Item 2 - Staff Report with Exhibits 1-11. 232 Danville Drive
PREPARED BY: SAVANNAH VAN AKIN
Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/23/2023
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: August 18, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence
and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence Requiring a Grading
Permit on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 232 Danville Drive. APN 523-43-
035. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Property Owner: Cung Pham and Bien Vo. Applicant: D&Z Design Associates,
Inc. Project Planner: Savannah Van Akin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Denial.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:8
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan and Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 8,003.75 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 232 Danville Drive/S-22-041
DATE: August 18, 2023
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\Item 2 - 232 Danville Drive\Staff Report. 232 Danville Drive.docx
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
FINDINGS:
▪ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.09030 (e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing
structure.
▪ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations).
▪ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single -family
residences not located in hillside areas.
CONSIDERATIONS:
▪ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture
and Site application.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the east side of Danville Drive, off Blossom Valley Drive
(Exhibit 1). The lot is 8,004 square feet with an existing 1,705-square foot single-story
residence with a 531-square foot attached garage. The immediate low density residential
neighborhood contains mostly one-story ranch style homes.
On September 6, 2022, the applicant submitted an Architecture and Site application for the
demolition of an existing single-family residence, and construction of a new two-story residence
and attached garage.
The proposed project meets all technical requirements of the Town Code including parking,
height, floor area, building coverage, and setbacks. The project is being considered by the
Planning Commission to consider the project’s compliance with the Residential Design
Guidelines for mass and bulk compared to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. The
proposed project is the largest in the neighborhood in terms of floor area, FAR, and height.
PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 232 Danville Drive/S-22-041
DATE: August 18, 2023
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\Item 2 - 232 Danville Drive\Staff Report. 232 Danville Drive.docx
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located on the east side of Danville Drive, off Blossom Valley Drive.
(Exhibit 1). The immediate low density residential neighborhood contains mostly one-story
ranch style homes.
B. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1,705-square foot single-story residence
and construct a new 2,637-square foot two-story single-family residence with an attached
558-square foot garage (Exhibit 11). The proposed residence would have a height of 24 feet
and eight inches.
C. Zoning Compliance
A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1:8 zone. The project meets the objective
standards of the zoning code for lot coverage, floor area, height, and setbacks.
DISCUSSION:
A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant is proposing demolition of the existing residence and construction of a two-
story single-family residence with 2,637 square feet of living space, and a 558-square foot
attached garage. The height of the proposed residence is 24 feet eight inches, where a
maximum of 30 feet is allowed. Story poles have been installed and certified to show the
massing of the proposed residence.
The proposed project materials include a composition shingled roof and stucco siding
(Exhibit 11). The applicant has provided a Project Description and Letter of Justification
detailing the project (Exhibit 4). The project plans show an attached Accessory Dwelling
Unit (ADU) on the south elevation of the residence. The ADU is not being reviewed as a
part of this Architecture and Site Application per State law.
The request is being considered by the Planning Commission to determine compliance with
the Residential Design Guidelines for mass and bulk compared to other homes in the
immediate neighborhood. The proposed project is the largest in the neighborhood in t erms
of floor area, FAR, and height.
PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 232 Danville Drive/S-22-041
DATE: August 18, 2023
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\Item 2 - 232 Danville Drive\Staff Report. 232 Danville Drive.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
The immediate neighborhood contains mostly one-story ranch style homes. Based on Town
and County records, the residences in the immediate area range in size from 1,602 square
feet to 2,497 square feet. The floor area ratios range from 0.20 to 0.32. The proposed
residence would be 2,637 square feet with a floor area ratio of 0.33. Pursuant to Town
Code, the maximum allowable square footage for the 8,004-square foot lot is 2,641 square
feet with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.33. The table below reflects the current
conditions of the immediate neighborhood:
ADDRESS ZONING HOUSE
FLOOR
AREA
GARAGE
FLOOR
AREA
TOTAL
FLOOR
AREA
LOT
SIZE
FAR NUMBER
OF STORIES
309 BLOSSOM VALLEY DR R-1:8 1,602 418 2,020 8,064 0.20 1
305 BLOSSOM VALLEY DR R-1:8 2,497 484 2,981 7,885 0.32 2
301 BLOSSOM VALLEY DR R-1:8 2,098 418 2,516 7,920 0.26 1
224 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 2,056 420 2,476 7,980 0.26 2
228 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 1,998 418 2,416 7,980 0.25 1
(E) 232 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 1,705 531 2,236 8,004 0.21 1
(P) 232 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 2,637 558 3,195 8,004 0.33 2
236 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 1602 418 2,020 8,075 0.20 1
235 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 1705 484 2,189 8,366 0.20 1
231 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 1602 418 2,020 8,075 0.20 1
227 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 2056 420 2,476 7,896 0.26 2
223 DANVILLE DR R-1:8 1705 484 2,189 7,896 0.22 1
The proposed residence would not be the first two-story home; however it would be the
largest home in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage, FAR, and height.
C. Building Design
The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the design of the proposed project in a report
dated September 9, 2022, and provided a review of the revised plans dated May 5, 2023.
In the Issues and Concerns background section of the Consulting Architect’s report dated
September 9, 2022 (Exhibit 5), the Consulting Architect noted that the proposed house is
well designed with design unity around all sides of the structure. However, is very large in
terms of size and bulk compared to homes in the immediate neighborhood , which is not
consistent with several of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines.
The Consulting Architect made six recommendations to address consistency of the project
with the Residential Design Guidelines, as follows:
PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 232 Danville Drive/S-22-041
DATE: August 18, 2023
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\Item 2 - 232 Danville Drive\Staff Report. 232 Danville Drive.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
1. Select a roof material that is more similar in color, texture, and finish to other homes
in the immediate neighborhood.
2. Provide an under-the-eave entry to be like the other home entries in the immediate
neighborhood.
3. Reduce the size of the front facade windows on the second story.
4. Provide more information on the window types, material, and trim.
5. Extend the roof overhang on the left side and rear elevations to break up the tall
walls.
6. Add tall landscaping along the rear property line consistent with the requirements of
Residential Design Guideline 3.11.2 and consider two possible approaches to
addressing the issue of the rear terrace privacy intrusion.
The Consulting Architect also provided a second approach, which was included as an option
to reduce the building mass at the front of the house. This recommendation was to move
the third bedroom on the second floor to the rear, over the proposed Great Room. The
applicant decided to apply approach one, rather than working with this second approach.
The applicant revised the plans partially addressing the Consulting Architect’s
recommendations. The applicant provided a written response to the issues and
recommendations (Exhibit 6).
The Consulting Architect conducted a second review (Exhibit 7) and found that the
proposed house was similar to the initial design, however, the applicant had made several
changes, including modifications to the architectural style to be more compatible with the
predominantly Ranch Style homes nearby. Most of the changes were positive, but there
were still some concerns regarding mass and bulk of the front facade, compared to other
homes in the immediate neighborhood.
