08-31-21 Minutes - DRC
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE REPORT
MINUTES OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING
AUGUST 31, 2021
The Development Review Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular
Teleconference Meeting on August 31, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.
This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with
State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19
pandemic and was conducted via Zoom. All committee members and staff participated from
remote locations and all voting was conducted via roll call vote. In accordance with Executive
Order N-29-20, the public could only view the meeting online and not in the Council Chamber.
ROLL CALL
Present: Jennifer Armer, CDD Planning; Robert Gray, CDD Building; Mike Weisz, PPW
Engineering; Kenny Ip, SCCFD.
Absent: None.
Staff: Sean Mullin, CDD Planning; Robert Shultz, Town Attorney.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 10:00 AM
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
- None.
CONSENT ITEMS
1. Approval of Minutes – August 17, 2021.
MOTION: Motion by Robert Gray to approve the consent calendar. Seconded by
Mike Weisz.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously 4-0.
PAGE 2 OF 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF AUGUST 31, 2021
N:\DEV\DRC\MINUTES\Min 2021\08-31-21 Minutes - DRC.docx
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 515 Bachman Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-21-001
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-family Residence, Construction
of a New Single-family Residence, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading
Permit on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 510-15-011.
PROPERTY OWNER: Alex Kang and Jennifer Liu
APPLICANT: Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin
The project planner, Sean Mullin, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Bess Wiersema, Studio 3 Design
They are appreciative that they have support from the staff, especially in light of a
recent letter that came in with some negative feedback. They agree with the comments made
by Larry Cannon, the consultant who reviewed the plans, that the bulk and mass and overall
design of the home lines up with the two very different sides and slopes of houses on the area.
They feel that the design allows for the home to offer eclectic, traditional forms within the
neighborhood. Regarding design principals around garages: this is a lot that doesn’t really allow
them to put in a detached garage and get a code-compliant driveway and garage. The materials
chosen for the garage doors are meant to have it feel more cottage rather than a plain two-car
garage.
Alex Kang
They are available to answer any questions.
Lee Quintana, Community Member
She requests this application be forwarded to Planning Commission to answer the
following questions: Should the technical demo be approved, and the site be kept on the
Historic Resources Inventory; The finding of consistency of the Residential Guidelines supported
by the residential guidelines themselves with respects to the garage size and location. Section
2.1, bullet point 3 of those guidelines state garages and driveways shall be similar that is most
common in the neighborhood and Section 2.1.1 states to locate garages to reinforce the
predominant pattern in the neighborhood. An attached 4-car garage is neither predominant
pattern in the neighborhood or like what is most common; Finally, she questions whether the
DRC should act as a Policy decider of how the FAR is determined. The policy issue here is
whether the second story space occupied by the car lift should be counted. If so, the proposed
project would exceed the allowed FAR for the garage. By detaching the garage and placing it to
the rear of the home, the applicant would meet the requirements of the guidelines. Cannon’s
letter does not explicitly state that the project is consistent with the Residential Design
PAGE 3 OF 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF AUGUST 31, 2021
N:\DEV\DRC\MINUTES\Min 2021\08-31-21 Minutes - DRC.docx
Guidelines. The code also doesn’t state that you need two inside parking spaces, but to have
two spaces available for parking.
Bess Wiersema
The garage is a 2-car garage rather than a 4-car garage as Ms. Quintana stated. The
garage is for 2 cars as well as a laundry and storage space. They reviewed with the project
planner on garage and ADU size requirements and they understand that calculating can be
complicated. They state that the project planner can share how the square footage was
calculated with Ms. Quintana. Lastly, Larry Cannon’s group is very specific about their
comments and whether something doesn’t fit the guidelines, and because they didn’t expressly
state that it meets every guideline, that doesn’t mean that is the overarching message of the
project. They don’t believe there is any reason this project should go to Planning Commission.
Closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Mike Weisz to approve with the required findings and
recommended conditions of approval. As part of the conditions of
approval, the soils review by our Geotechnical Consultant, which is
required to be completed prior to the Building Permit. There are two
recommendations: The applicant’s geotechnical consultant shall review
and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading
plans; and the geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and
approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. Seconded
by Robert Gray.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously 4-0.
Appeal rights were recited.
OTHER BUSINESS
- None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned 10:19 AM
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
August 31, 2021 meeting as approved by the
Development Review Committee.
Prepared by:
________________________________________
/s/ Joel Paulson, Community Development Director