Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2 Supplement SUPPLEMENT Jaime McAvoy AGENDA ITEM;5.2 Distributed: I q k/ 5 From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 7:57 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: 25700 Bassett Lane Subdivision From: Peter Nieh .. Sent:Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7.02PM To: mailto:jitze@couperus org ;_mailto:kavitat@comcast:net, mailto jsmandel@Hotmaiil corn °mailto jima.pc©gmail.corn mailto:richard.partridge@corncast.net Cc: sharon.nieh@)gmail.com Subject:25700 Bassett Lane Subdivision Dear Planning Commissioners, I have spoken to a couple of you, but thought I should follow up with an email to you all. I am writing about the proposed subdivision of 257000 Bassett Lane. My family and I have lived for the last 15 years at 25765 Bassett Lane which is directly across the street from 25700 Bassett. We moved here because we love the rural quality of the Hills— you feel you can really get away from the hectic commotion of Silicon Valley. It is a peaceful community where families can coexist without infringing on each other's privacy. We understand that a developer has acquired the 25700 Bassett property and has applied for a permit to subdivide the lot. We reviewed the staff report and the plans,and were alarmed to see: • The proposed removal of 112 or 40%(forty percent)out of a total of 278 trees that are 6"or greater in diameter on the lot. That is a shockingly high proportion and absolute number,especially for a property already with an existing building pad. • 40+heritage oaks to be removed. In addition there are several other oaks that are close to heritage parameters(10 or 11")that are slated for removal. Moreover,we are concerned that the arborist report is inherently biased and an independent town-appointed arborist should inspect the lot: • It indicates that several trees should be removed because of decay. Many oaks all over town have some sort of decay. We have oaks on our own property that have such "decay" but oaks are very capable of growing scar tissue that seals out and quarantines decay. • It identifies a number of oaks as having Sudden Oak Death (SOD),yet no one has tested the trees. As you know, tests are available that can determine for sure if a tree has SOD. The staff report states: "There are no trees being removed with the subdivision improvements. Future site development requests may result in some tree removal for development of a new driveway and home." That statement seems entirely inconsistent with what the detailed tree proposal indicates. We believe that no subdivision permit should be granted unless there is clarity about what trees will removed and the neighbors and town feel comfortable with the plan. We do not think a subdivision permit should be granted with the tree issue deferred to when a site development permit is sought. We are concerned that fundamentally too many trees would need to be removed to accommodate two building pads. Perhaps the size of the building pads should be restricted or only be one building pad should be allowed(ie. no subdivision). In summary,we believe that removing so many trees to accommodate a subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan. We ask that the subdivision permit not be approved unless and until an appropriate tree removal plan is agreed upon by the developer,the town and the neighbors. 1 Thank you for listening to our input and for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at 650-678-6400(cell) if you would like to discuss. Best regards, Peter&Sharon Nieh 25765 Bassett Lane Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 650-678-6400 This message and its attachments are intended only for the addressee and may contain legally privileged and/or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not use, disseminate, or copy this material in any form, or take any action based upon it. If you have received this message by error, please immediately delete it and its attachments and notify the sender at Lightspeed Venture Partners by electronic mail message reply. Thank you. 2 Jaime McAvoy From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 8:00 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Subject: FW: Subdivision at 25700 Bassett Lane From: Wendy Wilson • Sent:Thursday, October 01, 2015 5.45AM chard.part�dgeCc�comcas9; tavoi� end tCa� asWilso' tsrrtandelCa�hotmail.com ,lima pcCa�gmail:com ;. Wendy n ; Pete Richardson' Subject: Subdivision at 25700 Bassett:Lane Dear Planning Commissioners, I spoke with a couple of you yesterday-thank you for taking my unscheduled call. I will see you tonight at the review, but wanted to get my thoughts down in an email as well. I am writing about the proposed subdivision of 25700 Bassett Lane. I have lived at 11950 Rhus Ridge since 1997(on the site map it's marked as"Lands of Richardson"),which is adjacent to the property on Bassett Lane. Given the topography on the street,these lands are basically our backyard/entire view from our living room, master bedroom and deck. I understand there is an application for a permit to subdivide the lot and was planning to attend the hearing to see what is proposed, mainly to just see where driveways would be, hoping that there wouldn't be lights shining in our bedroom window from cars. A neighbor then shared the staff report, and I have to say I was disturbed to see the scope of the proposed tree removal. Of the 278 protected trees with trunk diameters over six inches, "a total of 112 trees are recommended for removal." All I can say is,wow. I knew that some trees would likely be sacrificed to establish a second building site on the property,as it has quite a few trees, but 112 is so far beyond anything I imagined would ever be proposed. It would totally change the landscape; I honestly cannot even imagine what that would do. Upon reading further and looking at the site map, It looks like most of the trees between our house and the proposed buildings are being removed, even if they aren't directly in the new building pad. Is this really necessary? The report goes on to say that many trees are diseased or have decay, but-there's been no formal testing done. All trees have some amount of decay,and these trees have been left to mature naturally over decades. I have trees just like it all over my property. If we cut down all the trees that have a little decay in Los Altos Hills,we'd have very few left. The staff report states: "There are no trees being removed with the subdivision improvements. Future site development requests may result in some tree removal for development of a new driveway and home." That statement seems entirely inconsistent with what the detailed tree proposal indicates. I look forward to discussing this tonight at the meeting,as I oppose moving forward until there is clarity on exactly what would need to be removed in order to accommodate a second building site. This isn't a normal matter of someone demolishing an older structure and removing a handful of trees in order to accommodate a larger home within guidelines on the lot. The homeowners would be well within their rights to do that. The removal of over 100 trees, most of which are protected heritage oaks in order to allow for a subdivision is a totally different issue. Is there no way to have 2 building sites that work with the topography a bit more? Movement of sites,or smaller footprint? If everything has been exhaustively reviewed,and the only way to have two building sites is to remove 112 trees,then we have to weigh the ability to subdivide against the resulting impact. 1 I believe that removing so many trees to accommodate a subdivision is inconsistent with the General Plan,and propose that subdivision permit not be approved unless and until an appropriate tree removal plan is agreed upon by the developer,the town and the neighbors. Thank you for taking my calls yesterday and listening to my concerns. My cellphone is 650-218-7915 should you wish to contact me. Best regards, Wendy Wilson 11950 Rhus Ridge Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 2 Jaime McAvoy From: Suzanne Avila Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2015 9:15 AM To: Jaime McAvoy Cc: Cynthia Richardson Subject: 25700 Bassett From: Roger Sprees Sent: Wednesday, September 30,2015 10:37 AM To: Jjtze Couperus ,Cc: Richard Partr,,idge., Susan Mandle: • Subject: Bassett Lane subdivision: Hi, Jitze: You asked me last night about the proposed Bassett Lane subdivision, and at the time I said I didn't know any particular reason against it(and just a reminder that I live within 500 feet of the property though not directly adjacent), so I am-speaking purely as a citizen/neighbor,not in any official capacity. Well, coincidentally, later last night a direct neighbor of the parcel sent me the staff report, in which the developer's own arborist concludes that in order to divide the existing-single-home parcel into 2 parcels with separate house footprints, it will require removal of(by my count) *40* heritage oak trees! Actually,the total number of trees the developer's arborist recommends removing is 116. (Yes, that's 3 digits.) So my count of"40" doesn't even include the oaks under 12 inches, or the large bay laurel or buckeye trees also being removed. This seems at odds with the staff report,which merely says (emphasis mine): There are no trees being removed with the subdivision improvements. Future site development requests may result in some tree removal for development of a new driveway and home. While that's technically accurate (i.e. tree removal would be at site development time),that's 40 heritage oaks they're talking about as "some tree removal"! I see that the Environmental Design Committee recommended rejecting the subdivision, based on a number of factors that included the heavily wooded nature of the lot. I expect some of the neighbors will be contacting you, so I just wanted to point out to you that the staff report "buries the lead", and urge you to look at the arborist report deep in the packet. Cheers, Roger From: "Roger Spreen" Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 11:04 AM To: "Jitze Couperus" • Cc: "Richard Partridge" "Susan Mandle" Subject: Re: Bassett Lane subdivision (more accurate math) 1 Jitze: I went back to check my counting math, and I was a little off, so I need tobe accurate: The developer lists 116 trees to be removed (total) Of the trees listed as needing to be removed due to their being in the way of construction of the home site/driveway/infrastructure,the list is: Parcel 1: Coast Live Oaks: 23, 23, 15, 12, 18, 24, 17, 22, 16 (all 9 heritage) Valley Oaks: 10/13, 14/13, 6, 10, 6 (2 out of 5 are heritage) Parcel 2: Coast Live Oaks: 9, 15, 7, 12/7/13, 12, 16, 10/11, 18, 7, 14, 13, 16, 11, 16, 17, 22, 14, 16, 14, 13, 14, 14, 27, 25, 8, 11, 7 (19 out of 27 are heritage) Valley Oaks: 22, 9/13, 17, 22 (all 4 heritage) So that's 45 total oaks, of which 34 are heritage. (I didn't include the bay laurel and buckeye trees.) Hope this helps, Roger 2