The Consulting Architect made three additional recommendations, as follows:
1. Modify the front wall of the two second floor bedrooms to reduce the very front
wall facade width to produce bay windows.
2. Match the overhang width and eave height along the central portion of the front
facade and continue it across the home entry.
3. Maintain roof form traditional to the architectural style. The proposed long sloped
roof over the Great Room is inconsistent with the Residential Design Guidelines
which emphasize that the roof forms and details of the home be consistent with the
proposed architectural style.
The applicant implemented the first two recommendations and provided the following
response (Exhibit 8) to the third recommendation:
PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 232 Danville Drive/S-22-041
DATE: August 18, 2023
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\Item 2 - 232 Danville Drive\Staff Report. 232 Danville Drive.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
By continuing the upper-level gutter / fascia line across the rear elevation of the
house and maintaining the roof form, it would be adding “massing” back to the
Upper Level. Instead, we have changed the direction of the roof plane over the Great
Room which further reduces the rear facing wall massing and is more in character
with the architecture.
The project meets the objective standards of the zoning code, and the project design has
been revised to improve compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines by:
1. Changing the roof material to be sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood ;
2. Reducing the formal entry to under the eave to be sensitive to the surrounding
neighborhood;
3. Reducing the size of the front windows on the second story;
4. Extending the roof overhang on the left and rear to break up tall walls;
5. Removing the second-floor balcony to address privacy concerns;
6. Reducing the height; and
7. Modifying the front wall of the of the two second floor bedrooms to reduce the front
wall width in attempt to reduce the building massing relative to nearby homes, without
reducing substantial floor area.
However, the project is the largest for floor area, FAR, and height in the immediate
neighborhood, and is not consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines in regards to
height and bulk. The proposed large second floor building mass is out of scale with other
homes in the immediate neighborhood and, not consistent with the Residential Design
Guideline 3.3.2.
D. Neighbor Outreach
The applicant provided a summary of their efforts to communicate with their neighbors
(Exhibit 9). This document also outlines changes made to the plan in response to the
meeting with the neighbors to mitigate several of their privacy concerns. Some of t he
changes made include removing the proposed second floor rear balcony, as well as raising a
window sill height on the south side of the home.
E. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 232 Danville Drive/S-22-041
DATE: August 18, 2023
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\Item 2 - 232 Danville Drive\Staff Report. 232 Danville Drive.docx
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Story poles and signage were installed on the site and written notice was sent to property
owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject property. Public comments received
by 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 18, 2023, are included as Exhibit 10.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant is requesting approval for demolition of an existing single -family residence
and construction of a new single-family residence requiring a grading permit. The project is
in compliance with the Town Code, however the project is not in compliance with the
Residential Design Guidelines for mass and bulk at the front setback, compared to other
homes in the immediate neighborhood.
B. Recommendation
With consideration of the analysis above, staff recommends that the Planning Commission
deny the Architecture and Site application based on concerns related to the consistency
with the Residential Design Guidelines.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions by taking the
following actions:
a. Make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the
adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Exhibit 2);
b. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the
demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2);
c. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter
29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations);
d. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
e. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
f. Approve Architecture and Site application S-22-041 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 11.
2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
PAGE 8 OF 8
SUBJECT: 232 Danville Drive/S-22-041
DATE: August 18, 2023
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\Item 2 - 232 Danville Drive\Staff Report. 232 Danville Drive.docx
CONCLUSION (continued):
3. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Project Description and Letter of Justification
5. Consulting Architect’s First Report, dated September 9, 2022
6. Applicant’s response to the Consulting Architect’s First Report, received April 5, 2023
7. Consulting Architect’s Second Report, dated May 5, 2023
8. Applicant’s response to the Consulting Architect’s Second Report, received May 15, 2023
9. Applicant’s neighborhood outreach efforts
10. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 18, 2023
11. Development Plans, received July 25, 2023
LYNN AV
PINEHURST AVDANVILLE DRBLOSSOM VALLEY DR
BLOSSOM DALE DRBLOSSOM ACRES DRTAFT LN
SYCAMORE CTBLOSSOM CREST WY
232 Danville Drive
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
Update Notes:- Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm)- Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label- Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area- Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm)
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
\\TLG-FILE\DATA\SHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\ITEM 2 - 232 DANVILLE DRIVE\EXHIBIT 2 - DRAFT FINDINGS AND
CONSIDERATIONS.DOCX
PLANNING COMMISSION – August 23, 2023
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
232 Danville Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-22-041
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and
Construction of a New Single-Family Residence Requiring a Grading Permit on
Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 232 Danville Drive. APN 523-43-035.
Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section
15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
PROPERTY OWNER: Cung Pham and Bien Vo.
APPLICANT: D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
PROJECT PLANNER: Savannah Van Akin.
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Required finding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing
structures:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be
replaced.
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance and is in poor
condition.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations:
■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations).
EXHIBIT 2
\\TLG-FILE\DATA\SHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2023\08-23-2023\ITEM 2 - 232 DANVILLE DRIVE\EXHIBIT 2 - DRAFT FINDINGS AND
CONSIDERATIONS.DOCX
Required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
■ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family
residences not located in hillside areas.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture and 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION – August 23, 2023
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
232 Danville Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-22-041
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and
Construction of a New Single-Family Residence Requiring a Grading Permit on
Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 232 Danville Drive. APN 523-43-035.
Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section
15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
PROPERTY OWNER: Cung Pham and Bien Vo.
APPLICANT: D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
PROJECT PLANNER: Savannah Van Akin.
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 and/or business operation shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, DRC, or the Planning Commission depending on the
scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section
29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights
shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.
4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be
removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
5. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report for the project, on file in the
Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in
the building permit plans and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where
applicable.
7. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the
drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall
remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the
construction plans.
8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
9. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard
must be landscaped.
EXHIBIT 3
10. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet 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.
11. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
12. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that
any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall
defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its
agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding (including
without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town or its agents,
officers or employees related to an approval of the Project, including without limitation any
related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other
approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or
processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to) defend such
Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at applicant’s sole cost
and expense.
Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs and expenses
(including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded
basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other
litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred by
Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon demand
any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application, permit
certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable
laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines
appropriate, all the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No modification of the Project, any
application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval,
change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the
applicant’s indemnity obligation.
13. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the
building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Building Division
14. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit is required for the demolition of the existing
commercial building. A separate Building Permit is required for the construction of the new
commercial building and renovation of the remaining commercial building.
15. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos
as of January 1, 2023, are the 2022 California Building Standards Code, California Code of
Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Energy Reach Codes.
16. 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.
17. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building
Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process.
18. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.
19. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE: Obtain a Building
Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has
been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities
have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department Service
Counter with the Air District’s J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site
plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and
PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
20. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the 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.
21. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed
five (5) feet in depth, or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent
property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a
California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations.
22. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land
surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This
certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils
Report, and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and
elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical
controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the
following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations
23. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms
must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e., directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
24. SITE ACCESSIBILITY: At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be
provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger
loading zones and public streets or sidewalks to the accessible building entrance that they
serve. The accessible route shall, to the maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route
for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect all accessible buildings,
facilities, elements, and spaces that are on the same site.
25. ACCESSIBLE PARKING: The parking lots where parking is provided for the public as clients,
guests or employees, shall provide accessible parking. Accessible parking spaces serving a
particular building shall be located on the shortest accessible route of travel from adjacent
parking to an accessible entrance. In buildings with multiple accessible entrances with
adjacent parking, accessible parking spaces shall be dispersed and located closest to the
accessible entrances.
26. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary
sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the
plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los
Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on
drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the
elevation of the next upstream manhole.
27. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof
assemblies.
28. 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 Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties
prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
29. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be
part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
30. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874
Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771
Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
31. 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 mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction 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 by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department. The Owner'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 issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town
performing the required maintenance at the Owner's expense.
32. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of
approval 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.
33. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1
(Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are
available for download from the Town’s website.
34. PRIOR APPROVALS: All conditions per prior approvals shall be deemed in full force and
affect for this approval.
35. 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 Owner/Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary encroachments
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 (Caltrans). 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 permit.
36. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT): The
property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all existing and proposed
private improvements within the Town’s right-of-way. The Owner shall be solely
responsible for maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition at all times and
shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted by
the Director of Parks and Public Works, and subsequently recorded by the Town Clerk at the
Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk-Recorder, prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits. Please note that this process may take approximately six to eight (6-8)
weeks.
37. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to the
Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all elements
encroaching into the Town’s right-of-way.
38. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner or their 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 penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without
inspection.
39. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner and/or Developer or their
representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal
that are damaged or removed because of the Owner and/or Developer or their
representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement
markings, etc., 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
restoration of all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall
be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Owner and/or
Developer or their representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering
Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
40. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job
site at all times during construction.
41. 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.
42. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited
with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the
commencement of plan check review.
43. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits or recordation of the Parcel / Final Map.
44. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR: The Owner shall fund a full time public works inspector,
selected by the Town of Los Gatos, for the duration of the demolition and grading
operations. The Owner will be charged on a time and materials basis. A deposit for the full
amount, to be estimated by the Town based on the Contractor’s approved schedule, shall
be paid prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
45. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the
approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner’s
project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours
in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into
the final “as-built” plans.
46. 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. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other
studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the
Owner.
47. GRADING PERMIT DETERMINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS: In the event that,
during the production of construction drawings and/or during construction of the plans
approved with this application by the Town of Los Gatos, it is determined that a grading
permit would be required as described in Chapter 12, Article II (Grading Permit) of the Town
Code of the Town of Los Gatos, an Architecture and Site Application would need to be
submitted by the Owner/Applicant/Developer for review and approval by the Development
Review Committee prior to applying for a grading permit.
48. ILLEGAL GRADING: Per the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, applications for work
unlawfully completed shall be charged double the current fee. As a result, the required
grading permit fees associated with an application for grading will be charged accordingly.
49. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Alta Heights Ct. shall be
constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed.
50. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, it shall be
the sole responsibility of the Owner to obtain any and all proposed or required easements
and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. Proof of
agreement/approval is required prior to the issuance of any Permit.
51. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the
issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
52. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity
fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the recordation of any subdivision or tract
maps with respect to the subject property or properties or immediately prior to the
issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event occurs first. Written confirmation
of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation.
53. DEMOLITION: Within 60-days of the approval action being final (i.e. after the 10-day appeal
period and no requested appeals being submitted to the Town), the Property Owner shall
record a Deed Restriction on each of the parcels in question which prohibits the recording
of a Certificate of Compliance until one of the two (2) prerequisite actions occurs prior to
the proposed recordation: 1) removal of any structures which cross lot/property lines or 2)
the Property Owner successfully obtaining an Architecture & Site approval from the Town of
Los Gatos for the demolition of the existing house and construction of a replacement house.
54. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Owner and/or Developer shall install a Town standard
residential driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town
Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 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.
55. FENCING: Any fencing proposed within two hundred (200) feet of an intersection shall
comply with Town Code Section §23.10.080.
56. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not
limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080,
26.10.065, and 29.40.030.
57. FENCES: Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property
lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences that encroach into the neighbor’s property will
need to be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines before a
Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Waiver of this condition will
require signed and notarized letters from all affected neighbors.
58. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right-of-
way will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by the
Town.
59. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency
services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with
specification of dates and hours of operation.
60. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the
issuance of a grading or building permit, the Owner and/or Applicant or their representative
shall work with the Town Building Department 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
Owner and/or Applicant 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. Cover all trucks hauling
soil, sand and other loose debris.
61. 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 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis,
alternate construction hours. The Owner and/or Developer shall provide written notice
twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request
is at discretion of the Town.
62. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall
be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-
five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a
structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-
five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the
property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
63. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits, the Owner and/or Applicant’s design consultant shall submit a
construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at
a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security
fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s),
construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. Please refer
to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional
information.
64. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner and/or Developer is responsible for
ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such
measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and
be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment
and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during
construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply
with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop
work orders.
65. NPDES STORMWATER COMPLIANCE: In the event that, during the production of
construction drawings for the plans approved with this application by the Town of Los
Gatos, it is determined that the project will create and/or replace more than 2,500 square
feet of impervious area, completion of the NPDES Stormwater Compliance Small Projects
Worksheet and implementation of at least one of the six low impact development site
design measures it specifies shall be completed and submitted to the Engineering Division
before issuance of a grading/building permit.
66. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one 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 porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
67. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted
to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A maximum of two
(2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if
grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried
out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included.
Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls
(with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification,
filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as
needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The Town of Los Gatos
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building
Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized
storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater
ordinances and regulations.
68. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust 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 disturbed 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 (3) 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 shall 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 (1) 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 twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling
soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
69. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant
emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-
recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan,
building plans, and contract specifications:
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, or otherwise kept dust-
free.
b. All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from
site shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and
removal from site.
c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
d. As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be
staged in areas away from the adjacent residential homes.
e. 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, or as deemed appropriate
by Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-
out control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt-track-out onto
adjacent public roads.
f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour.
g. All 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.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take
corrective action within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall
also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the
BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334-
ODOR (6367).
i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when
average wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.
j. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established.
70. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater
management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble-ups, dry
wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be
provided on submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public
Works Department, and approved for implementation.
71. 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.
72. 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 stormwater treatment facilities are to be
used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or
right-of-way. Alternatively, the facilities may be located with an offset between 5 and 10
feet from the adjacent property and/or right-of-way lines if the responsible engineer in
charge provides a stamped and signed letter that addresses infiltration and states how
facilities, improvements and infrastructure within the Town’s right-of-way (driveway
approach, curb and gutter, etc.) and/or the adjacent property will not be adversely affected.
No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent,
downstream or down slope property.
73. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and
homeowner 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 be washed into
the Town’s storm drains.
74. 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 Owner'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 penalties and/or the Town performing
the required maintenance at the Owner's expense.
75. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Immediately upon approval of
an encroachment permit, the Owner and/or Developer shall initiate a weekly neighborhood
email notification program to provide project status updates. The email notices shall also
be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter.
76. PERMIT ISSUANCE: Permits for each phase shall be issued simultaneously.
77. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
78. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access,
water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire
department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to
determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the
applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all
applicable construction permits.
79. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (As Noted on Sheet T1) An automatic residential fire sprinkler
system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and
two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are
made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 SF whether by increasing the area
of the primary residence or by creation of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2) In all new
basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. 3) In all
attached ADUs, additions or alterations to an existing one- and two-family dwelling that
have an existing fire sprinkler system. Exceptions: 1) One or more additions made to a
building after January 1, 2011 that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building
area and meets all access and water supply requirements of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and
C of the 2019 California Fire Code. 2) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units, provided that all
of the following are met: a) The unit meets the definition of an Accessory Dwelling Unit as
defined in the Government Code Section 65852.2. b) The existing primary residence does
not have automatic fire sprinklers. c) The detached ADU does not exceed 1,200 square feet
in size. d) The unit is on the same lot as the primary residence. e) The unit meets all access
and water supply requirements of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the 2019 California
Fire Code.
80. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: (Letter received) The minimum require fireflow for this project is 875
Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of
automatic fire sprinklers per CF [903.3.1.3].
81. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from
contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the
applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying
the site of such project, and to 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 this office until compliance with the requirements of
the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the
applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
82. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address
numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall
contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers
shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response.
Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a
minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm).
Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the
public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure.
Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.
83. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable
provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification Sl-7. Provide
appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC
Chp. 33.
84. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the
provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A
permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or
other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved
construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.
August 8, 2023
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
Civic Center
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95031
Re: Architecture and Site Application
Pham/Vo Residence
232 Danville Drive, Los Gatos, CA
Project Description:
Cung Pham and Bien Vo, the owners of the subject parcel, are proposing to demolish an existing
+/- 2,236 s.f. single story residential structure built in 1962 and a detached 102 s.f. storage shed.
They are proposing to build a new 2,637 s.f. two-story single family residence with attached 558
s.f. 2-car garage and attached 589 s.f. attached ADU. The new home will include a 48 s.f.
covered entry porch, a 269 s.f. rear covered patio.
Also proposed are new paved walkway paths around the house, and a new paved driveway is
proposed for the front facing garage from the existing driveway approach. The existing concrete
driveway is proposed for removal.
Two 4” and 6” non-protected trees are proposed for removal due to their close proximity to the
proposed house location and construction.
The design of the home is “Modern Transitional” Mid-Twentieth Century California Ranch
architecture which incorporates a smooth finish stucco exterior with an integral color, and an
architectural composition shingle roof, matching the materials of the neighborhood Homes.
The owners plan to add several trees and landscaping to both the front and rear yard areas as well
as privacy trees along both side property lines. The existing overhead utility lines to the home
from the existing power pole are proposed to be re-installed underground. The parcel is proposed
to have minimal grading with low quantities of cut and fill.
The proposed home is designed to fit well within the existing site conditions and with the least
amount of privacy impacts to the neighboring homes.
The proposed design complies with the all Town Codes, regulations and ordinances in regard to
height and square footage.
Sincerely,
Michael Davis
D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
EXHIBIT 4
August 8, 2023
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95031
Re: Architecture and Site Application
Pham/Vo Residence
232 Danville Drive, Los Gatos, CA
Letter of Justification:
Cung Pham and Bien Vo purchased the Home at 232 Danville Drive in 2021
and are proposing to demolish the existing +/- 2,236 sq. ft. single story home built
in 1962 and the detached 102 sq. ft. storage shed. The existing neighborhood is
composed of single story homes (65% of the homes) and split level homes (35% of
the homes - 2nd story bedrooms above the 2 car Garage) that are all of the Mid-
Twentieth Century Ranch Style architecture. The neighborhood also has 4 homes
that have added a second story addition, one home that was demolished and a new
home built on Sycamore Court (3,170 sq. ft.).
Cung and Bien are proposing to build their new 2,637 sq. ft. two-story single
family home with an attached 589 sq. ft. ADU and an attached 558 sq. ft. attached
2 car Garage. The new home will have a 48 sq. ft. covered entry porch and a 269
sq. ft. rear covered patio (after meeting with the neighbors to either side and to the
rear, the originally proposed upper level Master Bedroom Terrace and circular stair
was removed from the plan). At 2,637 sq. ft., this proposed design is under the
maximum allowed floor area for this lot (2,641 sq. f.). The next largest home in the
neighborhood is at 242 Pinehurst Avenue at 2,529 sq. ft. and has had a second
level addition. The proposed home for 232 Danville Drive is less than 5% larger
than the biggest home in the neighborhood (please note that this calculation does
not count the allowed ADU sq. ft.).
The Home has been designed to integrate itself into the existing architecture
of the neighborhood in the following ways. The geometry of the home has a mostly
“wide straight facade” with a forward facing 2-car Garage and moderately sloped
roofs of 3/12 & 4/12 slopes with large overhangs of 24”. This is prevalent in all of
the homes in the neighborhood. The roof “shape” is of a cross-hipped design, a
roof shape that is used on 50% of the existing neighborhood homes. The exterior
materials of this Home’s design include a smooth finish stucco and an architectural
composition shingle roof, materials that are used throughout the neighborhood.
The windows of this home are mostly of a vertical design, similar to the existing
homes. All of the homes in the neighborhood have either a single entry door with a
sidelite(s), or a double entry door. This home is designed with a double entry door.
While this Home is a two-story, there are 20 homes in the neighborhood that have
the split level design (2 stories at the Garage) and 4 homes that have had a 2nd story
addition. The proposed building height is 24’-7” (Max. height allowed is 30’-0”).
The Homes with the second story additions are between 23’ and 25’ height (the
height home at 247 Pinehurst Avenue is 25’) and the existing split level homes in
the neighborhood are approximately 22’ in height..
As the home proposed is of a 2-story design, privacy for neighbors to the left
and right was an important design consideration. The home has been designed
without any bedroom windows facing these neighboring properties. The windows
that are facing in the direction of the side neighbors are designed as “high”
windows with the sill height above 5’-0”. Again, after meeting with the neighbors,
the upper level terrace from the Master Bedroom has been completely removed.
Another neighbor had also commented on a privacy concern in terms of the rear
upper level windows at the Master Bath and Master Bedroom. We have raised each
of the windows and have proposed to use an obscured glass at the Master Bath Tub
area.
The Zoning for this property is R-1-8. The setbacks are 25’ for the Front, 20’
for the Rear and 8’ for the side setbacks. This property has a 10’ side setback (5’
P.U.E. + 5’ W.C.E.) along the northerly property line. The proposed Design has a
27’ / 29’ front setback and a 24’ rear setback. The second level has side setbacks of
17’-6” on the north side and an average of 16’-6” on the south side. The front
setback at the second level is 29’. These increased setbacks for the second level is
to minimize the impact to the neighbors on either side of this property and to break
up the upper level massing. In regard to the massing of the upper level, the
proposed home’s Upper Level is just below 50% of the footprint of the Main level.
The existing split level homes also have a ratio of approx. 50% Entry Level to
Upper Level.
The owners plan to add several trees and landscaping to both the front and
rear yard areas as well as privacy trees and shrubs of approx. 8’ to 10’tall along
both property lines as shown in the Preliminary Landscaping Design. A proposed
Fire pit area in the rear yard has been removed as requested after meeting with the
neighbors. Two additional 24” box Podocarpus Gracilior trees have been added at
the rear southeast corner of the property per the comments from the neighbor at
255 Pinehurst Avenue for additional privacy screening.
As noted above, the architecture of the existing homes in the development
are of a Mid-Twentieth Century Ranch style. We are proposing a “Modern
Transitional” Mid-Twentieth Century California Ranch architecture that
incorporates the roof geometry of the neighborhood homes using a cross-hipped
roof style along with the forward facing 2-car Garage to match the form and
massing of the existing homes. We feel that the design of the Pham-Vo Home fits
well with the existing neighborhood, minimizes any privacy issues, and will add
value to the surrounding area.
Sincerely,
Michael Davis
D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
September 9, 2022
Ms. Jennifer Armer
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 232 Danville Drive
Dear Jennifer:
I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located in an established neighborhood of predominately one-story Ranch Style homes. Photos of
the site and its surrounding neighborhood are shown on the following page.
EXHIBIT 5
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 2
Nearby house across Danville Drive
House immediately across Danville DriveTHE SITE
House immediately to the left House immediately to the right
Nearby house to the right
Nearby house across Danville Drive Nearby house across Danville Drive
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 3
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed structure is large in size with a second floor exceeding any other home in the immediate neigh-
borhood - see proposed drawings below.
Proposed Front Elevation
Proposed Left Side Elevation
Proposed Rear Elevation
Proposed Right Side Elevation
Proposed Front and Left Side
Proposed rear and Left Side
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 4
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The proposed house is well designed with design unity around all sides of the structure. However, it is very
large in terms of size and bulk compared to homes in the immediate neighborhood which is not consistent
with several of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines. Specific concerns include the following:
1. The home design is consistent with the main form and details of its selected Mediterranean Style, but is
very much different from the surrounding Ranch Style homes which would not be consistent with Resi-
dential Design Guideline 3.2.1.
3.2.1 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood
• Styles with front facade eaves at the first floor level will be easier to adapt to predominantly one story
neighborhoods than styles with two story, unbroken front facades.
2. The large second floor building mass is out of scale with other homes in the immediate neighborhood,
and not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.3.2.
3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks
• Two story houses may not be appropriate for every neighborhood. For neighborhoods dominated by
one story homes, an effort should be made to limit the house to one story in height or to accommo-
date second floor space within the roof form as is common in the Craftsman Style.
• In neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of the floor area on the first floor with less
area on the second floor.
• Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless the architectural style traditionally has the
second floor front wall at or near the first floor wall, set the second floor back from the front facade
a minimum of 5 feet.
• The design of two story homes constructed adjacent to one story houses should include techniques to
minimize their visual impact and provide transitions in scale.
3. The proposed metal roofing would be out of character with the neighborhood and not consistent with
Residential Design Guideline 3.8.2.
3.8.2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 5
4. The formal entry is not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.6.3.
3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood
• Avoid large and formal entries unless that is the norm for nearby houses. It is often best to start
the design consideration with an entry type (e.g., projecting or under eave porch) that is similar to
nearby homes.
5. The second floor front facade windows are quite large related to the scale of windows on other homes in
the immediate neighborhood and not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.2.
3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the architectural style and to the surrounding
neighborhood
6. More information is needed for window materials and window trim.
7. The two-story wall on the left facade is not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.3.3.
3.3.3 Provide visual relief for two story walls
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 6
8. The rear second floor terrace and large bank of windows poses potential privacy intrusions on the neigh-
bors’ yard to the rear.
3.11.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences
• Windows should be placed to minimize views into the living spaces and yard spaces near neighbor-
ing homes.
• Where possible, second floor windows that might intrude on adjacent property privacy should have
sill heights above eye level or have frosted or textured glass to reduce visual exposure.
• Second floor balconies and decks should be used only when they do not intrude on the privacy of
adjacent neighbors.
• When allowed, the design of railings should be tailored to the privacy concerns of neighbors (e.g.,
balcony or deck sides overlooking adjacent windows or actively used yard space should be solid in
form). Open railings should only be used where privacy concerns are minimal.
• Landscaping may be used to mitigate privacy concerns so long as the landscaping does not deny solar
access to living spaces and actively used yard areas of neighboring homes.
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 7
RECOMMENDATIONS
I looked at two options for staff consideration. The first addresses some of the issues without changing the ap-
plicant’s floor plans. The second makes a significant second floor plan changes to reduce the structures mass to
be more in keeping with the scale of the neighborhood.
APPROACH #1
1. Select a roof material that is more similar in color, texture and finish to other homes in the immediate
neighborhood.
2. Provide an under-the-eave entry to be similar to the other home entries in the immediate neighborhood.
3. Reduce the size of the front facade windows on the second story.
4. Provide more information on the window types, material and trim.
5. Extend the roof overhang on the left side and rear elevations to break up the tall walls.
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 8
6. Add tall landscaping along the rear property line consistent with the requirements of Residential Design
Guideline 3.11.2, and consider two approaches to addressing the issue of the rear terrace privacy intru-
sion.
• Use a solid raining in lieu of the open wire railing.
• Eliminate the second floor terrace in favor of a roof covering or trellis over the first floor patio.
The resultant Danville Drive streetscape elevation is shown in the illustration below.
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
September 9, 2022 Page 9
APPROACH #2
The changes outlined in Approach #1 would be repeated, but Bedroom 3 on the second floor would be moved
to the rear over the current Great Room to reduce the building mass at the front of the house. These changes
are shown on the illustrations below.
Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions or if there are any issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
April 5, 2023
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
Planning Division
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95031
Re: Architecture and Site Application S-22-041
Pham/Vo Residence
232 Danville Drive, Los Gatos, CA
The following items are in response to Town’s Peer Architect review dated September 9, 2022.
Proposed Project is large in size with the second floor exceeding neighboring properties:
While there will always be a largest home in the neighborhood, we have worked to reduce the size
and height of the proposed home. We have reduced the height by 36” to 24’-9” (more than 5’-0”
below the maximum height allowed of 30’) and reduced the floor area of the Upper Level from
1,403 sq.ft. to 1,371 sq.ft. The more important reduction was the Upper Level 2 story massing by
289 sq.ft. by removing the 2 story ceiling height over the Great Room.
We reduced the length at the Upper Level rear wall from 48’-6” to 29’-4” to reduce the Upper
Level massing at the front elevation. We have also simplified the geometry of roof planes to be
more consistent with the neighborhood and have reduced the upper level exterior wall heights by
6” to further reduce the overall building height.
Issues and Concerns:
1. The home design is consistent with the main form and details of its selected Mediterranean Style,
but is very much different from the surrounding Ranch Style homes which would not be consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.1.
3.2.1 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood
We have modified the roof forms, and the roof material to be more consistent with the overall
“Range Style” architecture of the neighborhood while still keeping a little “individuality”
2.The large second floor building mass is out of scale with other homes in the immediate
neighborhood, and not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.3.2.
As noted above, we have reduced the overall width of the upper level by bringing the Upper Level
left side exterior wall in by 52” and reducing the length of the Upper Level rear exterior wall by
almost 20’. The upper level is set back from the left side approximately 17’-0” and approximately
11’-0” on the right side. The upper level is set back from the front property line 29’-0”. These
increased setbacks give us a “transition-in-scale” and further lessen the impact to the neighbors
on either side of this property by breaking up the upper level massing.
EXHIBIT 6
3. The proposed metal roofing would be out of character with the neighborhood and not consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3.8.2.
3.8.2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood
We have revised the roofing material from the originally proposed metal roofing to a “Life Time”
composition shingle roof which is the typical roofing material used throughout the neighborhood.
4. The formal entry is not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.6.3.
3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood
We have reduced the height of the entry porch feature as well as reducing the height of the
arched entry door opening. While this entry porch design is not common in the neighborhood, we
feel that this simplified version gives the home a little diversity.
5. The second floor front facade windows are quite large related to the scale of windows on other
homes in the immediate neighborhood and not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.2.
3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the architectural style and to the surrounding
neighborhood
We have reduced the sizes of all of the front elevation windows and have also removed the arch
shaped windows at the lower level to be more consistent with the neighborhood homes.
6. More information is needed for window materials and window trim.
Windows are to be black wood frame aluminum clad type from Andersen (or equal). We have
revised the foam window headers to a limestone finish and are providing a limestone header
trim at the garage door.
7. The two-story wall on the left facade is not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.3.3.
3.3.3 Provide visual relief for two story walls.
We have revised the left side of the home by pulling back the Upper Level side wall by 52”. This
now gives us a roof form along the entire left side of the home, breaking up the “2 story” wall
plane at that side giving us an almost 16’ side setback.
8. The rear second floor terrace and large bank of windows poses potential privacy intrusions on the
neighbors’ yard to the rear.
3.11.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences
After meeting with the immediate neighbors to the left, right and rear, the originally proposed
upper level terrace and spiral stairs were removed completely from the design to maintain the
neighbor’s privacy. We are now only proposing a patio cover for the lower level patio.
The home has been designed without any bedroom windows facing the neighboring properties.
The windows that are facing the direction of the side neighbors are designed as “high” windows
with sill heights above 5’-0” minimizing any privacy issues.
Recommendations:
In reviewing the Peer Architect’s two options, we have decided to follow his Approach #1
comments with forms and roof geometry that blend in more with the neighborhood by revising
the design per the following:
1.The proposed roofing material has been revised to be a charcoal grey composition shingle. The
roof slope has been designed to match the neighborhood with a 4:12 roof pitch.
2. We have reduced the height of the proposed Entry Porch by 36”, but have kept a covered porch
element to create an “individuality” feature.
3. We have reduced the size of all of the front façade windows and have removed the arched
shaped windows.
4. Windows are to be a wood frame black aluminum clad by Andersen (or equal). We have
removed the foam window header and are providing a limestone header trim at the windows and
at the garage door.
5. We have extended the roof overhang on the left side to break up the 2 story wall massing per
the Architect’s recommendations.
6. Landscape plans now show tall landscaping along the rear property line. The owners plan to add
several trees and landscaping to both the front and rear yard areas as well as privacy trees along
both property lines as shown in the Preliminary Landscaping Design.
7. We have completely removed the Upper Level Terrace Balcony, the spiral stair and the railing at
the rear elevation. We are providing a roof patio cover at the rear elevation.
This home has been redesigned to be more consistent with the neighborhood while still having a
little bit of individuality. While the Home will be the largest in the neighborhood, it is only by
approximately 10%. And by reducing the overall height as noted above, the building height of this
home is now in keeping with the heights of the 2 story split level homes of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Michael Davis
D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
May 5, 2023
Ms. Savannah Van Akin
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 232 Danville Drive
Dear Savannah:
I previously reviewed the initial design for this project in September of last year. My comments and recom-
mendations on the revised design are as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located in an established neighborhood of predominately one-story Ranch Style homes. Photos of
the site and its surrounding neighborhood are shown on the following page.
EXHIBIT 7
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
May 5, 2023 Page 2
Nearby house across Danville Drive
House immediately across Danville DriveTHE SITE
House immediately to the left House immediately to the right
Nearby house to the right
Nearby house across Danville Drive Nearby house across Danville Drive
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
May 5, 2023 Page 3
PROPOSED PROJECT
The proposed structure is large in size with a second floor area and mass exceeding any other home in the im-
mediate neighborhood - see proposed drawings below and a comparison of the previous and currently pro-
posed elevations.
Proposed Front Elevation
Proposed Right Side Elevation
Previous Front Elevation
Proposed Rear Elevation Previous Rear Elevation
Proposed Right Side Elevation Previous Right Side Elevation
Proposed Left Side Elevation Previous Left Side Elevation
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
May 5, 2023 Page 4
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The proposed house is similar to the design proposed a few months ago - see comparison elevations on the
previous page. But the applicant has made several changes in response to the previous review letter and staff
comments, including modifications to its architectural style to be more compatible with the predominatly
Ranch Style homes nearby. Most of the changes are positive, but there still remains an issue regarding its mass
and bulk at the front setback compared to other homes in the immediate neighborhood. As currently pro-
posed, the house would not be consistent with the Town’s Residential Design Guideline 3.3.2.
3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks
• Two story houses may not be appropriate for every neighborhood. For neighborhoods dominated by
one story homes, an effort should be made to limit the house to one story in height or to accommo-
date second floor space within the roof form as is common in the Craftsman Style.
• In neighborhoods with small homes, try to place more of the floor area on the first floor with less
area on the second floor.
• Take care in the placement of second floor masses. Unless the architectural style traditionally has the
second floor front wall at or near the first floor wall, set the second floor back from the front facade
a minimum of 5 feet.
• The design of two story homes constructed adjacent to one story houses should include techniques to
minimize their visual impact and provide transitions in scale.
The height and mass issue at the front facade is emphasized by the proposed entry which is not consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3.6.3. The applicant has lowered the entry elements some but it is still not
working well with the neighborhood context or the proposed architectural style.
3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood
• Avoid large and formal entries unless that is the norm for nearby houses. It is often best to start
the design consideration with an entry type (e.g., projecting or under eave porch) that is similar to
nearby homes.
The immediate neighborhood has a preponderance of one story homes with a few homes having a partial sec-
ond story. In almost all cases there is a strong first floor roof and eave line that emphasizes a one-story building
form. This emphasis is enhanced by the use of traditional under-the-eave entries.
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
May 5, 2023 Page 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
There are limited opportunities available for addressing the front facade mass relative to nearby homes without
some substantial reductions in floor area in interior rooms area and volume. Staff may wish to work with the
applicant to reduce the size of the proposed second floor to better reflect the scale and character of the imme-
diately adjacent neighborhood context.
However, the recommendations below might be considered as a compromise solution. It is one that limits the
changes to one minor floor plan modification and the first floor entry type.
1. Modify the front wall of the two second floor bedrooms to reduce the very front wall facade width to
produce bay windows - see second floor plan illustration on the following page.
2. Match the overhang width and eave height along the central portion of the front facade and continue it
across the home entry.
Currently Proposed Front Elevation
Recommended Front Elevation
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
May 5, 2023 Page 6
Implementation of the above two recommendations would reduce the second floor visual mass and better em-
phasis a strong first floor eave and roof line more in keeping with the other homes in the immediate neighbor-
hood - see streetscape comparison below.
232 Danville Drive
Design Review Comments
May 5, 2023 Page 7
3. Another significant issue that I saw in my review of the revised design relates to the volume and roof
changes over the Great Room on the rear of the home. These do no effect the streetscape appearance of
the house but would be inconsistent with the Residential Design Guidelines which emphasize that the
roof forms and details of the home be consistent with the proposed architectural style. The change to a
long sloped roof over the Great Room is both awkward and very much out of character with the tradi-
tions of the architectural style - see currently proposed rear elevation and recommended change below.
Savannah, please let me know if you have any questions or if there are any issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
May 15, 2023
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
Planning Division
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95031
Re: Architecture and Site Application S-22-041
Pham/Vo Residence
232 Danville Drive, Los Gatos, CA
The following items are in response to Town’s Peer Architect review #2 dated May 5, 2023.
Proposed Project is large in size with the second floor exceeding neighboring properties:
While there will always be a largest home in the neighborhood, we have worked to reduce the size
height and massing of the proposed home per the Peer Architect’s comments as well as the
Planning Staff’s concerns. We have reduced the height by 36” to 24’‐8” by reducing the roof slope
(more than 5’‐0” below the maximum height allowed of 30’). At the 24’‐8” height, we are
approximately just 36” taller than the split‐level Homes (about 33% of the homes) in the
neighborhood. We have also reduced the Upper Level floor area, and more importantly we
reduced the Upper Level massing by 289 sq.ft. (18%) by removing the 2 story massing over the
Great Room. This change also reduced the length at the Upper Level rear wall from 48’‐6” to 29’‐
4”. Shortening the length of the rear wall also reduces the Upper Level massing at the front
elevation. In reviewing the exterior elevations after the noted reductions we were able to simplify
the geometry of roof planes to be more consistent with the neighborhood and the “Ranch Style”
architecture. Lastly, we have reduced the upper level exterior wall heights by 6” to further reduce
the overall building height.
Issues and Concerns:
1.The home design is consistent with the main form and details of its selected Mediterranean Style,
but is very much different from the surrounding Ranch Style homes which would not be consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.1.
3.2.1 Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood
Along with the noted revisions above, we have now removed the “formal entry” at the front of
the home and ran a continuous gutter line across the front elevation, typical of the “Ranch
Style” architecture and the existing homes of the neighborhood per the Peer Architect’s
suggestion.
EXHIBIT 8
2. The large second floor building mass is out of scale with other homes in the immediate
neighborhood, and not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.3.2.
As mentioned above, we have reduced the overall width of the upper level by bringing the Upper
Level left side exterior wall in by 52” and reducing the length of the Upper Level rear exterior wall
by almost 20’. The upper level is set back is now approximately 17’‐0” on the left side and 11’‐0”
on the right side. The upper level is set back from the front property line 29’‐0”. These increased
setbacks give us a “transition‐in‐scale” and further lessen the impact to the neighbors on either
side of this property by breaking up the upper level massing (The neighbors to either side
appreciated this we it was discussed in the neighborhood meeting at the project site).
3. The proposed metal roofing would be out of character with the neighborhood and not consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3.8.2.
3.8.2 Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood
We have revised the roofing material from the originally proposed metal roofing to a “Life Time”
Architectural Composition Shingle roof which is to match the typical roofing material used
throughout the neighborhood.
4. The formal entry is not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.6.3.
3.6.3 Design entries with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood
The formal entry has been removed from the plan creating an “under‐eave” entry porch with the
gutter line continuing across the front elevation. This now gives us a strong horizontal line for the
entry level to match the existing homes in the neighborhood.
5. The second floor front facade windows are quite large related to the scale of windows on other
homes in the immediate neighborhood and not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.2.
3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the architectural style and to the surrounding
neighborhood
We have reduced the sizes of all of the front elevation windows and have also removed the arch
shaped windows at the lower level to be more consistent with the neighborhood homes and the
Ranch Style Architecture.
6. More information is needed for window materials and window trim.
Windows are to be black wood frame aluminum clad type from Andersen (or equal). We have
revised the foam window headers to a limestone finish and are providing a limestone header
trim at the garage door.
7. The two‐story wall on the left facade is not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.3.3.
3.3.3 Provide visual relief for two story walls.
We have revised the left side of the home by pulling back the Upper Level side wall by 52”. This
now gives us a roof form along the entire left side of the home, breaking up the “2 story” wall
plane at that side giving us an almost 17’ side setback at the Upper Level.
8. The rear second floor terrace and large bank of windows poses potential privacy intrusions on the
neighbors’ yard to the rear.
3.11.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences
After meeting with the immediate neighbors to the left, right and rear, the originally proposed
upper level terrace and spiral stairs were removed completely from the design to maintain the
neighbor’s privacy. We are now only proposing a patio cover for the lower level patio (the
Neighbors were Happy!).
The home has also been designed without any bedroom windows facing the neighboring
properties.
The windows that are facing the direction of the side neighbors are designed as “high” windows
with sill heights above 5’‐0” minimizing any privacy issues.
Responses to Recommendations from the Peer Architect:
1.We have modified the two front bedroom facades per the Peer Architect by thickening the
exterior wall to create a “bay window” affect. This gives us a vertical wall line at each side of each
of the front facing bedroom windows helping to break up the wall plane massing at the Upper
Level.
2. We have removed the “formal entry” element and ran the eave (fascia board and gutter) across
the front elevation creating a strong horizontal line that is in keeping with the “Ranch Style”
Architecture.
3. Regarding the roof plane over the Great Room, it was suggested to continue the upper level
gutter / fascia line across the rear elevation of the house. This would adding “massing” back to the
Upper Level which we are trying to avoid. Instead, we have changed the direction of the roof
plane over the Great Room which further reduces the rear facing wall massing and is more in
character with the architecture.
Neighbor’s Privacy Concerns
Landscape plans now show tall landscaping along the rear property line. The owners plan
to add several trees and landscaping to both the front and rear yard areas as well as
privacy trees along both property lines as shown in the Preliminary Landscaping Design.
We have completely removed the Upper Level Terrace Balcony, the spiral stair and the
railing at the rear elevation. We are providing a roof patio cover at the rear elevation.
With the changes noted above, along with the previous revisions, we feel that this home is more
consistent with the neighborhood while still having a little bit of individuality. While the Home will
be the largest in the neighborhood, it is only by approximately 12%. And by reducing the overall
height as noted above, the building height of this home is over 60” below what is allowed and is now
only 36” (approx.) taller than the existing split-level homes of the neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Michael Davis
D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
neighbor. The tenants across the street, at 231 & 235 Danville Drive, were not
contacted as the are renters and not the Owners of the properties.
Subsequently, the Town received a letter from Mr. Roger Eline at 255 Pinehurst
Avenue, the neighbor to the rear southeast corner of the project site. The areas of
concern for Mr. Eline included privacy from the Master Bedroom and Master Bath
Room windows and the FAR of the proposed design.
Per these comments, the window sills for both the Master Bedroom and Master
Bathroom were raised 6” to a 36” window sill height. The Master Bath window
was also noted to be obscure glass. In regard to the FAR concern of the neighbor,
we have reduced the FAR to be below the allowable Floor Area per the Zoning
(note: the ADU is allowed square footage below 800 sq. ft. and is not counted
against the allowable FAR).
Mr. Eline had also suggested additional screening trees be added to the southeast
corner of the property for further privacy screening. We have added (2) 24” box
Podocarpus gracilior trees per this request.
In summary, per the Neighbor’s concerns with privacy, FAR and massing, we have
made the following revisions:
1. Removed the Upper Level Master Bedroom Terrace.
2. Reduced the window sizes at the rear elevation and have noted obscure glass
at the Master Bath window at the tub.
3. Added screening trees.
4. Reduced the Upper Level floor area by 150 sq. ft., also removed the 2 story
ceiling height at the Great Room. and also reduced the Lower Level floor
area by 70 sq. ft.
Sincerely,
Michael Davis
D&Z Design Associates, Inc.
June 30, 2023
Los Gatos, Ca. 95032
408-425-8201
Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Neighbor Response to Proposed 2-Story House Construction at 232 Danville Dr., Los Gatos, Ca.
95032.
Hello,
I am a long-time resident of Los Gatos and the property owner/occupant of Los
Gatos and.
It came to my attention this past weekend, when story poles went up, that my neighbor to the right rear
of my property is proposing construction of a rather large 2-story house.
I’ve looked over the project documents captured on the Planning Commission’s website, so have a
reasonable understanding of the project.
In general, it’s nice to see neighbors remodeling their properties, as many are weathered, and homes
built in the 60’s don't really meet the ideals of those today.
Since this week is my first time responding to this project, the below are my comments and issues.
My input, as an affected neighbor, from reviewing the proposed ‘REDUCED - project plans”:
•It appears the proposed house on an 8000 SF lot will be the largest mass by volume and floor space
structure in the neighborhood, especially when considering all factors - the floor area, attached
garage, 1st floor ADU, interior open space between 1st and 2nd floors, and structure height.
The overall mass is at least 40% larger than almost every other residential property in the
neighborhood. There is another home in the neighborhood ~3700 SF inclusive of garage, but is a 1-
story located on a 17,000 SF lot.
Several cities/counties put limits on the 2nd floor area to 1st floor area ratio, with it being 60% for San
Jose City, 66% for Santa Clara County, while other cities like Saratoga mandate an increased side and
rear setback value for an the interior lot 2nd-story.
Note: Other large 2-story homes in the Los Gatos community within a mile or so of this project are
typically on larger lots or the lots positioned as to not cause such visual bulk affect or privacy issues.
•The FAR value appears to exceed the nominal limit. Is this acceptable given the general massing and
visual bulk of the proposed structure?
Note: Many cities (Saratoga, Santa Clara County (i.e. unincorporated Los Gatos), Los Altos and Los
Altos Hills, Cupertino) will include a double count in the FAR calculation for any interior open space
above the finished floor if that vertical space exceeds somewhere between 12’ to 16’, city code
dependent, e.g. 1) Where the vertical distance between any floor and the ceiling above exceeds 15
feet, floor area shall be counted twice and 2) Interior building area above 16 feet from the finished
floor to the top of the rafters is counted twice toward Floor Area. This would increase substantially
the proposed structures FAR and is partial cause of the structure’s large visual mass.
•The height of the structure is ~ 17% greater than the majority of other 2-story homes in the
neighborhood, adding to privacy issues, difficulty in masking structure with and visual mass impact.
Is it possible to bring it more inline?
EXHIBIT 10
June 30, 2023
• The general massing and visual bulk, as observed from properties to the rear, appears over-
powering the area, given lots typically of 8000 SF and small rear setback, which makes the
structure’s size out of place for the neighborhood. Are there architectural changes that can improve
this?
• The 2nd level rear facing windows of Master Bedroom and Master Bath present a two-way privacy
issue given the proposed home’s height, setback, and proximity to rear neighbor yards and
houses. It’s not clear exactly how high trees would need to be to provide privacy screening.
My sideyard patio and firepit area is fully exposed along with partial exposure of backyard pool
area/deck. My property’s downstairs bedroom with sliding door to the pool area is exposed - I can
see the proposed location of the 2nd-story master bedroom and master bathroom windows from the
bed. Based on angle, I would be peering across the master bath’s freestanding tub and into the
master bath shower. At least glass that obscures the view (e.g. glass block) into the master
bathroom should be used.
I’m requesting a few things:
1. Use a glass that obscures the view (e.g. glass block) into the master bathroom.
2. Because of the projects large structure and the height of 2nd story windows, landscaping should
include evergreen privacy trees of reasonable initial maturity to soften the structures visual affect
and provide a level of privacy to all neighbors, not only the 2 on each side and 1 directly to the rear.
3. Do not exceed the FAR nominal value, given the other not included in FAR calculation bulk masses of
the structure. Up to Los Gatos City to decide what is best for the neighborhood and city.
4. I have not checked the actual height of the rear facing master bath and master bedroom windows,
but make sure the windowsills are at an appropriate height commensurate with those of the
neighborhood 2-storys on 8000 SF lots with 20 to 24 ft setbacks from rear neighbors 8000 SF parcel
to aid in for privacy concerns.
June 30, 2023
Fig 1. Evening picture taken from the street (Pinehurst Ave.) a block away over rear neighbor’s house
Fig 2. View from backyard of rear and side of proposed 2-story house
June 30, 2023
Figure 3. View from downstairs bedroom bed of rear and side of proposed 2-story house
Best regards,
Roger Eline
EXHIBIT 11
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank