11-16-21 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
NOVEMBER 16, 2021
The Development Review Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular
Teleconference Meeting on November 16, 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
Chambers.
ROLL CALL
Present: Jennifer Armer, CDD Planning; Robert Gray, CDD Building; Mike Weisz, PPW
Engineering; and Kenny Ip, SCCFD.
Absent: None.
Staff: Jocelyn Shoopman, CDD Planning.
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 10:00 AM
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS
- None.
CONSENT ITEMS
1. Approval of Minutes – November 2, 2021
MOTION: Motion by Robert Gray to approve the consent calendar. Seconded by
Mike Weisz.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously 4-0.
PAGE 2 OF 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021
N:\DEV\DRC\MINUTES\Min 2021\11-16-21 Minutes - DRC.docx
PUBLIC HEARINGS
2. 14810 Clara Street
Architecture and Site Application S-19-039
Requesting Approval for Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Property
Zoned R-1:12. APN 409-25-030.
PROPERTY OWNER: Edward and Renee Fields
APPLICANT: Kenneth Mitchell
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Shoopman
The project planner, Jocelyn Shoopman, presented the staff report.
Opened Public Comment.
Edward Fields, Owner
We appreciate the neighbors’ comments. Many issues were brought up and it will take
time to address them. We will comply with the requests regarding the retaining wall and fence
and ask the Town to separately permit those items. We will submit a new home proposal and
hire a legal team to protect our right to build. We need to better understand the rules that,
along with the Town architect’s approval, that the neighbors have a voice. The neighbors may
not have reviewed the plans and were misinformed about the height. We confirmed with our
vendor that the story poles are correctly placed and are at the correct height.
Kenneth Mitchell, Architect/Applicant.
The height of the proposed house is 16-foot, 9 inches. This is two-foot, 10 inches
shorter than the previous house. The original house height was at maximum, 19-foot, seven
inches. Other ridge lines were 17-foot, one inch, and 18-foot, two inches.
Edward Fields, Owner
The house design roofline is lower. There was a comment that the length and run of
the house was like that of a commercial building. However, a neighboring home has an
identical roofline that runs in a straight line from the garage to the other side of the house. We
will reassess the design to maximize the full value of the property. We will hire a legal team to
protect the right to design a home that not only meets the standards, as this proposal does, and
also protect the right to maximize the economic value of our assets and holdings. We will
restart the process with a new design. We were hoping to finish in 12 months, but starting a
new proposal is a one-to-two-year process that will cause a three-year delay.
Brent Ventura, Neighbor
I sent a letter listing concerns. The most important issue is the three foot high retaining
wall. It will be insufficient because there is a five-foot grade separation between our two
properties. It has been a difficult three years to live with no fencing and then construction
fencing. A proper height fence needs to be built. My two bedrooms and two bathrooms face
PAGE 3 OF 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021
N:\DEV\DRC\MINUTES\Min 2021\11-16-21 Minutes - DRC.docx
the north side. I was okay with the original house. I see two changes in the proposal. The new
house is moved forward about 10 feet from the original foundation. It is better to move it back.
The proposed setback will result in it becoming the closest house to the circle. All along the
south side it has large, 10-foot, six inch high by four-foot-wide windows that will allow viewing
into our house and vice versa. I believe that we both want to protect our privacy.
Steven and Grazia Johnson, Neighbor to the North
I agree with Brent. I had no problem with the old house. With the new design we will
only see a 10-foot tall fence and a house from our windows. The proposed house will extend
along the entire south side of their property. It will block the view from our bedroom. There is
too much structure along the property line. The proposal has a three to four-foot retaining wall
topped by a seven to eight-foot fence. The result will be a massive 10 foot wall from end to end
blocking our view. I suggest having the architect come look through our windows. They will
overlook our backyard. We have gotten along with the neighbor, but now hear a threatening
tone to the proceedings.
Jeff Whalen, Neighbor
I wrote a letter containing concerns. I question the architect’s comments about height.
The former house being 17-foot high at a 40 foot setback, is very different from the proposed
16-foot high at a 25 foot setback. It needs less setback. The design is not in keeping with the
ranch style of the surrounding homes originally designed by Cliff May. It is unclear on who is
the general contractor and was that a possible reason for the fire. Consider having the
architect meet with the neighbors to clarify and address concerns.
Edward Fields, Applicant
I’m learning about the process of the Planning Department and the consent of the
neighbors. The project was constrained to the original footprint out of respect to the
neighborhood. I hope that the neighbors can respect an owner’s inherent economic right to
build, as I would theirs. The project meets the Town’s requirements regarding setbacks, code,
footprint, etc. We will be asking the Town to separate the retaining wall and fence segment of
the project permit petition so it can proceed. We have deep remorse and regret for the impact
on our neighbors. We need to learn exactly what are the roles of the Town and the rights of
the neighbors in the approval process.
Closed Public Comment.
Committee members discussed the matter.
MOTION: Motion by Robert Gray to continue to November 30, 2021 to allow
additional time to discuss plans with the neighbors and attain additional
fence and retaining wall details. Seconded by Mike Weisz.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously 4-0.
PAGE 4 OF 4 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 16, 2021
N:\DEV\DRC\MINUTES\Min 2021\11-16-21 Minutes - DRC.docx
OTHER BUSINESS
- None.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned 10:33 a.m.
This is to certify that the foregoing is a true
and correct copy of the minutes of the
November 16, 2021 meeting as approved by the
Development Review Committee.
Prepared by:
________________________________________
/s/Jennifer Armer, AICP, Planning Manager