as the original project and would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures 3 through 6 which would remain the same for the proposed project. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 10 Mitigation Measure 3: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. Mitigation Measure 4: If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. Mitigation Measure 5: If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.S(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. Mitigation Measure 6: A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. 6) GEOLOGY The proposed refinements would not result in substantially different geophysical impacts beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. While the proposed project involves proposed changes to the timing and location of some construction activities, these changes do not represent a substantial deviation from the project analyzed in the 2010 MND, and the conclusions of the 2010 MND remain valid. A Geotechnical Memo by UPP Geotechnology was submitted for the proposed project in 2016 and peer reviewed by Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 7 would remain the same for the proposed project. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 11 Mitigation Measure 7: A design-level geotechnical investigation and final construction plans shall be completed and reviewed as specified by Geomatrix, Inc. (see Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for detailed recommendations). 7) GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS The proposed project would result in a similar (or potentially reduced) duration and intensity of construction activities relative to the original project, and both the original and proposed project would be operationally identical. As such, the proposed construction modifications would not result in an increase in greenhouse gas emissions or related impacts to global climate change or conflicts with applicable climate change plans, policies, or regulations. The 2010 MND found the project would have a less than significant effect on greenhouse gas emissions. The proposed changes to the project would not result in any new or substantially more severe effects due to greenhouse gas emissions. 8) HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The proposed design refinements would not result in additional impacts to hazards or hazardous materials beyond those identified in the 2010 MND because there are no hazardous wastes or hazardous materials at the project site. The 2010 MND did not identify any impacts from hazardous materials or lack of defensible space for project located within a fire hazard area. Therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed refinements to the project design. No mitigation measures are required for either the 2010 original or the proposed project. 9) HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY The proposed project would be required, as under the original project, to comply with all applicable water quality regulations during and following construction activities. The project site is not located within a 100-year flood plain. As is the case with the 2010 MND, compliance with stormwater regulations would preclude the potential for significant impacts to receiving water bodies, including the creek at the project site. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 10) LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed project would require the same entitlements, permits, and other approvals as the original project. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 11) MINERAL RESOURCES The proposed refinements would not result in additional impacts to mineral resources beyond those identified in the 2010 MND and because the project site is not located within an area of 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 12 known mineral resources, either of regional or local value, the 2010 MND did not identify any impacts to mineral resources; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the changes to the original project. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 12) NOISE The proposed project would not result in additional impacts to noise beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The proposed not result in design or operational changes to the project site or surrounding area from that analyzed in the 2010 MND. The overall intensity, equipment mix, duration, and proximity to sensitive receptors would not be notably different than under the original project. The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant impacts related to noise. The proposed project would have no change on the project’s noise operations; therefore, it would not affect the MND noise analysis of the original project. No mitigation measures needed for either the original or the proposed project. 13) POPULATION AND HOUSING The proposed project would not have any effect on population, housing, or employment in the Town or region at large, as is the case for the original project. No adverse impacts would occur in this regard. No mitigation measures are required for either the original or the proposed project. 14) PUBLIC SERVICES The proposed project would not result in additional impacts to public services/utilities beyond those identified in the 2010 MND because they would not result in changes to existing public services those evaluated in the 2010 MND for the original project. The 2010 MND did not identify any potentially significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation was not required. No new mitigation measures are required for the proposed project. 15) RECREATION The proposed design modifications would not result in additional impacts to recreational facilities beyond those identified in the 2010 MND. The 2010 MND did not identify any permanent impacts to recreational resources or facilities. No mitigation measures area required for either the original or the proposed project. 16) TRANSPORTATION The 2010 MND found that the project would have less‐than‐significant effects on transportation and circulation. The proposed project would result in no changes to operational trip generation; therefore, it would not affect the 2010 MND analysis related to transportation and circulation. No mitigation measures area required for either the original or the proposed project. 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 13 17) UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS The proposed project would not require or result in the construction or expansion of any public utilities beyond those required for the original project. Temporary short‐term and operational demands on public utilities or other infrastructure would not measurably change under the proposed project and therefore impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. 18) MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The potential impacts of the proposed project with regard to biological resources, cultural resources, and direct and indirect effects on human beings would be comparable to the original project, and potentially reduced with regard to biological resources given the reduction in trees to be removed and increased setbacks from the creek under the proposed project. As impacts under the proposed project would be similar to or reduced relative to the original project, impacts would be less than significant in this regard and no mitigation measures are required. 4.0 Recommendation That the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission finds on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record that the proposed modifications to the original project are within the scope of the original 2010 MND analysis and will not cause any new significant environmental impacts, substantially increase previously identified impacts, nor require any new or modified mitigation. In making this finding, the Planning Commission has considered evidence presented by Town Staff, the applicant, and other interested parties and has determined that: (1) NO substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previou sly identified significant effects; (2) NO substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted, does NOT show any of the following: (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 14 (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration; (C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or (D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative. Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the analyses conducted and the conclusions reached in the Final MND adopted on December 10, 2010 remain valid. The proposed revisions to the project would not cause new significant impacts not identified in the 2010 MND, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the proposed project that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the project would contribute considerably, and no new information has become available that shows that the project would cause significant environmental impacts. Therefore, no supplemental environmental review is required beyond this addendum. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, an addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration. Not to scale Project Site FIGURE 1: Regional Map 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Google Maps, 2016 Los Gatos Not to scale Source: Google Earth, 2016 Fountain Valley Project Site Al p i n e A v e Jo h n s o n A v e Pier V i e w W y Fos t e r R d N P a c i f i c S t N M y e r s S t Hi g h l a n d A v e Jac k s o n S t G r o v e S t Cen t r a l A v e FIGURE 2: Vicinity Map 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Project Site Not to scale Source: Peoples Associates, 2016 FIGURE 3: Site Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Not to scale FIGURE 4: Grading and Drainage Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Peoples Associates, 2016 Not to scale FIGURE 5: Tree Inventory Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Peoples Associates, 2016 Not to scale FIGURE 6: Landscape Plan 19 Highland Avenue Town of Los Gatos Source: Ecotone Landscape, 2016 ID Qty.Size Latin Name Common Name Notes AB 5 24" box Acer p. 'Bloodgood' Japanese Maple CO 6 24" box Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud HA 9 15 gal. Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon PI 6 15 gal. Prunus i. lyonii Catalina Cherry UC 4 15 gal. Umbellularia californica California Laurel CJ 40 1 gal. Ceanothus 'Joyce Coulter' Wild Lilac CS 28 1 gal. Coleonema 'Sunset Gold' Pink Breath of Heaven CH 40 1 gal. Cotoneaster 'horizontalis' Rock Cotoneaster RP 39 1 gal. Rosmarinus o. 'Prostratus' Rosemary 3TR N K 5 ' O A K 1 0 " O A K 10 " O A K 12 " O A K 1 0 " O A K T2 1 8 " O A K T B W A L L 430 420 440 410 420 430 T14 E 3 0 " E U C T2 0 T6 6 T5 7 IP T A G MA G N A I L T5 4 T5 9 T6 2 T63 T6 5 T23 T2 2 T1 8 T1 1 T13 T29 T3 0 T33 T32 T31 T34 T42 T4 0 T39 T3 8 400 T44 T45 T4 3 T47 T5 0 N 4 8 ° 2 3 ' 3 7 " E 9 8 . 4 0 ' S 0 7 ° 0 2 ' 5 0 " W 3 7 . 0 0 ' N 60°08' 3 3 " W 7 1 . 5 8 ' N 4 2 ° 1 7 ' 0 8 " W 1 4 0 . 0 0 ' S 52 ° 2 7 ' 5 2 " W N 67°20'06" W 1 6 7 . 5 2 ' S 3 7 ° 4 2 ' 7 " W 6 8 . 9 7 ' S 82°19 ' 0 2 " W 4 4 . 5 3 ' N 75°14'43" W 309.40' N 1 9 ° 5 4 ' 5 8 " W 7 1 . 6 2 ' 26.4 0 ' CO N S T R U C T I O N LANDS OF PEARSON 1.04 Acres A.P.N. 529-37-033 BEN C H M A R K 440 . 4 6 T27 T1 T3 5 T3 6 T4 1 T9 T4 6 T8 408 40 8 412 410 408 406 404 4 0 9 41 8 42 0 42 2 Drawing No. Scale Project IDProject Manager Drawn By Reviewed By Date CAD File Name L1 1/16" = 1'-0" Date 1 of Drawing Title Project Title Landscape Plan Pearson Residence 19 Highland Ave. Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consultant Design Firm Ecotone Landscape P.O. Box 320201 Los Gatos, CA 95032 408 357 0354 No. Date Revision NotesAppr No. Date Issue Notes 3-HA T1 1 7-CH Undisturbed Landscape1-CO 1-UC 3-PI 3-PI 1-AB 3-HA Landscape Plan La n d s c a p e P l a n Pe a r s o n R e s i d e n c e 19 H i g h l a n d A v e . Lo s G a t o s , C A 9 5 0 3 0 Scale: 1/16" = 1'-0" 6-CJ 5-CH Ex. Densely Wooded Area Ex. Densely Wooded Area Plant List L1 1-UC 1-CO7-RP 6-CJ 5-CJ 6-CJ 5-CS 11-RP 7-CS 1-UC 8-CJ 6-CH1-UC1-CO 7/10/16 www.ecotone-la.com mark@ecotone-la.com (408) 357-0354 PRIVATE DRIVEWAY 1-CO 3-HA 4-RP 10-RP 5-CJ 1-AB 8-CH 1-CO7-RP1-CO 6-CH 4-CH4-CH5-CS 5-CS1-AB 6-CS 1-AB 4-CJ1-AB 19 Highland Avenue – S-15-077 Town of Los Gatos Addendum – Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2016 Attachment 1 19 Highland Avenue Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration December 10, 2010 GECO Grasscfti Environrnento Consulting Marni F. Moseley, AICP, Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Planning Division 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 August 15, 2016 SUBJECT: 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE CREEK AND CEQA ISSUES Dear Ms. Moseley, Grassetti Environmental Consulting (GECo) has been retained by a group of concerned citizens to review California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance and creek setback issues associated with the 19 Highland Avenue project. We submitted comments on the project as previously designed on June 2, 2016. This letter presents an update to those comments, based on a review of the currently proposed plans. On the basis of communications between our client and your office, we understand that the Town intends to use the 2010 CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration as the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Similarly, based on email communications, we understand that the Town and/ or applicant now considers the applicable setback of the proposed house from the creek as 20 feet (increased from the previous 15 feet). This letter addresses the appropriateness of these determinations, as well as overall adequacy of the CEQA document. In summary, I have concluded that, based on a review of available information, there is no evidence supporting the use of the 20-foot setback (the appropriate creek setback on the project site is 25 feet), the Initial Study is deficient in addressing the setback issue, and the Town's impermissible CEQA process has resulted in a denial of resource agency and public review of the proposed project. Creek Setback Issues Town-Required Setbacks The Town of Los Gatos is a participant in the Santa Clara Water Resource s Collaborative (SCWRC). The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (G&S) was developed by th e Collaborative to protect in-stream and riparian water quality, resources , and habitat. The G&S contains the requirements and guidance for de ve lopment adjacent to streams. The Town Council adopted a re solution implementing the G&S on February 20, 2007. Specifically, th e Town adopted C hapters 2 and 3 of th e G&S as Town requirements. Chapter 2 de scribes how 7008 Bristol Drive, Berkeley, CA 94705 EXHIBIT 3 1 (510) 849 -2354 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 2 August 15, 2016 streams a nd setback zones are delineated. Chapter 3 describes stream protection policies and require ments, including required stream setback s. The Town is responsible for implementing these standards. It is required to rev iew potential impacts to streams as part of the development rev iew process. Projects adjacent to streams are required to be forwarded to the SCVWD for comment. As detail ed on p. 3.8 of the G&S, to minimi ze impacts to streams, structures are required be setback from the s tream. The required setback between the stream and the structure is called the "slope stability protection area ". The "Slope Stability Protection Area" is an area between a structu re and the stream2 . STABILITY PROTECTION AREA Stream with Little Structurally .l Ephemera l or No Hardening Engineered System Stream Size of Protection 25-20 fe et 1 5 feet 10-15 feet Area (as measured from Top of Bank)4 Notes: Potential Additions to the Slope A. For a large lot (greater than 10,000 sq. ft), add 5 feet . (emphasis added) B. For a large home in which the FAR triggers a discretionary review, work with applicant to ensure that impacts such as drainage are redirected away from a stream and pursue opportunities to increase the slope stability protection area to better protect the stream (and home) from impacts. For example, consider decreasing the required front yard setback in order t o accom modate an increased rear yard se tback/s lope stability a r ea. 1 Single Family Unit refers to both (a) new single-family units on existing lots of record and (b) new s in gle- family remodels/rebuilds as defined by local regulationsjpolicyj guidelines 2 In addition to protecting this area, BMP's should be used that are refl ective of Guidelines and Standards, for activities adjacent to these areas where discretionary review is used (i.e redirecting drainage away from the stream and no r e m oval of native riparian plants 3 A ''structurall y engineered system" is designed to provide slope stability. It may be a concret e-lined channel (U-frame or trapezoidal) or a s tream substantially modified with riprap, gabions, structurally engineered sacked co ncr ete, etc. 4 Area measured for Slope Stability Requirement to be measured based on location of Top of Ba nk, whether stream is on or off of property. A detailed in our June 2 letter, surveys by both Michael Wood and Pacific Biology found the creek to be intermittent and not ephemeral. The Pacific Biology Report was included as Attachment 1 to our June 2, 2016 letter. The Wood Biological Consulting report was included as Attachment 2 to that l etter. Both are hereby incorporated by reference. As described above, an intermittent stream is subject to applicable setbacks applicable to that class of stream. In the case of this large-lot site, applicable setbacks to the structures would be 25 feet because, in addition to the stream being "intermittent", the lot is a large lot (i.e. over 10,000 sq. ft., as defined in the SCWRC G&S). Proposed decks and stairways, 2 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 3 August 15, 2016 as well as portions of the house itself, now overhang the setback zone, further reducing the de facto setbacks of the house. Therefore the proposed setbacks do not meet the Town's requirements, and the project must be redesigned to meet these setbacks and limit project impacts to the creek. In addition to the setback issue, under the current plans, the bioswales essential to assuring that project runoff is adequately filtered before entering the creek have been substantially reduced compared to the previous design. The previous design included two 40'-long swales, and one each of 30', 25', and 10' lengths (total of 145 !near feet). This has been reduced to one 35' swale, one 25' swale, and a 20' swale (total of 80 linear feet). Absent a hydrologic analysis, it is impossible to determine whether the reduced bioswale capacity is adequate to treat anticipated runoff. This issue should be addressed in the IS. Improper Regulatory Agency Consultation As discussed in our June 2, 2016 letter, the Town failed to appropriately consult with regulatory agencies with jurisdiction and public trust responsibilities for wildlife habitat and water quality. Instead of involving the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board through the standard CEQA process, the Town allowed the applicant to send an eight-sentence letter to each of these agencies 1 . That letter included neither biological reports nor proj e ct plans. It simply stated "At this time, what I'm requesting, (sic) is correspondence from you (sic) dept. regarding any requirements, permits/policies etc. that may have changed since the planning approval for this site in 2010." It is our understanding that the town continues to consider the agencies' non-response to these letters to constitute a lack of concern over the project's potential impacts on affected resources. As discussed in our June 2 letter, these letters do not constitute adequate agency consultation and the agencies' lack of response does not indicate lack of impacts or lack of agency concern. No documents or plans were provided to the agencies to review. No setbacks or riparian zones were identified. Further, for projects of this type, the CDFW typically only reviews planning-related documents through the CEQA process and then only upon payment of its required CEQA document review fees, or through its Streambed Alteration Agreement process. The RWQCB typically also typically responds via the CEQA or permit processes. The Town's failure to correctly implement CEQA on this project ensured that the agencies would not comment on the project. Failure to Correctly Implement CEQA The Town apparently is relying on the 2010 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for a previously proposed house on the site as the CEQA 1 Letters from Ed Pe rs on t o the Ca lifornia De partme nt of Fish a nd Wildlife and San Franc isco Bay Re g ion a l Water Qua lity Co ntrol Board dated january 28, 2016. 3 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page4 August 15, 2016 documentation for the current project. In a May 24, 2016 email to Dorothea Smullen, Mamie Moseley, Associate Planner, stated: Th e Initia l Stud y and Miti gate d Negat ive D ecl aration we re circ u lated and adopted in compliance wit h t he requ ir em e nts o f CEQA in 20 I 0 . No comm ents we r e re ce ived. The document was adopted by th e Pl an n ing Commi ss ion . As d isc ussed , th e IS and M ND d o no t exp ire. Th e propose d project conforms w ith th e anal ys is prov id ed w it h in the 20 I 0 do cum ent a nd w oul d be s ubj ect to th e Mitigatio n Measures f ro m the a dopted MMRP. Re -c irc ul ating th e d oc um e nt w ould be inconsistent wi th C EQ A regulat io ns . T he a d o pted doc um e nt co nti nues to be av a ila bl e fo r review wi th in the public file . Staff did reach out to bo th C DFW and R WQCB after we tal k ed last to see if they had any comments that they di d not provi d e to the applicant wi thi n the 30-day p e r iod ~. No a ddit ional comments were provided to s taff. The Town's CEQA and agency consultation approach fails to meet the most basic CEQA requirements. First, it is important to note that the current project is not id entical to the previously proposed development considered in the 2010 IS/MND. In addition, at least two new biological resource analyses have been prepared for the current project. The current project has setbacks that continue to not meet Town requirements and the current project design differs from the 2010 design both in design and placement of the house and driveway. In addition, new biological information has been developed since publication of the 2010 IS. Although the Town has conducted biological reviews of these setbacks, the peer review identified the need for additional work r egarding the setbacks, and the Pacific Biology report identified additional sensitive resources on the site not previously considered in the old IS. The Wood Biological Resources report, prep a red for the 2010 IS/MND, also classifies much of the part of the site p r opos ed for development as "riparian" habitat, yet the 2010 IS /MND did not address this potential impact. The general public and the State resource agencies have not been afforded an opportunity to comment on those analyses via the CEQA process. The 2010 IS/MND also states that the project plans have been reviewed by CDFG (now CDFW) with respect to a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAE). This was incorrect in 2010 and is incorrect with respect to the current project, neither of which applied for such an Agreement. This deficiency remains applicable to the current project. Further, the 2010 approvals have lapsed and the applicant has changed. This is clearly a new project, the approval of which triggers a new CEQA review. CEQA defines a project as an "action", which is, in this case, approval of the proposed house plans. The action is not a previous approval. Therefore the CEQA process begins de novo. As detailed in our June 2, 2016 letter, CEQA allows use of a previous Initial Study, if applicable, to a new project, and sets forth a specific series of actions that a lead agency (in this case, the Town of Los Gatos) must take to comply with CEQA. CEQA Guidelines 15063 describes the use and required contents of an Initial Study, including the use of an earlier 2 Bas e d on the lette rs sent to the regulatory agencies, it was not the To w n w h o r eache d out, but r a ther the applicant As described above, this appro ach to agency cons ulta tion is v irtually guar a nte ed t o r e sult in a n o n- response from the agencies. 4 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 5 August 15, 2016 Initial Study. Regarding the use of a previous CEQA document, Section 15063(d)(3) state s that the IS contents must include, Identification of environm ental effec ts by use o f a chec kli st, matri x, or othe r method prov ided th at e ntri es on a c hec kli s t. .. are brietl y explain ed to indicate th at there is so me evidence to su pp ort the e ntries. T he brie f ex pl anation may be eit her t hr o ugh a na rr ative or a reference to anothe r info rm at ion source s uch as .... an earlie r EIR or nega t ive decla ration . The CEQA Guidelines also set forth requirements for agency consulta tion with responsible and trus tee agencies (Section 15063(g)), a nd a specific process fo r adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Sections 15072, 15073, and 15074). This process involves circulation of a Draft Initial Study and Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration, public and age ncy review of th e IS/MND, and consideration and adoption of the MND. The Town has sidestepped the required CEQA process in favor of another process of its own making. This is expressly prohibited by CEQA case law. In the Salmon Protection and Watershed Network v. County of Marin decision (December 2004), the Court of Appeals ruled: Re liance upon mi tigat io n measures (w hethe r included in the app lic at ion o r late r ado p ted) in vo lves an eva lua tive process of assessing those mitigat ion meas ur es and we igh ing th em agai nst potential env ironm enta l impacts . and that process mu.~t he conducted under estahlishetl CEQA standards and procedures for EIR.~ or n egatil•e declarations. (emphasis added) As clearly stated in this decision, a Lead Agency must perform its evaluation under the procedures established by CEQA , and may not make up its own parallel CEQA process. Should the Town choose to rely o n the analyses in the 2010 ISJMND, augmented by the more r e cent biological resources reports, the CEQA process for this project would be to prepare a new IS/Notice of Intent to Adopt and MND (including the new project plans, setba cks, new biological analyses, etc), circulate it to the public and applicable resource age ncies, consider public and agency comments, and then, should the Town choose to approve the project, adopt the IS and a new Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Therefore, it is my professional opinion that Town's substitute process is impermissible a nd fails to meet the public and agency involvement and goals of CEQ A. Conclusions As summarized above, the project continues to fail to comply with required stream setbacks. The Town has failed to consult with applicable state resources agencies, and fa iled to m ee t CEQA procedural requirements for impact assessment, public and agency disclosure, and review. In addition, based on information provided in the Wood and Pacific Biology reports, the 2010 MND does not accurately characterize the stream and ass ociated riparian zone. The reduced bio swale capacity also should be evaluated in the IS. It is my profe ssional opinion that the project should be re-designed to comply with the Town's creek s etback s tandards, a new or revised IS should be prepared, and that document s hould be re-circulated for public and a gency rev iew according to CEQA 5 19 Highland Avenue Creek and CEQA Comments Page 6 August 15, 2016 requirements. Please feel free to contact me at 510 849-2354 if you have any questions regarding this letter. Sincerely, Richard Grassetti Principal Grassetti Environmental Consulting 6 Lisa C. Roberts 78 Alpine Avenue Los Ga tos , CA 95030 lroberts@.rehonroberts.com 408-859-7585 August 1 0, 20 16 Mary Badame, Chair Michael Kane, Vice Chair Kendra Burch, Commissioner Charles Erekson, Commissioner Me lanie Hanssen, Commissioner Matthew Hudes, Commissioner Tom O'Donnell , Commissioner Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos 1 I 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: Appeal of Ar chitecture a nd S ite Applica tion S-15-077 C ontinued Hearing Set for Au gus t 24, 2016 Dea r Commissioners: l reside at 78 A lpine Avenue, Los Gatos. I am one o f the appellants ("Appellants") in the above-referenced appeal (the "Appeal") of the decision of the Development Review Committee ("DRC") approving Application and the Appeal Site Application S-I 5-077 (the "Application") by the Applicant Ed Pearson ("Applicant") regarding 19 H ighland A venue (the "Property'') des igned by Bess Wiersema (the "Architect"). I am submitting this letter for review and consideration for the upcoming August 24 hearing on the Appeal. l believe that a beauti ful home can be built on this beautiful site, and I look forward to having new neighbors who will enjoy the neighborhood as much as I and my family ha ve fo r the last 28 years . It is not Appellants' right, or job, to design or redesign Applicant's house. We as k only that whoever builds a house on this site complies with the law, including CEQA , as well as the Town's very thoughtful and important guid elines govern ing hillside and creekside development. I. I ntroduction and Request At the June 8 Hearing, this Commission gave Applicant the choice of whether to accept a granting of the appeal and the opportunity to appeal that decision to the Town Council or to revise his plans. Applicant elected to revise his plans. The members of the Commission worked hard at the hearing to articulate their concerns to guide Applicant's revisions. As discussed below, the revised plans demonstrate that Applicant did not take the Commission's concerns seriously. Rather, it appears that Applicant merely chose to revise his plans in order to avoid the immediate granting of the Appeal and in the off~chance that the Commission might accept de minimis changes the second time around. Also as discussed below, Applicant failed to honor the Commission's request that neighborhood input be considered in the revision process. Rather, Applicant and his Architect effectively excluded Appellants from the process until only days before the date on which this submission was due for the then-set hearing of July 27 , 2016, and then essentially presented the revisions to Appellants on a take it or leave it basis. For these reasons, as discussed below, I request that the Commission uphold the Appeal and deny the Application. II. Summary of Commission Comments and Directions at June 8 Hearing The Commission of course is in the best position to recall and characterize its comments at the June 8 hearing, but set forth below is my understanding of those comments and directions based not only on my attendance at the hearing but my thorough review of the video proceedings including most importantly the deliberations of the Commission. As concluded by the Commission, as I understood the Commission 's comments: I. The structure must be substantially smaller. 2. The structure must provide a 20-25 foot setback from the creek. 3 . In revising the plans, Applicant must comply with , or at least make a serious attempt to comply with, the LRDA. 4 . In revising the plans, Applicant must also comply with the Hillside Development Guidelines including their impact on FAR. 5. Applicant should consider the concerns stated by Commissioner Hanssen regarding the amount of retaining wall. 6. The structure must fit into its natu ral surroundings. 7. For both his protection and the Town's, Applicant should consider whether he can rely on the CEQA report that is several years old relating to a different project or whether he needs to do more to comply with CEQA. 1 As discussed below, with the exception of a change in the creek setback, Applicant failed to take to heart any of the Commission's comments, and, even as to the creek setback, the change is inadequate as explained below and it also results in an even deeper and more material encroachment o f the structure outside the LRDA.2 III. Summary of Defec ts in t he Revised P lans a nd the Proposed Project, I ncluding Appli can t's Fai l ures t o Address t he Co ncerns Sta t ed by the Commission Appellants may need to provide further information at or before the hearing, but, based on what I have been able to determine for inclusion in this submission, the revised plans fail to address the Commission's concerns and the project is otherwise defective in at least the following ways: 1. The structure is not substantially smaller. 2. The structure does not accommodate the required creek setback. 3. The structure even more seriously intrudes into the area outside the LRDA. 4. The structure still does not comply with the Hillside Development Guidelines, including their effect on FAR. 5. With the possible exception o f the driveway retaining walls , the revised plans do not meaningfully alter the project's reliance on retaining walls and/or other unnatural grading. 6. The structure still does not fit with or respect the site's natural surroundings. 7. Applicant has incorrectly elected to continue to rely on a stale CEQA Report. 1 I provi ded my stat ement of my understanding of the Commission 's comments in a June 23 email to Applicant, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. I did so in an attempt to do my best to move the revision and review proce ss along . By then. over two weeks had passed since the June 8 hearing. and Applicant's fiance Ms. Cind y Mc Cormick had advised that there was no news to report because Applicant's Architect was bu sy. (We later learned from Applicant that he and his Architect did not meet for the first time to discuss what plan changes to make until June 25.) Given that there was only a period of37 days between the June 8 hearing and the date , July 21 , for submis sio n of material s for the Co mm ission package for the July 27 hearing and that it wa s already the 151h (and soon to be 17'11 day) of tha t period without ac tion by Applicant and hi s Architect , I was concerned about the delay and its imp ac t on our abi li ty to revi ew and respond to the revi sed pl an s. In his June 25 res ponse to my email (a copy of which is attached as Exhibit B), Applicant sta ted that he had a different int erpretation of the Commi ssion 's comments but did not explain in what regard. ~At the outset of the June 8 hea ring , I presented a letter to this Commi ssion, and the letter was discussed, but it does not appear that it wa s forma ll y added to the file . Attached as Exhibit Cis another copy of the Jetter for inclusio n in the file . 3 8. Applicant has failed to address other concerns properly and legitimately raised by Appellants, including the proper preservation and protection of trees, reduction of e levation, and conformity of design to Town guidelines. Each of these issues is discussed below. IV. Applicant Has Failed to Revise Hi s Plans t o Meet the Concerns of the Commission and the Appellants, and the. Appeal Should Be Granted. A. Appli can t's Revi sed Plans St ill Overly Maximize Size on a Site Callin g for Non-Maximizatio n. The Commission called for a substantially smaller house. Applicant reduced the square footage by 8.45 percent (i.e., from 5,077 square feet to 4,648 square feet). Under no interpretation is that a substantial reduction. Further, in light of the comments by the Commissioners regard ing the size and its multiple negative impacts on the project, it is inconceivable that either Applicant or his Architect truly believed the Commission was really asking for such a de minimis reduction.3 Nor would the other changes made by Applicant have any appreciable effect in reducing the size and mass of the house. The revisions merely nibble at the length of the structure, reducing it by 2.5 feet, a negligible amount given the extreme length of the structure. Similarly, Applicant's 18-inch reduction in elevation, only on the rear end of the house, while a step in the right direction, would not significant ly alleviate the massive presence of the structure on the site. This is particular true given Applicant's simultaneous plan to encroach even more deeply than before outside the LRDA, into the s lope , and closer to the road, in order to increase th e creek setback without materially reducing house size. Size was arguably the most signi ticant concern expressed by the Commission, and it was certainly the most encompassing. As stated by Commissioner O'Donnell , size is his biggest problem with the project, and, even if everything else were perfect with the proj ect, he still would be concerned by the sheer size. Moreover, size was identified as the primary culprit for numerous other material problems with the project, including the lack of the proper creek setback; the violation of the LRDA requirements; the violation of the Hillside Development Guidelines; and the interference of the planned structure with the natural environment and setting of the site. As noted by Commissioner Hudes, the setting of the site is very important to retain, and -------·--·-- j Notably, neither Applicant nor the Architect denies that they were asked to make a substantia l reduction. Also, notably , Applicant has effectively admitted that the reduction was not substantial in his jus tification for not readjus ting the story poles to show the new design. As he explained after a July 16 meeting, the rules require adjustment only if the plans are modified substantially and the plans were "not substantially modified." 4 any decision by the Commission on the project must come down on the side of protecting the environment that is there and the unique natural setting that makes the site so special. The Commission's direction to Applicant and his Architect, both present at the hearing, was clear. As voiced repeatedly by different Commissioners, Applicant needed to design a "substantially" smaller house, and, as Commissioner Kane put it, a "nice house that fits." Appli cant has not done so, and, just as Commissioner O 'Donnell pointed out w it h respect to the original p lans, Applicant and h is Architect arc still trying to maximize size on a site that calls out for non-maximization. Applicant has failed to omit a single room from his plans. His house remains a fou r- bedroom (including master suite w ith his and her closets), five-bathroom (including powder room) house with a Jiving room, great room, study, deck and balcony, and other such amenities as a wine room, a spacious laundry room, a kitchen with island and prep bar and desk an d a pantry (albeit now renamed s imply "pa ntry" rather than "butler's pantry"), and an oversized a ttached garage. Effectively , his design s t ill follows a cookie- cutter developer's checklist of maximum luxury. Appellants believe that Applicant does not need such a house to make a profi t. The Property is a jewel, one that, as described by Commiss ioner Hudes, is "at the base of a hollow created by erosion and a stream." There would li k ely be many buyers who would appreciate a house that respects, rather than overwhelms, the rare beauty of the site. However, neither Appl ica nt nor his Archi tect appears to ass ign any weight to the value, economic and otherwise, of a reasona bl y sized house befitting the natural setting. Indeed, they conti nue to maintain that Application is entitled to develop the site to its maximum . Applicant still contends that origina l plans complied with all Town requirements (as stated in his June 25 email to me). His Architect contends that Applicant "actually has the right t o build a 4700 square foot home on this property," apparently referring to the current proposed size of 4,648 square feet. She also maintains that Applicant has the right to all the "current amenities" includ ing an attached garage. The Architect maintains that the house will now look like a one-story from the road . Knowing how much Commissioner Kane enjoys hyperbole, 1 will offer the fo llowing: this is li k e saying th at, if you built a tower emerging on ly one story above the crest of the Grand Canyon, it would look like only a one-story home . The front of the house wi t h all its mass would be in full view from the road; the alleged one-story view would occur only higher up the road about midpoint of the side of the house; the house is clearly and obviously built deep into a high steep slope; and, un less you keep your eyes closed during the fi rst part of your drive and half-closed for the remainder of your drive {so as not to notice the ditch between the road and house side), you a re not like ly to conclude that the h ouse is a modest one-story. 5 Furthermore, this masquerade is not even arguable from other perspectives of the house. As noted, the full mass is on full view from at least llighland Avenue at the front side of the structure and likely at the back side as well. The view--and the mass-is perhaps even more profound from the perspective of properties on Alpine backing up to the subject Property, many of which extend downward into the hollow shared by the subject Property and view the property both from the level of Alpine and from creek level. It is my understanding, under General Plan CD-14.3, ·'[a] maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation ." (See also HDS&G p. 36 ['·Three-story elevations are prohibited"].) There is absolutely no dispute what the structure as planned by Applicant would look like: an exceedingly long three-story edifice extending between the road and the creek. Because the visual cannot be denied, the Architect has resorted to the invisible, arguing that the structure is not really three stories because the upper floor is not stacked above the garage. Town Policy CD-14.3 does not address the invisible but the visible. The structure would have a devastating visible impact on a natural setting that, as concluded by the Commission, is very important to retain. Town Policy CD-14.3 is expressly written to consider visibility from all elevations . From part of Alpine and all of Highland (in other words, from all perspectives of the Property from the public and adjoining properties), the structure would effectively destroy the natural setting. This is neither proper nor necessary. Less profit motive and more sensitivity could easily result in a design with materially less adverse impact on the site. B. Applicant's Revised Plans Do Not Accommod ate t h e Re quired Creek Setback. As noted by Commissioner Hudes, the evidence presented at the June 8 hearing that the creek is ephemeral rather than intennittent is not credible, and a 20-25 foot setback from the creek is required. Based on the Commission's statements of concern regarding the creek and the setback, it is also apparent that the Commission rejected Applicant's argument that the 20-25 setback rule is intended only to ensure slope stability but is also intended tor the protection and preservation of the creek and surrounding habitat. (The Commission will recall that, under Applicant's expert's reading of applicable law, nothing would preclude a structure right next to a creek as long as there was sufficient slope stability.) Additionally, Applicant and his Architect were urged to try to accomplish the creek setback through reduction of the structure rathe r than by resort to the LRDA. As noted by Commissioner o ~oonnell, reducing the size of the house would make it easier tor Applicant to meet the intermittent-creek setback. The Commissioners did not specify which setback was required, whether a 20-foot setback or a 25-foot setback. However, in line with Commissioner Hudes 's comments, it appears that the testimony of Appellants' experts rather than the testimony of Applicant's expert was deemed credible, and Appellants' experts' testimony clearly stated that the 6 25-foot setback is required for this prope rty.4 As testified by Richard Grassetti of Grassetti Environmental Consultants ("GECO"), for lots over 10 ,0 00 square feet , such as this one, the required setback is 25, not 20, feet. (See hearing video transcript starting at approximately 1:41:55; see also GECO June 1, 2016 Report p. 1 ("the appropriate creek setback on the project site is 25 feet"].) Applicant's revised plans still do not comp ly with the required creek setback, for at least two distinct reasons. First, they provide for only a 20 -foot setback, when , as discussed above, the size of the Property mandates a 25-foot setback. Second, Applicant's setback, even as to 20 feet, is illusory. The Architect did not consider either the health or preservation of the creek or the protection of water quality in her creek setback re-design, and her plans show it. As she adv ised (at a July 16 meeting), her re-design was based on s lope stabi li ty. In other words, she continues to maintain that the sole purpose of a creek setback is to maintain slope stability. Based on that approach, she has contrived a novel and completely illegitimate setback re-design which is contrary not on ly to the purposes of the creek setback but also to any normal or standard understanding of the notion of a setback. Specifically, the Architect moved only the footprint of the structure 20 feet away from the creek. She then recaptured the otherwise lost square footage by cantilevering the structure back into the setback area. Even if the cantilevering were from the highest floor (what she calls the second but which visuall y appears to be the third), it would intrude in th e setback, but, in fact, it is extremely low -l ying (according to the Architect, only approximately 4 feet off the ground). There is nothing magical about 4 feet; under the Architect's approach, the cantilevering could be one foot , or even one inch, off the ground. As long as it does not touch the g round (or affect slope stability), it would meet the Architect's view ofthe setback requirement. The same absurdity follow s from the Architect 's approach to how far into the setback the cantilevering can extend. Here, the canti levering reportedl y extends 3 to 4 feet into the setback, alone improperly intruding into the required setback, but again, there is nothing magical about the distance selected by the Architect. The reasonable corollary of her approach is that the cantilevering can go as close as it wants to the creek, as long as, aga in , it do es not affect s lope stability or touch the ground. I am hardly an expert, but it would be very hard to deny that a creek, creek-bed, and surro unds would be affected by the installation of a structure within the setback not only on the ground but also minimally raised above the ground. In both in stances, there is intrusion into the setback and interference with and impact on sunlight, plant life, and 4 1t sho uld not be for gotte n th at the rep orts in favor of Appellants ' position also include a May 26 , 20 16 report by Live Oak Associates th at was part of the Town 's file and erroneously not revi ewed by th e Design Review Co mmittee in con nect ion with their co nsi derati on and ap pro va l of Ap pli cant's application . 7 habitat, as well as myriad of other things that may be considered by an environmental expert (and that were surely considered when the creek setback rules were made). Nothing in the creek setback ru les provides for this approach . To the contrary, the approach is inconsistent with the language and purpose of the rules as well as with any reasonable definition of setback. The 3-4 foot intrusions (which are actually, based on the proper 25-foot setback, 8-9 foot intrusions) result in only a 16 to 17 foot setback. Both because of the violation of the setback in this case and because of the dangerous precedential impact of accepting a setback rationale that would literally obliterate the setback , the Architect's approach should be rejected. Applicant and the Architect's solution to the setback issue is a contrivance devised only to maintain Applicant's desired , and inappropriate, house size; it is not protective of the creek or in compliance with the nature and purpose of the setback requirement; and it should not be accepted by the Commission. C. Under Applicant's Revised Plans, th e Encroa chment Past t he LRDA is Worse and Even More Improper Than Before .. While the Commission did not set an absolute LRDA requirement on this project, there is no question that, based on the comments and opinion of the Commissioners, Applicant's first and foremost task in seeking compliance with the LRDA Guidelines (while also complying with the creek setback requirement) was to substantially reduce the size of his house. Commissioner Hudes stated that he had not understood Staff to have said that the LRDA needed to be exceeded on this project. Rather, he understood that the LRDA was exceeded only to retain the size of the house. He further advised Applicant to take a serious look at the LRDA Guidelines and use them as a way to plan a project that is more approvable. As discussed above, Applicant continues to insist on a house that is too large for the site, and, therefore, the primary method by which he has (still inadequately) increased the creek setback has been to make even deeper and more drastic encroachments outside the LRDA . Initially, Applicant claimed that, under his revised plans, his LRDA encroachment was only 1150 square feet, but, later, estimated it as mo re like 1170 square feet, but, in any event, there is a 40-45 percent encroachment outside the LRDA, a nd, even more notable than the percentage, the structure would now literally hug the side of the road resulting in new and/or exacerbated problems. Under the revised plans, the structure would be rotated and relocated to cut deeply in to the steep roadside slope, taking the place of the retaining wall and exterior walkway set forth in the previous plans . In other words, where there was to be an intervening space between the house and the road made up o f the walkway, retaining wall, and a narrow band of leftover sloped planting area near the road, now there would be no open space between the house and the narrow planting area , the house would seemingly rise stra ight 8 up from a ditch, the structure would be only feet from the roadway, and the narrow sloping planting area could not even possibly allow tor any kind of remotely natural - seeming screening from the road. One of the goals of the rules governing this project and compelling Appellants in this Appeal, and, I believe, the Commission, is the desire to respect the site and p reserve the site's natural beauty, p resumably not just from within the site but from its surrounds. It is very hard to imagine that that goal could be met by Applicant's redesign. While "hugging" is normally a good thing (the Architect refers to the structure as "snuggled in"), houses are not supposed t o hug the road. No amount of Western Redbuds or Toyons or Wild Lilacs will disguise th e proximity of the house to the road or the enormous mass of the structure. This is a s ite to be respected, not conquered. The solution posed by Applicant is driven solely by desire for size and should be rejected. D. Applicant's Revised Plans Fail to Sufficiently Reduce the Am ount of Retaining Wall, Result in Other Vio lations of th e Hillside Development Guidelines, and are Associated with Further Disrega rd by Applicant for Preservation of the Property and the Creek. App licant asserts t hat he has reduced the overall le ngth of retaining wall from 653 feet to 210 feet. According to the Architect, he did so in two ways, first, by effectively pushing the house up to the slope at the road and having it act as a retaining wall, and, second, by re-planning the driveway and fire tum-around area. The result of the changes cannot be judged merely by the relative size of the reduction. The original 653 feet was an astonishing amount of retaining wall; the 210 feet of retaining wall is still significant given that, under the Hillside Development Guidelines, •·elimination of retaining walls is a priority ." (HDS&G p. 19, emphasis added.) Moreover, the methods for reduction a re troubling. With respect to the s ubstitution of the house foundation for retaining wall, while this technically reduces retaining wall per se, it in tum defeats the twin goal (and mandate) of the Hillside Development Guidelines to keep grading at a minimum . (See HDS&G p. 58 ("Grading shall be kept to a m in imum].) The further shove of the house into the hillside through unnatural grading rather than following the natural topography f urther violates yet another requirement. (See HDS&G p. 36 [·'Buildings shall be designed to co n fo rm to the natural topography of the s ite"].) The driveway and turn-around revisions are troubling for yet another reason. In order to create his revised plans, Applicant denuded the area designated by his Architect for those structures. In doing so, he effectively created a cleared construction site without a constructi on permit and in the face of neighborhood controversy regarding the placement of the driveway and t urn-around. 9 As noted abovet on June 25t we were told that Applicant and his Architect had just met that day to discuss revisions to th e planst and one of the revisions was reduction of retai ning walls. The very next day, Saturday, June 26, Applicant (by his crew or other laborers) clear-cut the proposed driveway/turnarou nd area and the creek next to it. His workers removed the entire understory of the area and dumped so much mulch from the clearing into the creek that the creek bed was not even visible. Applicant failed to notify us that he would be clearing this area, and, as he later acknowledged, his failure was deliberate. (See Applicant's June 29, 2016 email to Marni Moseley stating that he had considered notifYing the neighbors but decided not to.) More importantly, Applicant also failed to notify the Regional Water Quality Control Board, as pointed out by Appellant Ms. Dede Smullen after she learned of the event from her niece. Under California Fish and Game Code section 1602, such notification, as well as application for a permit is required for any such activity. (See Section 1602 [requiring notification and application as to any act ivity that ~'may ... deposit debris, waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream, or lake," including both episodic as well as perennial streams].) After discovery and complaint regarding h is activity, Applicant cl a imed that he cleared the property to eliminate potential fire hazards pursuant to Town and County requirements. (See Applicant's June 29, 2016 email to Ms. Moseley.) The claim is manufactured. First, as noted above, the work occurred immediately after Applicant's meeting with his Architect an d their decision to reduce retaining walls, and, as the Architect has since commented, the revisions required considerable review of the topography of the driveway/tum-around region. Second, were Applicant truly concerned about complying with Town requirements , he would have cleared the property by June I , 20 16, which was the Town deadline for taking down brush for tire protection, after which noncomplying property owners, including Applicant, were subject to a fine. Third, were Applicant truly concerned about fire protection (rather than about his plans and his project), he would have cleared his entire property. At a minimum, he would have started with areas far more susceptible to the start and spread of fire -such as the hillside right next to the proposed driveway/turn-around area. That hillside extends up toward Alpine and the houses on Alpine; because of its slope, it would act as a fire tunnel; and it is-and has long been-in dire need of clearing for fire protection , including clearing of long- dead fallen trees. Rather than focusing on that, Applicant literally stopped his clearing at the base of the hillside, going only so far as necessary to clear his planned (but not yet approved) construction site. Applicant has now finally acknowledged h is obligations under the Fish and Game Code and reportedly (and belatedly) applied for a permit for the work. Regardless, the activities commissioned by Applicant for denuding the Property, dumping into the creek, and creating a construction site before issuance of a construction permit, must aJI be 10 considered in evaluating the good faith of his reduction in retain ing walls, as well as his disregard for the preservation of the Property and the creek. E. Applicant Still Refuses to Comply With CEQA. At the June 8 hearing, both for the sake of Applicant and for t he sake of the Town, the Commission gave Applicant the opportunity to reconsider his position on CEQA. He has elected not to take the opportunity. He continues to assert that he can rely on the 2010 CEQA Report, with the only requirement being to submit an internal addendum. Applicant has claimed that the addendum would be enough because the proposed design is not materially different from the design at issue in 2010. Indeed, by Ms. McCormick who is advising him on this question, he opines that the current project would have less material impact on the site. The environmental reports and testimony by Appellants' experts at the hearing cogently explain the need for a new and/or updated CEQA process in either case requiring recirculation of the Initial Study to the public and governing agencies. Additionally, the following points are critical: I. Ms. McCormick's opinion regarding the environmental impact from the 2010 design and t he current design does not substitute for professional , agency, and public review and satisfaction ofCEQA requirements, particularly since it is indisputable that the current design is different from the 20 I 0 design, including in size and site placement. 2. It is likewise indisputable that the site itself has changed. Applicant has now verified that, in fact, the creek was moved since 2010. Additionally , as set forth in Exh ibit D (as discussed below, the analysis of Applicant's tree protection plan), at least eighteen trees have been removed, and numerous other tree-related changes have occurred since 2010 including tree growth, tree demise, and other changes. The years since 2010 have included years of drought and El Nino conditions. All these changes (and more detectable only by a professional environmental consultant) are material and li kely have resul ted in additional material changes to the site and its habitat. 3 . There is the concept of a "stale" CEQA. Applicant's refusal to address the problems associated with the clearly old, and arguably very outdated, CEQA report is a disservice both to himself and the Town. F. Applicant's Tree Removal, Retention, and Protection Plan is Deeply Flawed. Exhibit D attached hereto sets forth separately my comments regarding Applicant's revised plan for tree removal, retention, and protection. As set forth therein, the plan is ll outdated, incomplete, misleading, fundamentally flawed , and against both the Town Code an d proper tree protection standards. G. Applicant Did Not Work With The Neighbors; He Presented Hi s Revised Plans on a Take It or Leave It Ba sis. As set tbrth in the official minutes of the June 8 hearing, the motion made, seconded, an d passed by the Commission was "to continue the public hearing for 19 Highland Avenue to the hearing of July 27,2016 in order for the applicant to work with neighbors and consider design modifications." Applicant did not work with the neighbors. Applicant has now admitted that Appellants were actively involved in review and discussion of his plans prior to the June 8 hearing, explaining that his Architect's claims to the contrary at the June 8 hearing were the result of a "misunderstanding." Appellants have been equally involved since June 8. As the Commission will recall, the continued hearing was set for July 27, the then earliest available hearing date, at the Architect's request. This meant that there would be only 42 days before the next hearing and only 37 days before the date for submission of materials to the package to the Commission for the hearing. Particularly given the time constraints (as well as foreseeable concerns regarding busy summer schedules), Appellants were very active in attempting communicate with Applicant regarding his revised plans. As noted above, prompted by Applicant and his Architect's lack of action on the plans, I sent my June 23 email to move the process along, as well as numerous additional emails toward the same end. The other Appellants also sent communications and otherwise engaged with Applicant in an effort to learn about the planned revisions, set meetings, provide input, and try to seek a resolution with Applicant. As discussed below, when we were finally provided with the plans, we attended two meetings, on July 10 and July 16, to discuss them. Throughout the process , Applicant exhibited no interest in considering our input. As noted above, he and his architect did not even start working on the plans until weeks, after the June 8 hearing, specifically June 25 when he reportedly first met with his Architect to discuss revisions. Despite our requests , he refused to provide sufficient infonnation regarding the planned revisions to allow comment (saying only such things as the size and retaining walls would be reduced without any indication of how and by how much). Applicant failed to provide the plans even by the date that he 11nally promised , July 7. He finally provided the plans at a meeting on July 10, a meeting at which he had promised that his Architect would be present but that she did not attend. Applicant did 12 not make his Architect available as promised until a meeting on July 16 , only days before the submission date for the then-set July 27 hearing. Starting the day after he provided the plans to us on July I 0 and for the first time, Applicant threatened us with copyright infringement if we shared the plans with anyone, even, therefore, with our experts. Applicant allowed only that Ms. Smullen could provide them to her in-laws (whom, at least her mother-in-law as named Appellant, Ms. Smullen is representing in this Appeal). His Architect repeated these threats at the July 16 meeting. She expressly threatened Appellant Dr. Anthony Badame with copyright infringement liability if he used the plans to create overlays for presentation to this Commission. She made this threat even though the plans had already been submitted to the Town for review and public posting and even though Staff later advised Dr. Badame (after consulting with Town counsel but without thereby providing legal advice) of no known prohibition against Dr. Badame's use of the plans for overlay and presentation to the Committee.5 Most discouraging, however, is the fact that Applicant presented the plans on a take it or leave it bas is. He sought no input before the revisions, and he rejected all input after the revisions, including input on the matters addressed in this letter. The sole apparen t aim of the meetings was to go th rough the motions of appearing to work with the neighbors. The sole substance of the meetings from Applicant and his Architect's side was an aggressive defense of the plans. V. Concl usion I believe the site is a beaut iful one, as do the other Appellants and all of our neighbors, and I also believe that a beautiful home can be built on the si te. It is close to the high school and town , and I imagine a family with school-age children enjoying that home and the natural setting for many years to come, just as my family and children have enjoyed our home. While we have had our differences with the Applicant-a developer whose goal is to maximize h is profit from his investment-I recognize that he is entitled to invest and build. We have also had our differences with the Applicant's architect and candidly did not take well to her statement to the Commission that the site is a ''pit" which is a challenge rather than a blessing, as we see it. s Neither Applicant nor the Architect explained why they were suddenly raising copyright concerns, but the following is notable . No such claim was made at the June 8 hearing or thereafter until July 11 . No such claim was made when the plans were provided to us at the July 10 meeting . The claim was not made until after, at the July 10 meeting, I happened to ask whether Ap plicant would make the site available for an architect to revi ew. There docs not appear to be any basis for Applicant 's or the Architect 's sudden concern with copyright other than a desire to preclude independent architec t review, preclude instructive overlays such as presented by Dr. Badame at the June 8 hearing, and deprive Appellants of the opportunity to provide information helpful to the Commission in deciding this Appeal. 13 But I and the other Appellants have worked hard and sought to cooperate with the Applicant and the Architect to get past these differences to assist them and the staff to obtain approval for a home that is befitting that beautiful site. Unfortunately, Applicanfs house is not that home. For these reasons, I would ask that you uphold the Appeal and deny the Application. Thank you . Attachments 14 From: Anthony Badame [mailto:abderm@qmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2016 9:19PM To: Sally Zarnowitz Subject: Re: 19 Highland Hi Sally, Thank you for requesting that additional infonnation be provided for sheet A4.1. Please also request that the existing grade be included given that this grade is used in determining building height limitations. Further, existing grade changed from the original posted plans to the plans approved at DRC. I have attached sheet A4 .2 of each of these set of plans for your perusal. It is important that existing grade be verified for accuracy given the discrepancy. Sincerely, Anthony This Page Intentionally Left Blank The purpose of this document is to provide simple , concise , and straight forward responses to the comments, dated August I 0, by Ms. Lisa Roberts. We will respond to additional comments from the other appellants as those documents become available . Additionally, my team and I would be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. RECEIVED Attaclunents: AUG 1 8 2016 1. Neighbor Meetings 2. Neighbor Emails T OWN OF LOS GATOS 3 S f h d · 1 gth Pl · C . . H . PLANNING DIVISION . ummary o c anges rna e smce une annmg ommtsswn eanng 4. Excerpt from Page 3.9, Chapter 3 of Guide lines and Standards for Land Use N ear Streams 5. Colored Rendering 6. Arborist Memo CEQA It is our understanding that the Town has prepared an Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, although we have not seen the addendum as of the writing of this letter (8 /17/16). Commission Comments and Direction at June 8th Hearing We agree with the appellants that the primary concerns of the Planning Commission were with regard to the setback from the creek, the length of retaining wall , the amount of encroachment outside the LRDA, the bulk and mass of the home, and CEQA compliance. We differ as to the degree of change expected . We acknowledge that some members of the Planning Commission requested a smaller home , but the discussion of floor area was not a consensus and did not represent the bulk of the conversation. This is not a significantly large home by Los Gatos standards. Moreover, the perceived mass of a home is affected not only by the size of the house itself but also by the design of the home and the size of the lot. The home is located on a large Jot and is tucked into the hillside. The home will not be significantly visible due to its location and topography. The project, as proposed , is appropriate given the constraints and shape of the site (long and narrow). We acknowledge that the building encroaches outside the LRDA. However, the LRDA takes many constraints into account including topography on slopes over 30%, drainage courses, visibility from offsite, and significant ridgelines . This home is not on a ridgeline and is not significantly visible from offsite. We contend that an exception to the LRDA is appropriate because the proposed location best responds to site constraints, providing a larger setback to the creek, reducing the length .of retaining walls, reducing the number of trees to be removed , and reducing the overall mass of the home by lowering the home into the slope and stepping it into the hillside . We feel that we have made significant changes to the project as a whole (Attachment 3). We believe that the creek setback was the most significant area of concern and we have redesigned the home to meet the 20-foot setback recommended by the Town biologist and the Department of Fish and Game. By moving the home further from the creek, we were also able to save several trees that will contribute to the stability of the creek bank. We trust that the CEQA Addendum prepared by the Town satisfies the requirements of CEQA, given that the project as modified does not create any new significant impacts not already mitigated in the Negative Declaration, and in fact reduces impacts to the creek. £Xl:ilBlT 3 2 C reek Setback We acknowledge that there are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un- named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Nea r Streams recommends setbacks for slope stability 1 , ranging from 10-to 15-feet for ephemeral streams and 25-to 20-feet for intermittent streams. Where a range is given, the Local Agency will determine the appropriate setback based on their existing priorities , permitting processes, and on-site conditions. Furthermore, creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below the top of bank will occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water District or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. In this case , the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previo usly determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10- feet for the driveway would not be significant. Regardless of this flexibility, the home will be setback at least 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. This 20-foot setback is also consistent with the recommendations of the December 8, 2003 draft Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFG for development of the s ubject property (CDFG Notification No. 16000-2003-5246-3). In addition, the driveway and paved surfaces will be setback a minimum 1 0-feet from the top of bank; consistent with regional and state guidelines. Appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be designed , implemented and maintained. With regard to the cantilevered section of the home and deck , buildings and decks may overhang or encroach into a creek setback but "may not overhang or encroach beyond or within the top of bank" (emphasis added) per the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streaml (Attachment 4). Consistency with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG) The appellants have stated that the project is not consistent with the HDSG. We disagree. Architecturally, the colors and materials h elp blend the home with the natural environment. The home is responsive to site constraints most notably the creek setback. The design reflects the hillside setting by stepping the home into the topography and including natural wood materials. The home is "neighbor friendly" in that the size and topography of the site provide natural privacy. The home will be designed for sustainability and fire safety. The building height is compliant with Town code and the HDSG. Breaks in the fayade through articulation of wall and roof planes help reduce the building 's mass . The rooflines are broken into smaller components and are generally oriented in the same direction as the natural slope of the terrain with the exception of a few shed roofs that are used to reduce height and building mass . Massing is further minimized through the use of neutral tan and brown colors and materials repeated on all sides of the building. Taken together, these design features reduce the perceived massing of the structure, as illustrated by the colored rendering (Attachment 5). 1 Page 3.8, Chapter 3 of Guidelin es and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, August 2005 and revi sed Jul y 2006 2 Page 3.9 , Chapter 3 of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, August 2005 and rev ised July 2006 Neighborhood Input As provided in Attachments 1 and 2 , I have made considerable effort to meet and communicate with the appellant s and incorporate changes requested by the Planning Commission and the neighbors. It is the degree to which those changes have been made that is in conflict. However, I believe that the current proposal before the Planning Commission is fair to all. These changes include increasing the creek setback, reducing the number of trees proposed for removal , reducing the amount of retaining walls , reducing the footprint of the home , stepping the structure down the slope th ereby reducing the height of the home a s seen from th e road, redesigned the 2nd story office massing, reducing the bulk and mass on the creek side elevation, reducing the floor area, increasing the amount of wood siding , and providing more undulation in the driveway. On June 12 1h a few days after the Planning Commission meeting, I met with three of the four 3 appellants on the property to discuss the project. When we asked what an acceptable floor area would be, we were told that it is not the appellant 's job to design the project and to "be creative". Cindy and I then had some time to discuss the neighbor 's feedback as well as our own needs prior to meeting with th e architect on June 25 1h. Following our meeting with the architect , we indicated it would take time to coordinate with the architect, the engineer, and the surveyor4 . While we made a determined effort to get the plans completed sooner, Ms. Roberts has expressed her frustration that draft plans were not available until July I 01 h. As provided below, a complete set of printed5 plans, colored renderings , Arborist Report, etc. were provided to the appellants on July 12'\ giving them nine (9) days to review the plans prior to the July 21 st packet submittal date and just over 2-weeks before the July 27th Hearing date (respectively, 5-to 6- weeks before the August Hearing). Additionally, I made my Arborist available to Ms. Roberts for any questions she had (Attachment 6). In addition to holding meetings with the appellants and my architect, the following items have been provided to the appellants to assist them in reviewing the project: 1) A complete set of architectural plans 2) A complete set of civil plans 3) Colored landscape plan 4) Colored 3D renderings from seven angles 5) Footprint comparison between March 2016 DRC approval and August 24th proposal 6) Arborist Report and follow-up memos 7) Phone call between Lisa Roberts and Arborist 8) Staking of new footprint on subject property 3 A s eparate meetin g was pre vious ly set between Dede Smullen and Cindy earlier in th e day. 4 Re fer ence June 251h e mail on page 2 of20 of Attachment 2 5 We as ked the appellants to re spect th e architect's copyright and were not comfortable providing PDFs until we were confide nt that the plans were final. We provide d a link o nce they were a vailable online and part of th e record . Tree Removal, Retention, and Protection Plan Please also see memo from Arborist (Attachment 6). Per the 2016 Arborist Report , the subject property contains 86 trees6 , including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot. Seventy-nine (79) mature trees (92%) are to be retained. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in accordance with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. The project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal (#s 8, 13, 21 , 27 , 30 , 38, 39, 40 , 62). Preservation of tree #s 27, 30 , 38, 39, and 40 will provide more stability to the creek bank, minimizing potential for erosion and sedimentation into the creek. Twenty-two (22) trees will require tree protection measures during construction. Based on the site survey comparison with the 201 0 Arborist Report, we acknowledge that the previous property owner removed 18 trees including 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24 , 26, 28 , 37 , 64 , 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55, 58 , 67). The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. Although not directly affected by the project, one tree (#56) requires removal; it is infested with ambrosia beetles , is half-dead , and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Six (6) trees (#s 16 , 17 , 21 , 25, 60, 61) will be highly impacted by the project and require removal. Tree # 16 is in poor condition with poor structure and codominant stems . Tree # 17 is in fair health and has a bowed stem. Tree # 21 is in fair health and has poor structure with significant lean . Tree # 25 is in fair health and will be highly impacted by the project. Tree # 60 is also in fair health with a low live crown ratio. Tree # 61 is in poor health with the top removed. 6 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 45 trees previously inventoried (63 minus 18 removed). Neighbor Meetings 1. 3/11/2016-Met with Teres a Spalding and presented project to her. We discus sed project for about 30 minutes. Her only concern was the fire turnaround and if I could screen it with some tree cover. I agreed and said it would be in my final landscape plan. She then gave me a letter dated 3111 /2016 stating her approval and support for the project. 2 . 3112/2016 -Me t with Badame and his wife . Presented project to him, they both looked at it and had no comments . Said they would get back to me in a couple days. Badame sends 12 page opposition letter to town before DRC meeting on 3/29 /2016 . He did not contact me with any feedback whatsoever. 3 . 3/19/2016-Met with Peter Rehon (Lisa Roberts husband) and went over project with him. He thought it was a well-planned project and was an attractive home . He mentioned that he fully supported the past owner Dr. Orphan and his project in 2010 . He stated that he fully supports me being able develop m y site and looks forward to having a new neighbor. Mr. Rehon said his wife Lisa was not home at the time and wanted to setup a time for me to meet with her. Her main concern was the retention and protection of tree #30. We emailed several times during the first week of April2016, that is when she sent me the tree #30 contract. 4. 3/26/2016-Meeting at the smullen 's house. Ofthe four appellants, only Dede Smullen and Lisa Roberts were in attendance. Badame and Spalding did not attend. 5 . 4/6/2016-Meeting with Dede Smullen at her home to discuss issues regarding the easement that runs through my property. The Smullen's use this easement for ingress/egres s to access their home at 25 Highland . We spoke about how the current paved road is not at all where easement states it is. I expressed my concern about this. She said she would look into it. To date, she has not contacted me in any way concerning this issue. 6 . 5/7/2016-Meeting with the four appellants at the Smullen 's house. Of the four appellants, only Dede Smullen attended. Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding were not in attendance . After meeting, sent text to Roberts stating I spent a lot oftime preparing presentation and received no response. At 2:45 on the same day, Anthony Badame sent text saying sorry he missed meeting and would like to meet. I replied at 2:46 saying "I would be happy to show him and his wife my new items anytime . Following the May continuance, and June gth Hearing: 7. 6/12/16 -Cindy met with Dede Smullen 8. 6/12/16-Met with Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding on the property 9 . 7/10116-Met with Dede Smullen, Lisa Roberts , and Anthony Badame at the Smullen's house to discuss the draft plans 10 . 7/16/16--Met with Ded e Smullen, Lisa Roberts, Anthony Badame, and Teresa Spalding at the Smullen 's house to discuss the submitted plans Emails regarding Meetings and Plans Page 1 of20 On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 7:03PM, [19 Highland] wrote: I hope thi s group makes it easier to communicate given everyone's bus y schedule. And hopefully it is also a bit more organized than random emails. On Monday, June 13, 2016 9:51 PM, Cindy wrote: Hi all You should receive an email inviting you to a yahoo group. This group allows us to email one address that is dispersed to all. It also retains all of the correspondence in one location for access when you want it. Hopefully this will eliminate lost correspondence. Group home page: Group email address: Cindy Invite Email will look like this : You have been invited to join 19Highland group! Join this group! From: Cindy Sue Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:47 PM To: Lisa Roberts Subject: Yahoo group Hi Lisa Ill send you another link. Calll me if you have any issues. Check your spam folder for "yahoo group" You should be able to just click on the button "to join". Anthony was able to join using hi s "Badame" email account so you shouldn't run into too much of an issue .... Cindy Page 2 of20 On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 6:35 PM, Cindy wrote: P.s. You might also be able to join by clicking on the following link , then requesting to join ... https:/ I groups.yahoo.com/19Highland Cindy On Jun 19, 2016, at 2:46 PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Hi Cindy: First, I want to ask you if you would please thank Ed for removing the signs facing my pr~perty . I very much appreciate this. Second, I do not believe I have received an invite. I checked my junk mail as well. If you would not mind sending me another invitation I would appreciate it. Thank you, Lisa On Jun 25, 2016, at 2:36PM, [19Bighland] wrote: Anthony, Dede, Lisa, and Teresa, Ed and I met with the architect today. We will be making the following changes to the plans (in no particular order): -Increasing the creek setback -Reducing the length of retaining walls -Reducing the footprint outside the LRDA -Reducing the floor area -Reducing the number of trees proposed for removal The precise numbers are a work in progress . However, we wanted to at least let you know that we are making all o(these changes. The plans need to be drafted by the architect , reviewed by us, revised by the architect, and then coordinated with the engineer. Cheers! Cindy Page 3 of20 On Jul1, 2016, at 12:47 PM, Cindy Sue> wrote: All- Let's find a date after July 6th to get together to discuss the plans. You can assume that you will have the plans no later than July 7th -.so feel free to schedule as needed to give you adequate time to review the plans. I've created a doodle poll to help in this endeavor. I 've included a number of dates and times, so hopefully we can find something that works for everyone. http :I I doodle.coml po1Vvh9 g4r8 gg8 gzmsqd if you prefer to have the meeting with Town staff, please let us know and we will try and arrange something during the day that works for everyone. **In terms of the design changes, Ed wants this site and the home to be beautiful, like many other projects he has worked on in Los Gatos over the last 20 years . He takes great pride in his work and his attention to detail. Just ask any of the current I recently retired Los Gatos building inspectors . From: Cindy Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 5:04PM To: 19highland; Lisa Roberts Subject: Re: group meeting Hi again Ed and I thought it might be helpful if we had two meetings. We could explain all the changes to you all in the first meeting. Then, you all could take some time to think about the changes before we meet again. So, hopefully we can find a time to meet next weekend to present the changes. And then you all can pick a time after that to meet again. When you go to the doodle poll, be sure to expand the full calendar. There are a number of options available. ***Also -please let us know ASAP if you are ok with us moving/removing the logs that are in the area where we need to stake off the new footprint. Best, Cindy and Ed Page 4 of20 On Jul 3, 2016, at 9:06 AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Thank you for your emails. I am still unable to join the Yahoo group because my email address is not recognized, and I appreciate your copying me on the emails. Thank you for setting up the poll for meetings, but I would like to suggest an alternative. My experience has been that it takes too much time to set up meetings by poll because there are too many choices over too long a period of time and by the time everyone gets their choices in their calendars have changed. Can you let us know when you and Ed are available so we can go from there? At this point, I am generally available during the days this coming weekend, but I would like to get something on the calendar as soon as possible if we are to meet then. I assume that you are referring to logs from trees that were cut down for the construction and that they are not piled near the creek. If so, this is a very different issue from the clearing that was done recently, and I have no objection to the removal of the logs. Thanks, Lisa From: Cindy Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 8 :28AM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: ed pearson yahoogroups All I still think the doodle poll is the most efficient way to coordinate 5+ schedules. Ive heard what you said about too many choices, so I've created a new poll down with two dates : this Saturday or Sunday with three time-slots each: 1 Oam, 1 pm, or 4pm. Anyone can sign up through the following link : http:// doodle. com/poll/64nxadk4 xcf2 g9yn However, if the group prefers to schedule by email, go ahead and pick or suggest a time that works for everyone. Here are the dates from the poll: \ Saturday 9th at 1 Oam, 1 pm, or 4pm Sunday 1 Otb at 1 Oam , 1 pm, or 4pm PS. We haven't heard from anyone else about the logs so we will leave them for now. Cindy Page 5 of20 On Jul4, 2016, at 8:54AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Thank you Cindy for limiting the days-I'rn easy, currently available any of the three times Saturday or Sunday. On Jul4, 2016, at 12:36 PM, Teresa Spalding wrote: Hi Everyone, I'm away July 8-10 so just an FYI. Thanks, Teresa On Tue, Jul5, 2016 at 4:33PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Let's find something that works for Teresa. How about Monday, July 11th in the evening? Cindy From: Anthony Badame Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2016 5:14PM To: Cindysuemc Cc: Teresa Spalding; Lisa Roberts; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: Re: group meeting Weekday evenings are difficult for me. Anthony On Jul5, 2016, at 5:36PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Also, I would like to see the plans as soon as possible. If Anthony and/or Dede can make it over the weekend and it is okay with Teresa, perhaps we can go ahead and meet, and, depending on the information and changes, perhaps we can explain to Teresa or another meeting can be set. Thanks, Lisa Page 6 of20 On Jul5, 2016, at 7:05PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: I am free after 1:30pm on Saturday and after 11 am on Sunday; Monday night works as well any time. Yours, Dede On Jul 5, 2016, at 7:30PM, T eresa Spalding wrote: I'm fine if everybody wants to meet this weekend. I can see the plans possibly this week. .... Teresa Sent from my iPad On Jul5, 2016, at 7:54PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Ok. It sounds like Sunday at 4pm works for everyone except Teresa who Ed can meet with later. Please confirm . Where do you want to meet? Cindy On Jul5, 2016, at 7:57PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Smullen pool house works Yours, Dede On Tue, Jul5, 2016 at 9:45PM, Cindy wrote: Great. Thanks! Cindy Page 7 of20 On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 8:30AM, "Anthony Badame [19Highland]" wrote: Hi All , See you at the pool house this Sunday at 4pm. Anthony On Jul7, 2016, at 1:54PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Hi Cindy, The strange email that you received from Yahoo probably was related to me. I have tried everything I can think of to join the group but still have not been successful. Thank you for continuing to copy me on emails. I will be at the meeting on Sunday but I understand that the plans were going to be co~plete by today or tomorrow. I would appreciate an opportunity to review them before the meeting. Can you email them to me? Thank you, Lisa Sent from my iPhone From: Cindysuemc Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 3:10PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding; Anthony Badame; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: Plans -delayed a few days All We took another look at the neighbor comments and asked the architect and civil engineer to make some additional changes. This has delayed our receipt of the plans by a few days . We hope you understand but this is to everyone's benefit. We still have a goal to meet Sunday with the plans . Cindy Page 8 of20 On Jul8, 2016, at 6:53PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Dear Ed, I am extremely disappointed and concerned that , according to Cindy's email yesterday, we will not receive the plans as promised. We were told we would have them by no later than yesterday. Already, we were being prejudiced by late delivery of the plans, and , now, we will be even further prejudiced. You and your architect have had over 4 weeks to prepare and provide the plans, and your delays are limiting our ability to review and respond. It was your architect that persuaded the Planning Commission to set the next hearing on the earliest available date, and she knew the Commission wanted neighbor input. She must have known her workload at the time-including the fact that she was going to be so busy that she would not even be able to meet with you and start on the revised plans for 2 Yz weeks. Those lost 2 Yz weeks have not harmed you. You have taken and are continuing to take the time you want to revise the plans. The lost time hurts only us and our time for review. Now, you are not even guaranteeing that the plans will be available by Sunday, apparentl y only shooting for that as your "goal." As I told you in my June 23 email, it is imperative that we see the plans as soon as possible. There are four appellants with conflicting work, family, and summer schedules (not to mention additional representatives and experts) who need to review, analyze, and discuss the plans prior to the next hearing. I am sure you are aware of the em ails and efforts that were necessary to set up Sunday's meeting. The meeting was predicated on the assurance that we would have the plans by yesterday. It was also set based on Anthony's medical practice that does not accommodate meetings during the week. If Sunday's meeting does not go forward , the delay will not be simply a day or so but at least a full week or more. Already, the hearing is only 2 Yz weeks away (the same amount of time frittered away by your architect). A further delay would be completely unacceptable, and, if that happens, I would expect that you would request a continuance of the hearing. I am not persuaded by your explanation for the further delay. If, indeed, you are holding the plans while you make additional changes to address neighbor comments, then please provide the plans in their current form and advise us of the specific additional changes that you are making. Otherwise, I have to conclude that the assertion that the delay will benefit us is just a subterfuge to justify your failure to meet your promised deadline. I would also be interested in hearing what prompted you to take another look at the neighbor comments. It is not as if you just received them. You have been well aware of them since the June 8 hearing if not earlier. With a few exceptions, they are precisely the same comments and concerns raised and publicly stated to you by the Commission itself. Dede and I thereafter summarized the Commissioners' comments for you, but that also was weeks ago, plus I am sure that neither you nor your architect were waiting for us to recap the comments. Also, you rejected my recap, and the Commissioners' comments for that matter. You continue to insist that your plans conform to Town requirements. You have been generally dismissive of neighbor comments both before and after the June 8 hearing. I find it unli kel y that, having declined to take much of a first look at our comments, you have decided to take another look and at this late stage. I think it more likely that your architect has simply not timely completed the plans. I hope Page 9 of20 you show otherwise by providing the current plans and list of additional changes a s I have requested . As you know, I was very shocked at the falsehoods leveled by you via your architect at the June 8 hearing. I was willing to accept your explanation of a misunderstanding, but now it seems like you are again trying to set up a fayade. Until I see evidence to the contrary, the plan delay is not the benefit that you assert but simply an excuse for the prejudice being caused the neighbors . In the same way, your response to our objections to your recent damage to the creek seems calculated to make you appear to be responsive and responsible without actually being either. I wholeheartedly agree with Dede 's assessment of that situation. You deliberately had the offending work done without notice to us , and , now, you are equating it with trifles in order to justify your conduct. You assert that, only in hindsight, did you realize that we might be skeptical of your actions, and you are now purporting to advise us of every little thing that goes on at the property including log removal and the presence of your surveyor. That is ridiculous. The work at, on, and affecting the creek was not a matter ofhindsight but foresight. You admit you considered advising us of your planned work, and the reason you considered doing that is obvious. The preservation of the creek and its habitat is front and center in our appeal of your project. It is also of critical importance to the Commission and the town of Los Gatos it represents. It was the main topic of discussion at the June 8 hearing. It was the subject of the majority ofthe Commission's comments. You yourselfretained one or more experts to address the issue. You had every reason to know, and surely did know, that work affecting the creek would be of considerable concern to us, and the only plausible explanation for your failure to advise us of the planned work was to deprive us of an opportunity to stop it. Regarding trifles, please do not attempt to use them to justify further delay. As Dede pointed out, equating damage to the creek with log removal is beyond the pale. Cindy warned in her Jul y 4th email that you will not be able to provide a new site plan unless we tell you it is okay to move the logs. She is also now letting us know such things as when your surveyor will be on the - property, as if we have asked for such information. Our appeal involves the creek, tree removal, construction, and the other issues outlined in our documents and at the hearing. You will recall that log removal and surveyor presence are not among those issues. Your requesting and/or demanding our input on those matters is clearly intended to distract from our actual concerns as well as, apparently, to set up additional justifications for your own delays. We have done nothing to delay you. To the contrary, we have devoted considerable time and resources in an attempt to provide the input specifically requested by the Commission, including providing you with our detailed recaps of the Commission's comments, participating in email communications from you and Cindy, and in setting aside our other responsibilities in anticipation of reviewing the plans and meeting with you. In return, we have received absolutely no meaningful information regarding your revised plans or intended changes on which we can make ariy comment. I set aside time today and this weekend in the expectation of reviewing the plans. I have set aside 4 :00 Sunday afternoon for the meeting. The other appellants have made similar accommodations for this meeting, including Teresa who is out of town tbis weekend but has graciously agreed that the meeting can go forward without her and that she can be updated upon her return. I expect the meeting with plan review to go forward. I also sincerely hope that you will reconsider your position on the plans and provide what you have and what you still intend to do , and that you do so as soon as possible by email or otherwise prior to the meeting. Thank you , Lisa From: Cindy Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 7:25PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding; Anthony Badame; ed pearson yahoogroups Subject: We will see you Sunday All Page 10 of20 We will see you all on Sunday at 4pm. The architect will also be there with the plans. We will have copies of the site plan and renderings for you all. We will explain the reason for the delay when we see you. However, I assure you that the delay was to benefit the setback to the creek. · Ed and Cindy On Jul8, 2016, at 7:27PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Thank you for your prompt response. I will see you on Sunday. On Friday, July 8, 2016 7:47PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: P.s. You (as a group) have criticized us for making changes to the plans after you received them. So , based on that criticism, we decided that it would be best to give you the plans AFTER a major change was made. Now you are criticizing us for not giving you draft plans. We are trying to design a home so that what is accomplished fair to all. We will provide the copies when we see you on Sunday. Everyone is working over the weekend to ensure this happens. Thank you for your understanding. Ed and Cindy Page 11 of 20 On Tue, Jul12, 2016 at 12:13 PM, Cindy Sue wrote: Hi all I want to point out that the plan copies being provided to you are not public record. They have been provided to you as a courtesy before the plans are made part of the public record. If there are any substantive changes, we will let you know. The hard copies are for your personal reference and you should respect the architect's copyright. I also want to point out that the plan copies being provided to you have not been authorized for distribution. Dede -If you want to copy a print copy for Roger Sr. and Mercy Smullen, you are welcome to do so. You will have access to the final plans through the Town once made a part of the public record. If you have questions about that, you could ask Town staff. Lisa is an attorney so m aybe she can fill you in on copyright law once the final plans become part of the public record. To reiterate , you should not distribute these plans to anyone else as they are not part of the public record. Cindy From: Cindy Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2016 9:48AM To: Lisa Roberts; yahoogroups ; Subject: Sat 1 pm (July 16) Hi You all should have received (or have access to) the plans by now. I would like to confirm our meeting on Saturday (July 16) at 1 pm at the Smullen pool house. Ed and Cindy From: Lisa Roberts < To: Cindy< yahoogroups < Sent: Wednesday, July 13,2016 11:40 AM Subject: RE: Sat 1 pm (Jul y 16) Cindy: Did you have a response to Anthony's request for the draft 3D renderings? Thanks , Li sa Page 12 of20 On JuJ 13, 2016, at 1:24PM, Cindy McCormick [19Highland] wrote: Hi Lisa- We will ask Bess to attend -she has been putting in a lot ofhours to get these drawings to you all . ahead of when they go out to the public. I am trying to be conscientious of her time, but Ed understands its important to you, so we will do our best to get her there. I'm not sure if she is even available -but we will ask. stay tuned .... As for the 3D renderings, Town staff suggested we incorporate the topography (and we agree)- so Bess is doing that now. it will take a little longer to do that. But we will get them to you as soon as possible. Thanks and see you all in a few days. Cindy On Jul13, 2016, at 1:33PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Are you saying these drawings have not been submitted to the City yet? We saw a cover letter dated yesterday. Yours, Dede On Wed, Jul13, 2016 at 2:08 PM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: Dede We turned in the plans and arborist report on Monday (exactly as you received) so that staff can prepare their report. The 3D drawings are not a required submittal so we can take a little more time on those . Cindy On Jul13, 2016, at 2:13 PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: Thank you for the copies, that makes it much easier on us. We really appreciate it. But just to clarify, we did not get this current set of plans ahead of the public as you submitted them to the City on Monday. Thank you again for delivering the copies . Dede Page 13 of20 On Wed, Jul13, 2016 at 2:25PM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: De De They are not online and staff will not give the public a copy because they are copyright material. Most cities honor copyright at the counter including Saratoga and Campbell. You have a copy of something that is not being distributed to the public (or the Planning Commission) until next Thursday or Friday (as far as I know unless Los Gatos does it different) That's all I meant :) Cindy On Wednesday, July 13, 2016 2:37PM, "Dorothea Smullen [19Highland]" wrote: Once it's submitted to the City its a matter of public record per the Brown Act. Anyone can ask to see it and get copies for a fee. Thank you again for providing us with a copy so we do not have to go to the City. Dede From: Cindy Sue Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 10:40 AM To: yahoogroups; Anthony Badame; Lisa Roberts; Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding Subject: packet deadlines hi All- I thought you might fmd this informative. I requested this information from Sally: deadline for packet submission: llam on Thursday July 21st. PLANNING COMMISSION-PUBLIC COMMENT DEADLINES: Comments received by 11 am the Thursday prior to Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Agenda and Staff Report Distribution Comments received by 11am the Fri-Mon-Tue prior to the Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Addendum and usually distributed by email and hard copies on the dais Comments received by 11am Wednesday/Day of the Planning Commission meeting will be included in the Desk Item and distributed by email and hard copies on the dais Page 14 of20 Presentations/PowerPoints on thumb drives have a lPM deadline the day of the meeting (For security reasons , the Town provides a dedicated laptop that staff will upload your presentation onto) PLANNING COMMISSION-PUBLIC COMMENT/WRITTEN MATERIALS SUBMITTED AT THE MEETING: 15 Copies of written/display materials are needed for the Planning Commission and staff On Fri, Jul15, 2016 at 12:46 PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy: Thank you for the information. Ed and Cindy: I mentioned weeks ago when we had received nothing while your architect was too busy to work on this matter that I was concerned that we would not be given sufficient time to review the revised plans, have a meaningful dialogue with you regarding them , and, if necessary, prepare for the hearing that was set at the then-earliest available date based on your architect's request (and I would say implied assurance to the Commission and us that she had the time to prepare the plans in a sufficiently timely manner to allow the neighborhood input that the Commission expressly requested). The actions of your architect and you have shown that I was right to be concerned, and , now , with Cindy's email stating that we have less than a week to submit comments for inclusion in the Agenda and Staff Report Distribution, I am extremely alarmed and dismayed. You have failed even to provide us with sufficient information to comment to the Commission, much less engage in any dialogue with you, which of course was the main purpose of the Commission's request for neighbor input-to see if we could reach a resolution on any or all items of concern. As you know , we received no plans from you until last Sunday, after your architect had frittered away weeks at the beginning of the continuance time between hearings , after the date that even you set for providing the plans , and, as far as I can tell, for no good-reason other than to limit our time to review and respond. (As I have said before, I was not persuaded by your last-minute assertion that you suddenly decided to reconsider our comments and rework the plans , and I find the excuse even less credible given your explanation last Sunday that the additional rework was to move the creek setback, which you had already told us weeks ago that you were going to do). Even now, we have not received the information we need and have requested. You refuse even to respond to Anthony's request for a pdf of the plans. You refuse even to commit to a date on which we will receive 3D renderings even though, as I now understand it, they should be already be on your architect's computer program. Nor have you yet confirmed one way or the other whether your architect will be at the meeting tomorrow. You will recall that you told us she would be at the last meeting but she did not show, and , as I have stated, I have questions best answered by her. Page 15 of20 Even as to the new arborist's report, you promi sed last Sunday that I would receive them the next day, but I was not given the report until the day after-and then with copies of a package including cover letter to the Town plaiU1ers that you had delivered to the Town, but not us, the preceding day. The package was quite a surprise to me , given your representations to us the day before that you had not provided anything to the Town planners , that you had not spoken with them, and that you were not going to provide anything to them or speak with them ab out your revised plans because the project was no longer before them but solely in front of the Planning Commission which alone would revi ew the plans and d eci de the matter. Now, Cindy has explained that you provided the documents so Town staff could prepare its report. I can only conclude that your contrary comments on Sunday were to dissuade us from commwlicating with the Town planners ourselves. For the meeting tomorrow, would you please immediately: 1. Confirm that your architect will be at the meeting. 2. Provide u s with the 3D renderings . 3. Provide Anthony (as well , by the way, as Dede) with a pdf of the plans . 4. Respond to our earlier question whether you will or will not be readjusting the story poles. 5. Be prepared to discuss what, if any, further revisions you would consider making to the plans. Additionally, I have a specific question I would like answered at or before the meeting regarding Tree 30 and how you are proposing to protect it during construction. Are you proposing fencing at the recommended 5 times the DBH or the minimum 3 times the DBH or something else and if so what? And even more specifically, how much of the now-20 feet area that you say would lie between the tree and the structure foo tprint would be designated as the tree protection zone? I look forward to your prompt response. Lisa From: Cindy Sue Sent: Friday, July 15, 2016 3:39 PM To: Lisa Roberts Cc: yahoogroups; Anthony Badame; Dorothea Smullen; Teresa Spalding ed pearson Subject: Re: packet deadlines All Please be respectful of the time that has been spent putting these plans together. Page 16 of20 here is a link to the plans: http ://www.losgatosca.gov/2216/Pending-Planning-Pro jects I ask again that you respect the architect's copyright, as I have requested in previous emails to everyone. July 1Oth -We met with you and provided preliminary plans to you on Sunday, July 1Oth. Bess spent all day Saturday through the next day Sunday to prepare these plans. Bess and her staff spent all evening Sunday and all day Monday finishing the plans. Yes, she and her staff working overtime to meet the deadline -even when you continue to berate her. The plans were turned in to the Town on Monday July 11th at approximately 5pm. We made copies on Monday evening and notified you on Monday evening that the plans would be available the next day. We dropped off copies to Lisa's house on Tuesday, July 12th. July 12th-July 21st= -8-9 days to review the plans before the Packet deadline. July 12th-July 26th= ~13-14 days to review the plans before the Addendum deadline. July 12th-July 27th= ~14-15 days to review the plans before the Desk Item deadline. July 12th-July 27th=~ 15 days to review the plans before the Hearing begins. July 16th -Ed and Bess will be available to answer other questions you have tomorrow - Saturday at 1 pm at the Smullen pool house. 3D Renderings are not a required submittal. However, Bess is preparing these for you. They will be available soon. We appreciate your respect of the time it takes to prepare these renderings. As for Tree #30, as Ed mentioned to you last Sunday, the structure will be setback in excess of the recommended distance to the tree trunk. Ed is working this evening and can answer_ your questions tomorrow. Ed and Cindy Page 17 of20 On Jul 15, 2016, at 5:32PM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Ed and Cindy: Thank you for Cindy's email. I will be attending a memorial service before our meeting tomorrow and will not be able to check the link Cindy gave to the plans, but, unless it will provide Anthony and Dede with pdfs of the plans, you have not responded to the repeated requests for them. I appreciate that your architect and her staff worked overtime last weekend, but had she (and you) started work on the plans promptly after the hearing, the overtime would not have been necessary. Further, I am not aware of any "deadline" that she met as a result oflast weekend's work since, even before the weekend, you had already missed your own unilaterally set deadline of no later than July 7 to provide us with the plans. As admitted by Cindy's email, you have given us only 8-9 days to review the plans before the · packet deadline, and , as you are well aware, the Commission will necessarily have better opportunity to review and consider items included in the packet rather than in later submissions. I am sure that your team is also intent on providing your full submission by the packet deadline . Thank you for confirming that the architect will be there tomorrow. You have repeatedly stated that 3D renderings are not a required submittal, but Ed said on Sunday that he would have them prepared for us, earlier this week Anthony pointed out that they must already be done, and you have never responded to Anthony's point except to repeat that the renderings are not required submittals so you can take extra time to submit them. Even with the meeting set for tomorrow, you are not saying they will be available then but soon. Regardless of whether the renderings are required, we have requested them, you have agreed to provide them, and they are apparently readily available to provide. Please provide them by the meeting. I , for one, am not an architect, and the renderings are essential to my understanding of your revisions and ability to comment on them. Your email did not respond to my question about story poles. Can you respond to it? On Tree 30, I do not know what you mean that the structure will be set back in excess of the recommended distance to the tree trunk. It is not the structure setback that matters (except to the extent that it prevents the tree protection area), but the tree protection area . Are you contemplating a fence around that area, and , if so, by the standard of 5 x diameter or 3 x diameter or something else? As you know , this is an extremely important tree; it is a major concern of mine; and I would appreciate specific information about the proposed protection plan for it. I will not be able between now and the meeting tomorrow to prepare and send you a list of questions, but I am confident that, if you and your architect come prepared with all the plans and other pertinent documents, you and she will have no problem answering my questions. Thank you, Lisa Page 18 of20 On Saturday, July 16, 2016 10:23 AM, "Cindysuemc [19Highland]" wrote: Ed will bring the 3D renderings to today's meeting. As I've stated numerous times , it takes time to produce them and we appreciate your patience. Cindy On Jul19, 2016, at 7:14PM, Dorothea Smullen [19Highland] wrote: I got a call from Sally today saying that the City needed more time to review the project and prepare an Addendum to the Initial Study/MND . The possible dates presented for a new hearing were August 24th and September 14th. Please let us know if this is consistent with the information you are getting from the City. Yours, Dede From: Cindy Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2016 12:04 AM To: yahoogroups ; Subject: Re: [19Highland] Continuation of 19 Highland All We were informed that the Planning Commission meeting would be continued to August 24th. Also, in addition to meeting with you all on three occasions (June 12 , July 10, July 16) the following items have been provided to each of you, giving you ample documentation to adequately study the modified project: 1. Complete set of Architectural plans 2 . Complete set of Civil plans 3. Full color landscape plan 4. Complete set of color renderings from all angles 5 . Footprint comparison between March 2016 DRC approval and current plan 6 . Complete Arborist report 7 . Arboristlclient agreement letter 8. Phone call from Arborist to Lisa Roberts to discuss report Staking and ribbon outline of the new footprint is complete. Ed and Cindy Page 19 of20 On Thu, Jul21, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Lisa Roberts wrote: Cindy, Thank you very much for letting us know about the continuance. I am very relieved that this gives us more time to look at the plan revisions. It seems to me that Ed was going to provide a couple more things, the parcel map and something else I can't remember, but I will check my notes and let you know ifthere was anything else. Enjoy your day, Lisa On Jul21, 2016, at 1:02PM, Anthony Badame wrote: I requested a plan showing the cut sections with the topo contour elevations. Bess stated she had them but the ink? did not come through. The town's posted plans do not show the contours. Anthony On Fri, Jul22, 2016 at 8:44AM, Cindy [19Highland] wrote: Good Morning There are section drawings on pages G6 and A4.1. G6 shows the elevation points. You can also see the topography and the elevation points on the other Civil drawings (pages G2 through G7). Also, there are seven (7) 3D renderings from multiple angles to help you visualize the home's articulation. Only a few of the trees on site are shown for perspective. We do not intend to produce any more drawings at this point, however, if you'd like, Ed can meet with you all to explain the civil drawings, renderings, ribbon staking, etc. Ed and Cindy On Jul 22, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Anthony Badame [19Highland] wrote: Hi Cindy, Thank you for the information. Bess indicated at the July 16 neighborhood meeting that she had the drawings which show the topo contour elev ations for cut sections 2 , 3, and 4. She stated that apparently the ink did not come through with the drawings presented at the meeting and she would provide the drawings with the contour elevations this week. None of the sheets you referenced contain this information. Please have Bess provide the group with these drawings at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Anthony On Saturday, July 23, 2016 12:59 PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: All Page 20 of20 Bess is on vacation for a couple of weeks. She will be back for the meeting in August but we do not intend to ask her for anything else at this point. Ed would be happy to meet with you all again to explain how to read the detailed plan sheets and exhibits that have been provided to you, which include : Complete set of Architectural plans , including sections Complete set of Civil plans including sections, elevation points , and topography Full color landscape plan Footprint comparison Colored 3D renderings from multiple angles to help you visualize the home's articulation. A few trees are shown for perspective. Ed and Cindy Emails regarding weed abatement Page 1 of7 On Thursday, June 30, 2016 7 :19 PM, wrote: Dede, None of those things have occurred. We will contact CDFW. Cindy On Jun 29, 2016, at 9:50PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: Fish and Game Code section 1602 requires an entity to notify CDFW prior to commencing any activity that may do one or more of the following : • Substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream or lake; • Substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or • Deposit debris , waste or other materials that could pass into any river, stream or lake. Please note that "any river, stream or lake" includes those that are episodic (they are dry for periods of time) as well as those that are perennial (they flow year round). This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow . It may also apply to work undertaken within the flood plain of a body of water. CDFW requires an LSA Agreement when it determines that the activity, as described in a complete LSA Notification, may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources. Yours, Dede On Jun 29, 2016, at 7:26PM, Cindy wrote: We are not aware that you need a RWQCB permit to cut weeds. Where are you getting your information. Please provide a link and phone number? I will foll ow up. Cindy Page 2 of7 On Jun 29, 2016, at 4 :2 0 PM, Cindy Sue wrote: Anthony, Dede, Lisa, and Teresa, Please see Ed's response (below) to Marni regarding the weed abatement that occurred this weekend. We apologize for not telling you before the gardener went out. We were notified by another neighbor that the Badames and Sawyers recently had their weeds cut down so we were simply following suit. We understand how sensitive you are to anything occurring on site -even when it something as necessary as clearing brush for fire safety. As far as Ed parking in front of Teresa's house, he was given permission from the Sawyer's to do so. It is our understanding that the Sawyers own that small piece ofland. At some point, we will also be installing story poles. Hopefully I will have enough heads up to let you know before that happens. But it certainly won't happen until we get the plans back from the engineer. We will try our best to keep you up to date. Cindy On Jun 29, 2016, at 3:54 PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: I am sure you are aware that this particular action requires a permit from RWQCB. We would appreciate if you would forward your permit to the group. Thanks! Yours, Dede ----------Forwarded message---------- From: ed pearson Date: Wed, Jun 29,2016 at 1:04PM Subject: Re: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory To: Marni Moseley Marni Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Page 3 of7 My Gardner was clearing overgrown weeds, brush, and invasive vinca to eliminate the possibility of a fire hazard . No trees were removed. The work was completed during allowable hours on Saturday. The area is not an understory. It is a large clearing w ith non-native and invasive brush and weeds . This property is located in the Wildland Urban Interface area, a high danger fire area. As you know the Town and County takes weed abatement and fire safety seriously, and will clear weeds for homeowners who do not take action first. Weed abatement needs to occur at least once yearly, if not more often. I considered notifying the neighbors. But, ultimately I felt that it wasn't necessary because others in the immediate neighborhood have recently cleared weeds on their property, without notice. In hindsight, I should have realized that the neighbors are going to be skeptical of any action regarding this property, however good the intention might be. Cindy has set up a yahoo group for the neighbors and will send them this information as well. Here are some links regarding weed abatement and the Wildland Urban Interface area . https://www.sccgov.org/sites/wap/Pages/wap.aspx https://www.sccgov.org/sites/wap/Documents/Program-Guidelines-Brochure.pdf http ://losgatos .granicus.com/Meta Viewer.php?view id=S&clip id=l483&meta id=152026 Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshall, would be happy to speak with the neighbors if they have any questions about weed abatement and fire safety. Doug Harding's phone number is 408-378- 4010. He is also happy to speak to any ofthe neighbors regarding the fire turnaround requirements. Lastly, I have attached a photo of the creek. While it might appear like a pile of mulch, it is merely a change in elevation in the creek bed with a log next to it that I'm sure has been there for years. There is no pile of mulch. If I have misinterpreted the protocol for weed abatement, please let me know so it does not happen again. Thank you and I wish you well at your new job. The Town is losing an excellent Planner. Ed -----Forwarded message----- From: "Mami Moseley" To: "ed pearson Subject: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Date: Tue, Jun 28, 2016 8:49AM Ed, can you clarify what occuned on the site this weekend? T hanks. Mami F. Moseley, AICP Associate Plmmer mmosel ey@losgatosca. gov 408-354-6802 Community Development Counter Hours: 8:00 AM-1:00 PM, Monday-Friday Please note the upcoming Town closure: July 4 -Independence Day Begin forwarded message: From: "Dorothea Smullen"< To: "Teresa Spalding"< Page 4 of7 Cc: "Joel Paulson"< "Lisa Roberts"< "Anthony Badame" <"Malia Durand">, "Richard Grassetti" < Subject: Re: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Sorry I apologize for getting the dates wrong. Roger and Eliot were there on Sunday but did not mention it to me so I assumed it was done today. Thank you Teresa for clarifying! Page 5 of7 On Mon, Jun 27,2016 at 11:04 PM, Teresa Spalding> wrote : Hi All, This was done on Saturday afternoon from 11 AM to 6PM and I was not notified that this would be happening, nor were any of us. The workers were buzzing noisy saws for hours and my tenant was completely upset that her quiet weekend getaway for was ruined by hours of buzzing saws. This was something Ed really should have mentioned to me since he is at his property daily and I see him in front of my house walking up and down the street He usually parks in front of my place, it seems daily, and walks from my bouse up the street. Malina, Dee's niece who works at the San Jose Planning Dept, wanted Joel Paulson's (planning director) info to email him about this since this is a complete violation and a disruption of the natural habitat. The natural beauty of the landscape has been ruined, hopefully temporarily!!! I'm not sure the commissioners will like this. What happened to the open communication? ..... Cindy just set up email with all of us on Yahoo. Wouldn't it have been easy enough to send out an email letting us know this .... it seems to be a one way here. He has not been open with us , yet has noted how hard we are all to meet with but he continues to do stufflike this. Ed wants to do what Ed wants to do and expects our blessing on it.. .... Teresa Spalding From: Dorothea Smullen Subject: Clear-cut of 19 Highland understory Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 21:06:02-0700 To : jpaul son@losgatosca.gov CC : Ed Pearson was at his site today and completely cleared the understory of the site including the creek; and dumped all the mulch into the creek. My niece Malia was at the site and took these pictures from the easement. This i s a demonstration on what has been occurring on the site by the previous owners wishing to degrade the quality and effect the status of the creek. Yours, Dede Page 6 of7 On Monday, July 4, 2016 3:39PM, "Cindy [19Highland]" wrote: All, We are letting you know that the logs are in the area where we need to stake off the new footprint. The logs were there when Ed purchased the property. He will need to move them about 10 feet from their current location in order to stake the new footprint. We are actually moving the home further from the creek which is why we need to stake the new footprint. We also want to let you all know that the surveyor will be there on Tuesday morriing July 5th. This is a necessary step to getting the site plan correct. We will continue to try and communicate any actions taken with regard to the property. Cindy On Jul4, 2016, at 2:25PM, Dorothea Smullen wrote: Equating the removal of the logs with the severe degrading of the creek is a bit of a stretch. If you in any way think these are similar actions I am very concerned about the health of the creek throughout the period of construction. It is appearing that you may need to have a biologist on site throughout construction. 1 am hoping that ·you can remove the logs without further harming the creek. Yours , Dede On Jul4, 2016, at 2:05PM, Cindysuemc wrote: Hi Teresa Ed has a friend who would like the logs .... Thanks for the idea though ... Cindy Page 7 of7 On Jul 4, 2016, at 12:39 PM, Teresa Spalding wrote: Hi Cindy, People on Next Door might want your logs for firewood. I can post this for you or you can if you want people to come pick up the wood. It can be posted as "free firewwod" It's a great resource to u se ... FYI Let me know if you'd like me to post it and people can email you To reply about it. Sent from my iPad Summary of Changes The following is an abbreviated list of the changes made in consideration of the comments made by the appellants and the Planning Commission: 1. Building Footprint reduced by 620 sq. ft. 2. Total floor area reduced by 429 sq. ft. 3 . Trees to be removed decreased from 15 to 6, with one additional dead tree to be removed 4. Trees closest to creek will be preserved for creek bank stability 5. Retaining wall length decreased from 653-feet to 210-feet 6. House footprint reduced by 610 sq. ft. (from 2,992 sq. ft. to 2,372 sq . ft.) 7. House has been recessed into hillside as suggested in HDSG (requiring additional grading). 8. Distance from tree #30 to building footprint increased from 15-feet to of20-feet minimum 9. Overall height, massing, and length of home has been reduced 10. Creek setback increased from 15-feet to 20-feet the closest point of the home's footprint I hope that you find these changes to be in keeping with the spirit of the comments given. I have made great strides to modify the design to alleviate the neighbor 's concerns while also maintaining my own desires as the property owner. Sincerely, 011 . IENCROACHMIENTS BIE'II'WEEii' THE TOP Of BANK Related E!e$ource Agency Permits: In addition to t he G&S 's below, any construction activities proposed bet o w the top of bank are s u b ject to review and permit authorization from the Reg ional Water Quality Control Boord, California Department o f Fish and Game, and in most cases, the US Army Corps of Engineers a nd their Federal consulting agencies. Applicants may choose to complete a JARPA (J oint Aquatic R9source Permit Applicatio n) if permits are required from m o re than o ns Resource Agency. III.A Overhang Top of Bank 1 . Decks, pathways, buildings or any other structures (excluding road crossings, outfalls, and bank protection structures) may not overhang or encroach beyond or within the top of bank. 2 . When illegal structures are identified, which cause public health and safety problems and/or damage to stream resources, appropriate jurisdiction should take actions to have them removed or modified. 111.81. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Top of Bank The construction of dear span structures is preferred for new and replacement bridges. Bridge piers may be allowed if length of span makes dear span infeasible as detennined by the local jurisdiction. 111.82. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Top of Bank If a structure must be placed in the active channel due to structural requirements, feasibility, or otherwise, a geomorphic, biological impacts, and/ or hydraulic analysis will be required and will be reviewed by SCVWD and other state and federal agencies . For construction of new bridges, loss of riparian, or aquatic habitat beneath the bridge should be mitigated and located as dose to the new bridge as possible. 111.83. Design/Construction Related to Encroachments between the Topol Bank Have footings and pile caps that are designed based on channel scour to prevent erosion. The appropriate foundation depth should be determined by a licensed engineer and should be at minimum three (3) feet below active channel invert. If depth of waterway allows, clearance under the bridge should be a minimum 12 feet for maintenance access or access to the stream should be provided from rood. 111 .84. Deaign/Construction Related t o Encroachments between the Top of Bank Structures must not reduce the active channel or active floodplains' conveyance area or redirect flow to the detriment of another bank or the river bed. Designs in SCVWD jurisdictional areas must be capable of conveying 1 00-year design flow and meet SCVWD's freeboard requirements explained in Design Guides. USER •'•'\ANUAL GUIDELINES & STANDARDS FOP. LAND US E NEAR STREAMS 3.9 19 Highland Avenue Response to Appeal by Roberts August 16, 2016 August 16 , 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consulting Arborists LLC P.O . Box 1010 Felton, CA 9 501 8 831 . 331 . 8982 I reviewed the appeal documents provided by Mrs. Lisa Roberts for Site Application S-15-077 dated August 10,2016 regarding concerns about the trees. On Monday July 18, 2016 I had a lengthy conversation with Mrs. Roberts over the phone, at the property owner's expense, to discuss many of the issues addressed in th e appeal regarding trees and tree protection. I performed my assessment in an independent and objective manner as I am required to do. Arboriculture is an inexact science that combines the practice and study of the care of trees . Much of the criteria evaluated by an arborist on any given site or tree are subjective and individuals will draw different conclusions based on their own observations and experience. I have attempted to define the criteria I used for individual ratings and assessments to disclose how an why I arrived at my conclusions. Many of the terms used in the report including Tree Risk As s essment, Tree Protection Zones, Condition and Influence ratings are defmed within. Deviation or interpretation by the reader may vary but the principles remain the same. My assessment ofthe trees and impacts from the proposed plans were performed in an objective and independent manner based on the conditions present during my inspection and the information provided to me. I would recommend upon approval a final tree protection plan be created prior to any site disturbance to reflect any and all planned changes. I am happy to answer any all questions regarding the trees and my assessment at the meeting on August 24, 2016. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Ri sk Assessor Qualified Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 1 Additional Safety Recommendations • Trees 18-feet or taller should be limbed up 6-feet from the ground. Provide additional vertical clearance when trees have vegetation beneath it. • Stack woodpiles a miiUmum of 30-feet from buildings, fences and other combustible materials. • Clear vegetation and other flammable material from underne ath decks. Enclose elevated decks with fire-resistive materials. • If you have any trees near power lines please contact PG&E at 1-800-PGE-5000 for a free inspection. State Law requires vegetation clearance from electrical lines. For more information please visit www.PGE .com. In most cases PG&E will trim or remove the tree at no cost to you. • The Santa Clara County Fire Safe Council offers Defensible Space Chipping Programs to assist homeowners, including special programs for qualified low-income, seniors and disabled homeowners. For more information visit www .sccfiresafe .or ~ For ornamental shrubs and bushes adjacent to your home, we recommend planting a fire- retardant variety. If there is a possibility that erosion may occur, any native vegetation that is removed should be replaced with fire-retardant vegetation. Please complete and return the enclosed postcard on or before April1, 2016. Beginning the first week of April, County Fire personnel will conduct inspections to advise property owners who have not implemented the fire hazard abatement measures what work is necessary in order to be in compliance with the applicable regulations. If you are unable to complete the required work due to late season rains or other hardship, please contact our office as soon as possible. You may complete the brush clearance work yourself, hire your own contractor, or request to schedule our authorized contractor to perform the work. If you would like this service, please check the appropriate box on the postcard or call (408) 378-4010 prior to April1, 2016. If you choose this option, the charges for this work will appear on your next property tax bill. Please note: Follow-up inspections will be conducted starting June 1, 2016 of properties that did not have the Enforced Safety Regulations implemented at the time of the fit:~t inspection. If you do not comply with items A, B, C and D of the Enforced Safety Regulations, the compliance work will be completed by the authorized contractor of the Town of Los Gatos and the charges for this service will appear on your next property tax bill. If you would like to schedule a courtesy inspection with one of our inspectors or have questions regarding the safety compliance of your property, ple ase contact our Fire Prevention Division at (408) 378-4010 or 1-800-800-1793. Thank you for your cooperation in helping to establish a fire-safe community. Sincerely, /~-:~, KenKehrnna Fire Chief RE: Los Gatos site -ed pearson Page 1 of 1 ' RE: Los Gatos site Blinn, Brenda@Wildlife Tue 7/19/201612:36 PM In box To:e d pearson <epearso nz@outlook.com >; Ed : Based on our phone conversation this morning, you indicated that you will not be conducting any future work within the creek channel, creek banks or riparian zone on your property. If you will not be removing vegetation within the creek or bank area, or any other activity in these areas, you do not need to send in a Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification. If you have any further <yuestions, please gf\'e me a can. Regards, Brenda Brenda Blinn-Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisory) California Department of Fish and Wildlife -Bay Delta Region Habitat Conservation Program ?_?_~~.?!I~::~~~_!.~.~!.~.?.P..~!-f!: .. ~-~.?.?._~ V: 707-944-5541 f: 707-944-5553 Brenda.Biinn@wildlife.ca.gov Every Californian should conserve water. Find out how at: SaveOurWater.com · Drought.CA.gov https://outlook.live.com/owal?viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&ItemiD=AOMkADAwAT... 7/24/2016 July 19,2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: 19 Highland Avenue Dear Mr. Pearson: H.T. HARVEY & ASSOCIATES Ecological Consultants In regards to vegetation on the property along the reach of the drainage directly adjacent to the proposed house location, the vegetation comprises grasses, forbs and shrubs that are either native or have become naturalized in this part of Santa Clara County. Based upon a prior topographic survey from 1996 it appears that a small portion of the creek has been moved sometime between 1996 and 2015; this reach of the creek is in relatively very good ecological condition and appears to be geomorphically stable under the current hydrological co nditions. From a floristic, soils and hydrological condition, this small reach of the creek is indistinguishable from the upstream and downstream reaches. In terms of potential bat species on site, this issue was covered under our 2016 biological report. That information is provided below: • The Townsend's big-eared bat ( Corynorhinus townsendit), a State candidate for listing, historically occurred in the Project region. Unlike other bat species which seek refuge in crevices, the Townsend's big-eared bat normally roos ts in open, cavernous spaces, hanging in the top of a natural cavity, or in the top corner of ceilings and walls of an undisturbed room (this specie s is easily disturbed while roosting in buildings). A focused survey for suitable bat habitat on the Project site did not detect any large cavities suitable for roosting Townsend's big-eared bats. Therefore this species is not expected to occur on the Project si te. • The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a California species of special concern, historically occurred in the Project region. However, a focused search for bat roosting habitat during the site visit located no suitable habitat for pallid bat maternity roosts or large day roosts in trees within the Project site. Therefore. this species is not expected to occur on the Project site. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Patrick J. Boursier, Ph.D . Principal 983 University Avenue, Building D • Los Gatos, CA 95032 • Ph: 408.458.3200 • F: 408.458.3210 UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY Eng in eering Geology • Geotechnical Eng in eering Mr. Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 a a vis1o C2 RTH 18 July 2016 Document ld. 15193C-O 1 L3 Serial No. 17681 SUBJECT: PLAN REVIEW AND SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PROPOSED SITE DEVELOPMENT PEARSON PROPERTY 19 HIGHLAND AVENUE LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Pearson: As you reque sted, we have reviewed the revised proposed Site Plan (Sheet G2 with revision date July 20 16) by Peoples Associates for the proposed residential development of your property at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos , California. We previously conducted a limited geotechnical study for the development of the site and presented the results of that study in our Limited Geotechnical Study report dated 22 November 2013 (Document ld. 13050C-01R1). Subsequently, we provided updated seismic design criteria in our Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update letter dated 22 December 2015 (Document I d. 15193C-O 1 L1 ). Additionally, we provided a response to geotechnical peer review comments in our letter dated 17 February 2016 . We understand that questions have been raised by neighbors and by the Los Gatos Planning Commiss ion regarding the location of the creek and the s etback requirements from the creek bank. In response to these and other comments, we understand that Peoples Associates have surveyed the location of the creek within the eastern portion of the property. Based on the recent survey, sometime between 1996 (when the former site survey was performed) and 2015 (when you purchased the property), it was determined that a small portion of the creek within the eastern part of the site was artificially relocated from the adjacent property onto the subject site. The former creek channel was filled , and a new creek channel and creek bank in the present creek location were excavated. The revised site plan shows the current location of the creek channel, creek bank, and a 20-foot setback line from the top of the current creek bank. Also in response to comments raised by the Planning Commission, we understand that the building footprint for the proposed house and garage has been reduced. The proposed foundation elements for the reduced building footprint are beyond the 20-foot setback from the top of the current creek bank. In addition, the plan shows a significant reduction in the number and length of site retaining walls. Based on our site observations, the current creek bank is densely vegetated, and shows no evidence of recent grading or significant erosion. The creek banks are about 3 feet tall or less . Typically, we would recommend a setback from th e t op of the creek bank of 2 times the height of Copyright - C2Earth, Inc. r • I • .I i Jj( ~I ·I ~ 9"0 I . ' ' I 1- 15 July 2016 TO: Town of los Gatos I Community Deve lopment Departme nt, attention Sally Zarnowitz RE : 19 Highland Avenue I Pearson Home Dear Sally, Ed (property owner) has dropped off the 16 sets for the Planning Commission inclusive of new floor plans, elevations, and sections; new renderings from all sides of the home; new landscape plan; and diagrams showi ng the lRDA and footprint analysis. Ed has made several changes accommodating many of the comments from our recent Planning Comm ission. He has also taken into cons ideration the add itional feedback and concerns of the neighbors, and ada pted the plans accordingly. Ed has made efforts to socialize the plans with the neighbors as well, and even set up a yahoo-group email account so that everyone may be privy to all communications together. The following is a summary of the modifications made: ~ Tree rem o va l and protection: The new proposal, with the shift on t he site plan of the footprint, rework of the driveway and fire turn around area and rework of the staggered retaining walls allowed for more trees to be maintai ned. There are only 7 trees being removed now (one is currently dead) rather than 15. All t r ee and site protection will be per the arborists recommendations, and conditioned for the project. • Retaining w alls: With the re-s iting of the house, adjustment to the driveway and t urnaround, retaining walls have been reduced from 653' to 210'. Note that the house has been further buried into the grade at the str eet si de as well, and the floor plan now steps down 18" from the ent ry to the rear yard, along the long axis, following the natural grade mor e. This is in keeping with the Hills ide Design Standards and Guidelines. • Building Footprint : Please see the d iagram t itled "Footprint Comparison Exhibit''. The diagram clearly shows the reduction in footprints on the site from the original approved scheme through today. Great attention has been gi ven to reduce the footprint architecturally with all levels of the floor plans. Subtle floor plan changes, as well as a cantilever concept at a portion of the creek side have been incorporated into the new design. The footprint reduced from 2992 SF to 2372 SF (a 620 SF red u ction). • Creek Setback : The new design increases the creek setback to the 20' preferred by the neighbors, utilizing the cantilever concept in only a couple areas. Otherwise, the body of the home now sits a minimum of 20' away from the top of bank at its closest location. As a reminder, all reporti ng specialists (geotech, biologists, a r borists, Fish and Game, etc.) were satisfied with the originally proposed and approved 15', including the Town's peer reviewers. The top of bank has also been surveyed and marked in the field. The updated footprint has also been marked in the field. S TUDICJTHREE DE S GN • LRDA and building placement: Please refer to the diagram titled "Regulatory Constraints Exhibit". The larger creek setback, typical property line setbacks and the available LRDA lines have all been superimposed to show the "buildable" lot area (further highlighted in green). The lot is unique in shape and character, and these setbacks further limit the best buildable area . The proposal shows that further distancing the home from the creek requires building outside the LRDA. The previous and current proposals both exceed the LRDA as minimally as possible to fit the program of the home (note that according to Town policies, the LRDA is a guideline, and not a specific rule such as a property line setback). Based upon the site restraints, it requires that the building exceed the LRDA . • Bulk and Mass: The redesign took into consideration comments surrounding the bulk and mass of the home. The shape of the lot and its constraints require a design that is long and narrow in nature. The overall length of the main level has been reduced by 2.5' (an additional 3' if you count eave overhangs), and t he upper floor has been reduced by 12' in overall length (the most visible portion). The home has also been further set into the hillside on the street side. The square footage has been reduced by 429 SF (approximately 10%), significantly under the allowable FAR, even with the slope reduction calculations and is not the largest home in the neighborhood. Please refer to the previously submitted Neighborhood Analysis and FAR I Slope Study. The new design also modifies the footprints of each floor plate to allow for more movement along the fa~ades as well as cantilevers and steps at certain points to navigate the creek setback but also to create architectural interest. Roof lines have been modified, and in some cases also lowered to further break up the massing. The new shifts also allow for increased stained wood siding (versus stucco), and help to create a pleasing mix of materials in natural earth tones. The placement of the home is barely visible to most neighbors, and presents no privacy issues-and in fact looks like a si ngle story home along the private drive side property line. Please see the new 30 renderings provided viewing the home from all angles. Be st Regards, Bess Wiersema , principal, studio3 design inc. STUD I D 'TtiREE DES GN , .. _,,,_, __ ~ .. ~··-·--·~•••••••-•••• ---g N ONNOO 0 ·---~--UNNN --g N ---~UNN UN---U-NNONO ON---------UN --~-UNNONO ___________ ----~-------------------·----NN --NNN-NNN ______________ -------, Robert Schultz, Esq. Town Attorney, Town ofLos Gatos July 11, 2Q16 Page 2 Here is the applicable CEQA Guideline, with my highlighti"ng in bold: 15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration (a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negatiYe declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent .Em or negatiYe declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EJR or adopted negatiYe declaration. (d) The decision making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on tbe project. (c) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section I S I 62 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record . The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence. Note: Authority cited: Public Resources Code Section 21083; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code; Bowman v. CityofPetaluma(I986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065; and Bentun v. Board ofSupen•isors (199 1) 226 Cal.App.3d 1467. Discussion: This section is designed to provide clear authority for: an addendum as a way of making minor corrections in EIRs and negative declarations without recirculating the EIR or negative declaration. Section 15162 is referenced in Section 15164. Here is Section 15162 (with my highlights in bold). As indicated by my italicized comments, it appears that none of these circumstances apply to the revisions Mr. Pearson has made to the plan that was approved with the MND in 2010 : 15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations ·(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following: i . ! ! Robert Schultz, Esq. Town Attorney, Town of Los Gatos July 11, 2016 Page3 (I) Substantial changes .are proposed in the project which wilJ require major revisions of the previous Em or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of.previously identified significant effects; Compared to the home studied in the MND, the currently proposed home has reduced environmental effects due to the increased setback from the creek and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous Em or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or There are no changes to the circumstances of this vacant parcel or the surrounding area since approval of the MND, other than the environmentally beneficial changes of increased creek setback and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. (3) New information of substantial importance. which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence .at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following: No such information has been provided or exists. (A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negatiVe declaration ; There has been no evidence submitted showing any significant effect not discussed in the MND. (B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous Effi; There has been no evidence submitted showing that any effect previously ·studied in the MND will be substantially more severe than previously show. {C) Mitigation measures or alternati~·es previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more· significant effects o.fthe project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative;.or There were no mitigation measures found to not be feasible in the MND. ~ ---·--________________ , _________________________________________ _ -------------------------, Robert Schultz, Esq. July 11 , 2016 Town Attorney, Town of Los Gatos Page 4 (D) MitigatiQn measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those 1 1 analyzed in the previous Em would substantially reduce one or more significant effects oo the environment, but the project proponents decli ne to adopt the mitigation m -easure ' or alternative. I There were no mitigation measures found to not be feasible in the MND.j' (b) If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes avai !able i after adoption of a negative declaration , the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision (a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prt>pare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documenta tion. The only changes to the project since adoption of the MND are the environmentally beneficial change$ of increasing the creek setback and significant reduction in lot coverage and retaining wall height and length. An addendum is appropriate, though not mandated by CEQA. (c) Once a project has been approved. the lead agency's role in project approval is completed, unless· further discretional)' approval on that project is _required . Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval . If after the project is approved, any of the conditions d~scribed in subdivision (a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative dec laration shall o nly be prepared by the public agency which grants the next di screti o nary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall gram an approval for the project until the subsequent EJR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted. (d) A subsequent EIR or subsequent negative declaration shall be given the same notice and public review as required under Section 15087 or Section 15072 . A subsequent EfR or negative declaration shall state where the previ o us docume nt is available and can be reviewed. l'\ote: Authority cited: Public Reso urces Code Section 2 1083 ; Reference: Section 21166, Public Resources Code ; Bowman v. City of P~ttulumu (1986) 185 Cal.App.3d 1065; Benton v. Board ofSupen•isors ( 199 1) 226 Cai.App.3d 1467; and Fort Mojave Indian Tribe v. Culifurnia Department of Health Services et al. ( 1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 1574 . Grassetti Environmental Consulting ("GECO") has submitted a letter dated June 1, 2016, raising certain CEQA issues related to the proposed Pearson home. The author misapplies CEQA in a number of respects . GECO contends that because the 201 0 house approvals have lapsed and the applicant has changed , the proposed Pearson home "is clearly a new project" which triggers a new CEQA review. GECO is incorrect. A change in ownership is Robert Schultz, Esq . Town Attomey, Town of Los Gatos July 11 , 2016 PageS irrelevant to CEQA because CEQA is concerned only with environmental impacts and a transfer of ownersh ip does not cause any environmental impact. More importantly, GECO's entire premise is flawed because even though Pearson has submitted a new application to the Town , for CEQA purposes the proposed Pearson home is not a new project, but rather reflects a change in a previously approved project. Th is distinction is significant because CEQA requires a full review for new projects compared to a limited review for changes in previously approved projects. (Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cai.App.41h 1359, 1401.) The limited review is, as stated above, the analysis required by Section 15164, includ ing a review of the considerations described in Section 15162. According to the authors of Guide to CEQA, where the earlier analysis studied "a particular site ~specific development project," then · a later proposed modified version of an earlier project falls within the "change to a previously approved project" category, with the resulting limited CEQA review. (/d. at p. 669.) The 2010 MND studied a site-specific development for 19 Highland Avenue . The · Pearson home proposal is a modified version of that earlier stud ied and approved home. CEQA review is therefore limited to Section 15164. It is not a new project, and cannot be st udied like a new project. The CEQA Guidelines referenced by GECO, Sections 15150, 15063, 15072, 15073 and 15074, all regard and apply to new projects . They do 110t apply to changes to a previously approved project. Similarly, Section 15153 has no application to the proposed Pearson home. That section regards use of an earlier EIR from an earlier project for a new, different project. Here . the proposed Pearson home is not a new project, and Section 15153 appl ies only to prior EIRs, not prior MNDs-where the CEQA Guidelines intend to state a requirement for MNOs, they state so specifically (compa re, e.g., Section 15164(a) which states a mandatory addendum required for an EIR , with Section 15164(b) which states a non -mandatory addendum opportunity for an MND). GECO's substantive analysis , including the biological analysis prepared by Pacific Biology which is attached as an exhibit to the ·GECO letter, is the kind of wo rk that might be appropriate for a new project. And indeed , analyses of a similar nature were prepared for and considered in the 2010 MND . That MND was approved by the Town in 2010 , and became immune from legal challenge or potentially conflicting environmenta l cla ims 30 days later. Because the proposed Pearson home constitutes a change in a previously approved project, substantive environmental analysis is essentially lim ited to the current changes to the previously ap·proved project. GECO's letter does not analyze these changes . Consequently, its analys is is outside the scope of review allowed by Section 15164 , and shou ld be disregarded From: Ed Pearson To: Sally Zamowitz Date: July 11, 2016 Re: Architecture and Site Application (S-15-077) Dear Sally, The purpose of this document is to describe the differences between the original project that was described and analyzed in the adopted 2010 IS /MND and approved on December 8, 2010, and the modified project currently before the Town. The 2010 IS /MND found that although the original project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant effect because the mitigation measures listed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration were made a condition of project approval , mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The proposed modifications to the original project have been designed such that the modified project would not cause new significant effects not already mitigated in the 2010 ISIMND . Please reference the letter dated July 11 , 2016 from our land use Attorney, Barton G . Hechtman requesting that the Town of Los Gatos, as the Lead Agency under CEQA, prepare an Addendum for the modified project. In addition to designing the modified project so that it would not cause new significant effects not already mitigated in the 2010 ISIMND , I was required to submit additional studies for the modified project. These additional studies included: • Geotechnical Memo by UPP Geotechnology, a division of C2 Earth Inc ., dated February 24 , 2016. • Top of Bank Study prepared by H . T. Harvey & Associates, dated March 22, 2016. • Biological Report prepared by H. T . Harvey & Associates, dated March 31,2016. • Revised Biological Report prepared by H . T. Harvey & Associates dated May 13, 2016. • Arborist Report dated May 10 , 2016. • Revised Arborist Report dated July 10 , 2016. In addition, the Town required the following studies: • Peer Review of the Biological Report by the Town's consulting biologist, Live Oak Associates dated May 5, 2016. • Peer Review of the Geotechnical Memo by the Town's consulting geologist, Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. • Design Review by the Town's consulting architect Cannon Design Group, dated February 24,2016. We also referenced the following documents when designing the modified project: the Town of Los Gatos General Plan, the Town Code and Tree Ordinance, the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. Summary of modified project (2016) The IS /MND indicated that design changes would be reviewed during the architectural and site review process. The modified project is a result of input from adjacent neighbors and the Planning Commission. Similar to the original project, the modified project would consist of the development of a new two-story split level single-family residence located at 19 Highland A venue in the Town of Los Gatos. Additional information on the modified project is further described in this memo. Floor area and Lot Coverage: The modified project would include a 4,031 square foot residence (2 ,3 79 plus 1 ,652) and 617 square foot attached two-car garage and storage room for a total of 4,642 gross square feet , or 4,242 square feet when deducting the 400 square foot garage credit allowed by the Town. The residence footprint would be 2,372 square feet, covering approximately 5.2% percent of the site. The modified project's total site coverage would be 6,384 square feet or approximately 14.1% of the site. Height and Property Setbacks: The residence would step up the slope over three levels, with no more than two stories at any single location. The residence would be 25-feet in height from natural grade with a maximum elevation height of 35-feet. Access to the proposed residence would be provided by a 12-foot wide pervious paver driveway , approximately 180 feet in length, extending parallel to and north of the existing private roadway easement. The fire truck turnaround would be located approximately 125 feet west of the residence, while a smaller, parking area/pullout is proposed on the south side of the driveway just west of the residence. The modified project would have a front yard setback of 185-feet, a north/left side yard setback of 21-feet, a south/right side yard setback of 25-feet and a rear yard setback of 65-feet. Grading and Retaining Walls: The modified projc;:ct would require 439 cubic yards of cut and 429 cubic yards of fill . There would be zero export of earthwork due to shrinkage from compaction. The modified project would require 210 feet of retaining walls (total length) where 1 06-feet of the retaining walls would be less than three (3) feet in height and 1 04-feet of the retaining walls would be three-to-six feet (3-6') in height. Creek Setbacks and Trees: The residence will have a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of the creek bank while the driveway will have a minimum setback of 10-feet from the top of the creek bank. Six (6) trees (#s 16, 17, 21, 25 , 60, 61) will be highly impacted by the modified project and require removal. Although not directly affected by the modified project, one additional tree (#56) requires removal ; it is infested with ambrosia beetles, is half-dead, and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Comparison of original and modified project The modified project has minor technical differences from the original project in that the modified project will have a slightly higher floor area (~211 SF), fewer trees to be removed, increased setback from the creek, fewer feet I lower height of retaining walls , and increased grading quantities due to recessing the home into the hillside. Architectural changes: Although the modified floor area is approximately 2 11 square feet more than the original project, the proposed floor area is consistent with other homes in the vicinity. Moreover, the modified footprint of the home is 270 square feet less than the original project. The maximum proposed height is the same as the original project. Similar to the original project, the modified residence has been designed to conform to the natural topography of the site and run with the contours. The modified project includes non-reflective colors and materials. The colors and materials of the modified project residence (dark and light brown tones) are more compatible with the natural surroundings than the original project's colors and materials which included taupe , "ochre" (yellowish or orangey brown), and "terra cotta" (brownish red). The modified project also uses stone and wood, a more natural element, where the original project residence was all stucco (with the exception of the stone wall covering the crawl space). The modified project was also reviewed by the Town's Consulting Archite<;t who made two recommendations. In addition to making design changes to reduce bulk, mass and floor area, my design team implemented both of the consulting architects ' recommendations ; extend the landscaping westward along the driveway easement roadway to buffer the two-story tall tower element and choose one roofing material for the entire house . All exterior light fixtures will be Dark-Sky compliant. The modified project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare beyond what would have been created by the original project. Grading and Retaining Walls Changes: The original project proposed a total cut of 342 cubic yards and total fill of 188 cubic yards , resulting in the need to export approximately 154 cubic yard s of material. The modified project proposes a total cut of 439 cubic yards and total fill of 429 cubic yards . No export of earthwork would be needed due to shrinkage from compaction . The additional grading was necessary to recess the home into the hillside in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Creek Setback Changes: Creek setbacks are at the discretion of the Town since no impacts to the creek channel below th e top of bank will occur that would require a permit from either the Santa Clara Valley Water Di strict or the Regional Water Quality Control Board. There are conflicting conclusions regarding the classification of the un-named tributary as either ephemeral or intermittent. This classification has been used as a benchmark for determining what the appropriate setback to the top of bank should be. The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams recommends setbacks for slope stability', ranging from 10-to 15-feet for ephemeral streams and 25-to 20-feet for intermittent streams. Where a range is given, the Local Agency will determine the appropriate setback based on their existing priorities , permitting processes , and on-site conditions. In this case, the Town biologist (Live Oak Associates) has determined that a 20-foot setback is an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site. The Town biologist had also previously determined that a few areas of encroachment to within 16 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10- feet for the driveway would not be significant. However, the modified project will provide a minimum setback of 20-feet from the top of bank with a majority of the home being setback further than 20-feet. This 20-foot setback is also consistent with the recommendations of the December 8, 2003 draft Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by the CDFG for development of the subject property (CDFG Notification No. 16000-2003-5246-3). In addition , establishment of a 1 0-foot wide setback between the top of bank and paved surfaces is also co nsistent with 1 Page 3 .8, Chapter 3 of Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Nea r Streams, August 2005 and revised July 2006 regional and state guidelines, provided appropriate construction and post construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) are designed, implemented and maintained. Creek Location: Upon redesigning the house per the Planning Commission's suggestions, the licensed surveyor surveyed a portion of the site, east of the bend in the creek that had not recently been surveyed, in. order to show the recommended 20ft. setback from the creek. The 2010 map was taken from the map completed by Westfall Engineers in 1996. As previously evidenced in the public record, the top of bank markers were set by HT Harvey on March 21st 2016 and were surveyed from the existing bend in the creek (area closest to proposed home) and then west towards the proposed fire turnaround. This survey confirmed that the creek location, westward from the bend in creek, was accurate on the 201 0 map. After the surveyor was instructed to study the location of the creek bank eastward from the bend in creek, it revealed that at some time between 1996 and 2015, a small portion of the creek was moved . The current condition of the area that was moved is undetectable today (please see submitted site plans and current photograph). It looks completely natural and heavily vegetated with different shrubs and trees . I contacted Brenda Blinn, Senior Supervisory Environmental Scientist, with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Bay Delta Region, Habitat Conservation Program. Ms. Blinn stated that at the time any illegal grading is taking place, a written complaint must be filed with her office that fully documents the violation. She also stated that there is a 12 month statute of limitation on this type of activity. Ms. Blinn is located in the Napa office and can be reached at 707-944-5541 for any needed clarification. Tree Removal Changes: As described below, the modified project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010 . Comprehensive Tree Inventory Table(s) and Arborist Report(s) were prepared for the subject property in 2010 and in 2016. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried "protected" trees in proximity to the original project's proposed development and located on the subject site or overhanging the subject site from neighboring properties. The 2010 Arborist Report inventoried 68 "protected" trees of six various species. Under the "review of potential tree impacts" the 2010 Arborist Report identified 29 trees that "would either be removed or considered a loss" (#3-8, 12, 13, 15-17, 19, 21, 22 , 24-28 , 30, 37-40, 60-62 , 64 and 68). The 2010 Arborist Report recommended that an additional two (2) trees be removed due to their failing health (#s 10 , 46) for a total of 31 trees. Based on a site survey comparison with the 2010 ArboristReport, it appears that the property owner of the original project removed 15 trees that were previously approved for removal (tree #s 3-7, 10, 12, 15, 19, 24, 26, 28, 37, 64, 68) and three (3) trees which were not previously approved for removal (#s 55 , 58, 67), for a total of 18 trees . The site survey also revealed that 16 of the 31 trees that were previously proposed for removal remain on the site. An updated Arborist Report was prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC on May 10, 2016 and then revised on July 10, 2016 for the modified project. Per the 2016 Arborist Report, the subject property contains a total of 86 trees2, including a grove of undisturbed trees on the northerly portion of the lot that were not previously considered. 2 Tree count: 41 trees not previously inventoried + 4 5 trees previously inventoried ( 63 minus 18 removed). The modified project has been redesigned to preserve nine (9) trees that were previously approved for removal in 2010 (#s 8 , 13, 21, 27, 30, 38 , 39, 40, 62). Preservation of tree #s 27 , 30, 38, 39, and 40 will provide more stability to the creek bank, minimizing potential for erosion and sedimentation into the creek. Six (6) trees (#s 16 , 17, 21 , 25, 60 , 61) will be highly impacted by the modified project and require removal. Tree # 16 is in poor condition with poor structure and codominant stems. Tree # 17 is in fair health and has a bowed stem. Tree # 21 is in fair health and has poor structure with significant lean. Tree # 25 is in fair health and will be highly impacted by the project. Tree # 60 is also in fair health with a low live crown ratio. Tree # 61 is in poor health with the top removed. Although not directly affected by the modified project, one additional tree (#56) requires removal; it is infested with ambrosia beetles, is half-dead, and poses an unreasonable risk for failure. Twenty-two (22) trees will be moderately affected and require tree protection measures during construction. Seventy-nine (79) existing mature trees (92%) are to be retained while seven (7) trees will need to be removed as described above. Additional trees would be planted to replace removed trees in . accordance with the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance. A landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings will recommend species and locations appropriate for the subject site. Pallid bat: Numerous biological studies have been prepared for the subject property between 1997 and 2016, finding that there is no candidate, sensitive, or special status species habitat existing on the subject property and that the site does not support any wetland or riparian vegetation. Appellants to the modified project have hired a biologist who states that tree #56 (described above), which is of compromised health and with numerous cavities, could be used as a roost by bats , including special-status bats species such as pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus); however no evidence of pallid bat existing on site has been provided. However, the diseased and dying tree is dropping large limbs and should be removed to avoid risk to life and property. In conclusion , the changes between the original project and the modified project would not trigger any of the conditions listed in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental Mitigated Negative Declaration. While new information regarding the creek location has become available, the modified project will have a 20-foot setback from the top of the creek bank, such that there would be no significant environmental effects not already mitigated in. the 2010 ISIMND. Overall, the modified project would result in fewer environmental impacts than the original project, due to the increased setback from the creek (from 15-feet in the original project to 20-feet in the modified project). The conclusions in the 2010 IS/MND remain current and valid. The mitigation measures included in the 2010 ISIMND remain applicable and would be applied to the modified project. Therefore, an Addendum prepared by the Town of Los Gatos would satisfy the requirements of CEQ A. 2010 Original Project 2016 Modified Project Floor Area: Main Level: 2,310 square feet 2,3 79 square feet Upper Level: 1,535 square feet 1 ,652 square feet Garage/Storage: 592 square feet 61 7 square feet Subtotal : 4 ,437 square feet 4,648 square feet (garage credit) -400 sguare feet -400 sguare feet Total Floor Area: 4,037 square feet 4,248 square feet Maximum Height 25-feet 25-feet Maximum Elevation: 35-feet 35-feet Lot Coverage -Residence ~ 2,642 square feet 2,3 72 square feet -Driveway ~ 2,880 square feet 3 ,583 square feet -Deck/Patios ~ 1 ,927 sguare feet ~ 429 sguare feet Total Lot Coverage 7,449 square feet 6,384 square feet Property Setbacks -Front: 190.0-feet 185.0-feet -North (left) Side: 20.0-feet 21.0 feet -South (right) Side: 24.0-feet 25.0 feet -Rear 63.5-feet 65.0 feet Creek Setbacks: -Residence/Garage: Minimum 10-feet Minimum 20-feet -Driveway: Minimum 1-foot Minimum 1 0-feet Area outside LRDA: ~ 1,363 square feet 1,182 square feet 342 cubic yards cut 439 cubic yards cut Grading: 188 cubic yards fill 429 cubic yards fill 154 cubic yards of export 0 cubic yards of export3 Retaining Wall < 3 feet height: 0 feet < 3 feet height: 1 06-feet 3-6 feet height: 394-feet 3-6 feet height: 1 04-feet Height: > 6 feet height: 63-feet > 6 feet height: 0-feet Retaining Wall ~457-feet ~210-feet Length: Proposed: 31 trees Tree Removal Removed: 15 trees Proposed: 7 trees Remaining to Remove : 16 trees (one of which is half-dead) 3 The difference in earthwork would be zero due to shrinkage from impaction. Tree Inventory, Assessment, And Protection 19 Highland Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 P.O. B o x 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831. 331. 8982 Prepared for: Ed Pearson July 10, 2016 Prepared By: ConsuHing Arborists LLC Richard Gessner ASCA -Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA -Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-434/B ISA -Tree Risk Assessor Qualified CA-Qualified Applicators License QL-104230 ©Copyri ght Monarch ConsultingArborists LLC, 2016 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Table of Contents Summary ............................................................................................................... 1 Int roduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 Assignment ............................................................................................................. 1 Limits of the assignment ......................................................................................... 1 Purpose and use of the report ................................................................................ 2 Observati ons ......................................................................................................... 2 Plans ....................................................................................................................... 2 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 3 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 3 Condition Rating ..................................................................................................... 4 Influence Level ........................................................................................................ 5 Tree Protection ....................................................................................................... 7 Critical Root Zone ................................................................................................... 8 Bridging with Mulch ................................................................................................ 9 Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 1 0 Recommendati ons ............................................................................................... 11 Protection during demolition/grading .................................................................... 11 Construction Phase ............................................................................................... 11 Post-Construction Phase ...................................................................................... 12 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 12 G lossary of Terms .............................................................................................. 13 Appendix A: S ite Map ......................................................................................... 14 Appendix 8: Tree Inventory, Assessment and Disposition Tables ................ 15 B1: Inventory and Assessment Table .................................................................... 15 B2: Disposition Table ...................................................... : ..................................... 19 *indicates tree to be removed due to disease ...................................................... 22 Appendix C: Photographs ................................................................................. 23 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines .......................................................... 28 Section 29 .10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction ............................ 28 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications ................................................. 28 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 19 Highland Ave nue Arborist A ssess me nt July 10, 2016 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions ...................................... 28 Additional tree protection measures: .................................................................... 29 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 29 Root Pruning ......................................................................................................... 29 Boring or Tunneling ............................................................................................... 29 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations ................................................................ 29 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ................................................................... 30 E1 : English ............................................................................................................ 30 E2: Spanish .......................................................................................................... 31 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Li miting Conditions .................................. 32 Certification of Performance ............................................................................. 33 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Summary The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (Umbelluaria californica) (37 percent) and coast live oak (Qu ercus agrifolia) (47 percent) making up the majority of trees. Most of the trees (77) are in fair condition while five are poor, three are in good shape, and one is unstable . Six (6) trees will be highly impacted and require removal while an additional twenty-two will be moderately affected and require tree protection measures during construction. The remaining 58 trees will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Introduction Background Ed Pearson asked me to assess the site, trees , and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my fmdings and recommendations. Assignment 1. Provide an arborist's report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. 2. Provide tree protection specifications and influence ratings for trees that will be affected by the project. Limits of the assignment 1. The information in this report is limited to the condition of the site and trees during my inspections on April22 and 26, 2016. No tree risk assessments were performed. No tree appraisals were performed. Trees on adjacent site are not accounted for. 2. The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows: A site plan with the residence , driveway, and retaining walls not dated or labeled. No grading, drainage , utility, or landscape plans were reviewed. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 1 0 , 2016 Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by Ed Pearson and his agents as a reference for existing tree and site conditions. Observations The site is located along Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property has a seasonal creek running through it and hills on both the east and west sides. There is a level area at the bottom of the drainage and currently there are story poles to indicate the proposed location of the site improvements. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks (Quercus lobata), and California bay laurels. Plans The plans indicate a driveway extending from the northern part of Highland Avenue and the structure set back farther to the south. Within the plan area there are thirty trees and six within the footprint of the proposed structure. • Six (6) trees are within the footprint of the proposed improvements. • Twenty-two (22) trees are in close proximity to the proposed improvements. • Fifty-eight (58) trees are not near any proposed improvements . • Four (4) trees are near the driveway. • Coast live oak #56 is in irreversible decline/unstable and has signs and symptoms consistent with ambrosia beetle (Monarthrum scutellare) attacks on its trunk. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 2 of33 19 H ighland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 D iscussio n Tr ee Inventory The tree inventory consists of trees protected by the Town ofLos Gatos located on the site. The Town of Los Gatos protects all trees with a trunk diameters greater than (4) four inches at (54) fifty-four inches above grade on vacant or underdeveloped lots (Appendix A and B). Aluminum tree tags have been affixed to all trees listed in the inventory except for those on the ea stern hillside which are arbitrarily numbered from south to north for the purposes of this report. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species with bay laurel (37 percent) and coast live oak (47 percent) making up the majority of trees with 72 specimens total. Bay laurel (Umbellularia californica) Black walnut (Juglans nigra) Blue elderberry (Sambucus caerulea) Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) California b.Jckeye (Aesculus californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) Plum (Prunus sp.) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) 0 Chart 1 : Species Distribution • Quantity 8 16 24 32 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 40 3 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Condition Rating A tree's condition is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects : Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. The assessment considered both the health and structure of the trees for a combined condition rating. • Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • Good = No appar ent p r oblems, good structure and health, good longevity for the site . • Fair= Minor problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems can be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or a plant health care program. • Poor = Major problems with multiple structural defects or declining health, not a good candidate for retention. • Dead/Unstable = Extreme problems , irreversible decline, failing structure, or dead. Most of the trees are in fair condition which is typical of an unmaintained woodland. Five .trees are in poor condition and three are in good shape. Trees in poor condition include bay tree 46 has some decay at the base, blue gum 44 has codominant stems and a defective stem about 40 feet above grade. Coast live oak 56 is unstable, has ambrosia beetle attacks on its trunk, and is half dead. Coast live oak 66 has been repeatedly hit by vehicles along the existing driveway and has trunk damage. 0 Exceptional Chart 2: Condition Rating • Quantity 20 40 60 I f I I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 80 4 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Influence Level Influence level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defmes the impact rating: • Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. • High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Six trees will be highly impacted and will require removal because they are within the footprint of the proposed structure. An additional twenty-two trees will be moderately impacted and require tree protection of either fence, bridging, and/or hand digging for footings and foundations nearby. The remaining 58 frees on the property will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) of the trees will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. The charts below indicate the quantity of trees for each construction impact category (Chart 3). 0 High Moderate Low Chart 3: Impact Ratings • Quantity 12 24 ~ 48 60 Chart 4: Construction Impact Percentages e High e Low Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 5 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arbor ist Assessment July 10, 2016 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots , trunk , or scaffold branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defmed area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species tolerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) or as the drip line in some instances (Figure 1 ). Tree protection zones and type of tree protection will vary depending on what may be impacting the trees. Fence locations will may change as different phases of construction occur. The most critical exclusion from the TPZ must occur during the grading process . Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle. Preventing mechanical damage to the main stems from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished by wrapping the main stem with straw wattle (Figure 2). The wattle will create a porous barrier around the trunk and prevent damage to the bark and vascular tissues underneath. Sturdy TPZ Fencing 8 ft. high Figure 1: Tree protection distances Wrap trunks with atr.w wattle up to 8 feet Figure 2: Trunk protection with straw wattle Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com Straw Wattle 7 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Conclusion The site is located at 19 Highland Avenue in Los Gatos. The property is typical woodland for the area and contains mostly coast live oaks, valley oaks, and California bay laurels. The inventory contains 86 trees comprised of 10 different species. The majority of trees consist ofbay laurel (37 percent) and coast live oak (47 percent) account for 84 percent of all assessed. Most of the trees (77) are in fair condition typical of trees growing within a stand in an unmaintained woodland setting. Five trees are in poor condition, three are in good shape, and one unstable (#56). Six trees will be highly impacted and require removal while an additional twenty-two will be moderately affected and require some protection measures. The remaining 58 trees will not be affected by the proposed project. Ninety-three percent (93%) of the trees on the property are to be retained while seven percent (7%) (six trees) will need to be removed to construct the improvements. Twenty-six percent (26%) will be moderately impacted and require protection during construction. Trees that are to be moderately affected by the project without fence protection should be wrapped in wattle and may require monitoring and hand digging nearby. Because most of the trees will only be influenced on one side the CRZ will in effect be the TPZ for many trees. When fence is impractical for protection I recommend bridging with mulch and wrapping trunks with wattle to prevent compaction and mechanical damage to stems. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 10 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Recommendations Obtain all necessary permits from the Town of Los Gatos prior to removing or significantly altering any tree. Remove Coast live oak #56 due to its current diseased condition. Refer to Appendix D of this document for general protection guidelines and specifications. Protection during demolition/grading 1. Wrap moderately influenced trees with straw wattle to help prevent mechanical damage to the trunks where fence is impractical. Trees 8, 9, 11 , 13, 14 , 18 , 22 , 23 , 27 , 29, 33, 34, 38, 39, 40, 47 , 59 , 62 , 63, and 65. 2. Place tree protection fence along the lower portion of the site adjacent to the building area to protect trees 27, 29 , 30, 31 , 32, 33 , 34, 38, 39, and 41. Construction Phase 1. Remove all trees to be removed prior to demolition of the existing structures . 2 . Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 3. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. 4 . Tree Pruning: If tree pruning for overhead clearance is required or necessary pruning specifications shall be in writing prior to any cutting. Cutting shall be performed by a qualified tree care professional or supervised by the project arborist. No limbs greater than four inches ( 4") in diameter shall be removed. 5 . Arrange for the project arborist to monitor and document initial grading activity and no grading is to occur within five times the trunk diameter distances. 6. Trees 27, 29, 38 and 40: Create a working platform with mulch and three quarter inch plywood around the trees to help reduce root zone impact. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 11 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 7. Utility Trenching: Where possible trenches shall be dug under existing roots and utilities should be "snaked" under the roots . When large roots , greater than 4 inches in diameter, are encountered they shall be excavated by hand or with pneumatic excavating tools such as an Air Spade® or Hydrovac®. 8 . Root removal near trees 9, 11, 13, 14 18, 22, 23, 59, 62, 63 , and 65: Prior to remov ing roots greater than two inches (2") in diameter each tree shall be evaluated by the project arborist to help determine its likelihood of failure after root loss. If roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. No roots shall be cut within six times the trunk diameter distance in feet on one side without arborist approval. Post-Construction Phase 1. Monitor the health and structure of all trees for any changes in condition and have the trees assessed for risk. 2. Perform any other mitigation measures to help ensure long term survival. Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print. Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones . Oaks in th e urban landscap e: selection, c are, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. ISA. Glossary of Arboricultural Te rms. Champaign: International Society ofArboriculture, 2011. Print. Matheny, Nelda P. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1998 . Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tre e Risk Manage m ent. 2nd ed. Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007 . Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 12 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Glossary of Terms Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees d efects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United States , Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture . Drip Line: Imaginary line defmed by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. Mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs , straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials, and have an average weight of 35 pounds. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defmed area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is , and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. Trunk: Stem of a tree. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 13 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 fr ree Species Number I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia4 Valley oak (Quercus lobata) i ' ' Trunk Condition Diameter 1105 1 Fair 1505 Fair Suitability for Influence Preservation Level ! Fair i Moderate : Fair 1 Moderate l Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) J 65 8 ! Fair i Poor 0 Moderate -~ j Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) J 66 : 1205 Fair I Poor Low I r-~--..----+-------,------t-----1 I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) i 101 ! 8 Fair 1 Fair Low : ~I --------------~-----~------~--------~----------------~ I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) 102 12 Fair : Fair Low I I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 03 ! 12 j Fair ; Fair ! Low Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 04 ; 4 i Fair 1 Fair ! Low I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 05 ! 4 1 Fair : Fair :_L_o_w--------1j I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 06 1 12 ~ Fair ____ -~-_ 0--+-Low _ j Coast live oak (Quercus agrifo/ia) 1 107 i 8 . Fair j Fair :Low l ~---------------------+--·-------------+ i Fair 1 Bay laurel ( Umbellularia 108 : 4 and 4 1 Fair Low I I I I ~alifornica) ~~-o_a_st_l_iv_e_o_a_k _(_Q_u_e,.,_c_u_s _a_gr._i(l_o_lia_)----1-----1-0~ 1 0 I Fair I l Fair I ____j Low I I __, 1 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 110 ' 21 1 Fair ; Fair 0 Low I Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia I californica) ~ Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 111 . I 112 ' 113 l I 114 1 8 ; Fair I i ! Fair I Low I ! I 4 1 Fair I Fair Low I I I 12 1 Fair i Fair :Low _j 12 I Fair i Fair ! Low I I -1 I Bay laurel (Umbellularia 115 1 5 I, Fair i Fair I Low 1 I I II I californica) l c tl k(Q &f) ! 120 ' 24 1 F I F 1 L I 1 oas 1ve oa uercus agn,o 1a I a1r 1 a1r : ow ~~ 1 1 Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia 121 : 1 .. 8 and 8 I Fair I Fair Low j californica) L---------------------~------~--------·~----~ Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-PoO Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 033108982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 17 of 33 19 Highland Ave nue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 --,.-...-,---.. .. ~-...--------------~----~..._, Tree Species Number Trunk Condition Influence Diameter Level Retain or Remove Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) + 34 ! 16, 10, 6 Fair j Moderate i Retain I Bay laurel (Umbel/ularia ~---3-5-1r--1 ---1-1 -t~-F-a-ir----+! -Lo_w ____ -+1 -R-e-ta-in-~ j californica) i I ! I Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 36 1 11 l Good ! Low I Reta in I I I 38 i i I Retain I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia ; Moderate I californica) . ! 71 Fair ' I I I I -j Bay laurel ( Umbel/u/aria 39 ' 20 1 Poor Moderate 1 Retain ' californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia I callformca) Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Valley oak (Quercus lobata) ! I I I I I ' 40 : 10.5 Fair I 41 i 20 Fair 42 ~ 10, 8 .5 I Fair 43 1 20, 11 i Fair I I I I I ' i I I j Moderate :Retain I Low ! Retain I I ' I I ' I i Low i I /Retain I I I I i 'Low I I Retain I I I Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) California buckeye (Aesculus californica) 44 i _ 46 1 Fair 45 l 8 , 7, 5 .5 , I Fair 1 Low I - Retain ~ ! Low ' Retain I I I I I i 4.5 l Retarn I I I I · Bay laurel ( Umbel/ulana i 46 ! 15, 8 Farr : Low I I I I ~~rn~ I i I ~----------------------~------~i. ___ , ____ ~----·-:------~---~ I 47 : Bay laurel ( Umbel/ularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Bay laurel ( Umbellu/aria californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) ! i 50 I I I 54 ! 7,4 56 57 15 Fair I I 7.51 Fair I Good 32 i Unstable 15 Fair :Moderate I I : 'Low I Moderate l I ! Retain I I ! Retain I Retain ! i Moderate i *Remove I ' I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 59 14 I Fair I Low I Retain ! Moderate ! Reta i;-1 60 i 12 Fair Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) i High I Remove I I 61 : 12 Poor I High I Remove I Bay laurel ( Umbellularia californica) Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) I 62 ! 11 .5 Fa ir I Moderate i Retain Valley oak (Quercus lobata) =t---~~-__ 1_5::_l_:air I Moderate I Retain Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 1 65 I 8 j F-a-ir---~Modercrt~----, Retain Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 20 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix C: Photographs Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 23 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick @monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 24 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist As sessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982 -rick @ monarcharborist.com July 10 , 2016 25 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com July 1 0, 2016 26 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 27 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines Section 29.10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications 1. Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2. Area type to be fenced: Type 1: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall b e wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3. Duration of Type I, II, III fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone-This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E). All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 1. Prior to the commencement of construction, in stall the fence at the drip line, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2. Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drip line of the tree unle ss approved by the Director. 3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drip line of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the drip line of a protected tree. 4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5 . Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 28 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 7 . The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Additional tree protection measures: Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Root Pruning Roots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom . Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneli ng Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone . Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified according to ANSI A-300A standards and limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices, and adhere to ANSI 2133 .1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982-rick @monarc harborist.com 29 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: English CD ~ 0 N C)~ ~ .2 ·-.... ~ u '-CD ca ... ==~ D. CD CD '-t- ~ '""CO') Q) c > ·-O'""C E '-Q)8~ a:~~ Q) ~o (ll+-' -~ +-' ctS . Ocm ZQ)C\J =O..Q) ctSo-o .!:FO (/)+-'() Q) ~ c (.) ........ ::::> c .c > Q)::l~ U..(/) en en ·--.!:'""C 1-c <( Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 July 10, 2016 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 30 of 33 19 Highland Avenue E2: Spanish Arborist Assessment 0 , ·-.Q). ... Q) l-oa. ,_ ca o -c.c ·-1-:::J<( OQ) c ca c 0 N en 0 -c co (.) co en CD '"'C cl.(') :Q N uo c~ ~0 ~ Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com July 10, 2016 31 of 33 19 HighlandAvenue Arborist Assessment July 1 0, 2016 Quali f ications, Ass um pt io ns, and Limiting Condit io n s Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings , hearings, conferences, mediations, arb itration , or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services . This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers , or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference . Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee , expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331.8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 32 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Arborist Assessment July 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my fmdings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subj ect of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis , opinions, and conclusions were de veloped and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results , or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arbori sts LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses s tated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 33 of 33 19 Highland Avenue Re sponse to Tree Number Discrepanc ies July 10, 2016 July 9, 2016 Ed Pearson 239 Thurston Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Consulting Arborists LLC P.O . Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831 . 331. 8982 Regarding the discrepancy between the tree inventory quantities and the number of trees on the property from the inventory provided on May 10,2016. I was asked by Mr. Pearson to help explain why the number of trees provided in the tree inventory (91) contained at least five more trees than were counted on the si te by another party or on the plans themselves. The original report and inventory provided by Davi d Babby for the Town of Los Gatos included trees #48, #49, #51, #52, and #53 which are located near the property boundary on the adjacent parcel. I also included these trees in my assessment for consistency and they were indicated on the plans as well. In addition to these trees I recorded all the trees on the hillside that were not on any of the original documents. At least one tree , a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), is located within the fenced yard of an adjacent site. However the boundary survey I was u sing indicated this tree as actually on the 19 Highland site and not on the adjacent property as the fence alignment would indicate. Whenever trees are located near the property boundary or their crowns extend over the property boundary they are typically included in an inventory or assessment of this type . The "American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management : Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site D evelopment, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH· Secretariat, Tre e Care Indus try Association, 2012" section 53.3.1.1 recommends tree tree care professionals performing this type of inventory and assessment include tho se on adjacent sites if they could be impacted. Because the Babby report contained the adjacent trees and I also include those trees there is a discrepancy between the number of trees inventoried/assessed and the number of trees actually located within the property boundary. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331 .8982-rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 19 Highland Avenue Response to Tree Number Discrepancies July 10, 2016 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report , and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J . Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2016, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced , s tored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means , electronic, mec hanical, recording, or otherwise without th e ex press, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982 -r ick@monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 PLANNING COMMISSION: JUNE 8, 2016 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 19 Highland A venue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family res idence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Y:!. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Ed Pearson FINDINGS: CEQA: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and adopted in 2010 for a similar single-family development application. The proposed application is in compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be subjected to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010. No additional CEQA findings are required. Compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • Exceptions to the LRDA are required to locate the resi dence away from the creek. This exception was supported by the Planning Commission in 20 10 . The project is otherwise in compliance with applicable Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a s ing le-family res idence being developed on an existing parcel. The proposed development is consistent with the development criteria included in the specific plan . CONSIDERATIONS: Considerations in review ofArchitecture & Site applications: • As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture and site application were all made in reviewing this project. The house is an appropriate size for the property, the proposed project i s compatible with development on s urrounding residential properties, and exterior colors and materials will help blend the new building into the s ite. There is limited visibility into the s ite from surrounding homes and existing and proposed vegetation will aid in screening the new residence , and outdoor spaces. N :\DEV\FI N DI NGS\2 0 I 6\Highlandl 9.doc EXHIBIT 3 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank