The URL can be used to link to this page

17 Staff Report.124 Garden Hill with attachmentsPREPARED BY: Ryan Safty Associate Planner __________________________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT MEETING DATE: 1/16/2024 ITEM NO: 17 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January 11, 2024 Mayor and Town Council Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request at 124 Garden Hill Drive for the Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23-084. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni. Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty. RECOMMENDATION: Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a Fence Height Exception request at 124 Garden Hill Drive for the construction of a six-foot tall fence located with the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle on property zoned R-1:8. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the southwestern corner of Garden Hill Way and Garden Hill Drive, one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17 (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1). The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential properties. Over the past few years, the subject property has been sold and redeveloped. A summary of this history is provided below: PAGE 2 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: January 11, 2024 BACKGROUND (continued): • November 15, 2017, the previous owner emailed the Town, asking if they can move their approximately five-foot tall fence out to the front and street-side property lines. Town staff informed them that this was not allowed per the Fence Ordinance in effect at the time as the area was within the corner sight triangle (Attachment 1, Exhibit 10); • April of 2018, the property was sold; • August 6, 2019, the Town adopted a new Fence Ordinance with stricter regulations regarding front yard and street side yard fence heights and locations, along with a new exception process; • August 24, 2020, Building Permit application B20-0574 was submitted for a 969-square foot addition to the front and rear of the residence (Attachment 1, Exhibit 4). Town staff provided the following plan correction on September 2, 2020, during the review: “There is an existing five-foot high non-conforming fence located in the front yard setback. Generally, fences located in the front setback are required to be a maximum of three feet in height. In the future, should you wish to maintain or replace this fence, it shall be done in kind pursuant to Section 29.40.0325 of the Town Code.” The building permit was issued on January 10, 2021, and finaled by Town staff on June 29, 2022; • November 23, 2021, Building Permit application B21-1157 was submitted for an outdoor barbeque, arbor, and perimeter wall and fence (Attachment 1, Exhibit 5). Town staff provided the following correction on December 14, 2021, during the review: “Sheet L-4, reduce the height of the corner wall and fence to a maximum of three feet when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director.” Following this comment, the plans were revised to show a fence and wall that complied with the Town’s height requirements. The building permit was issued on April 12, 2022, and finaled by Town staff on May 2, 2023; • On February 24, 2022, after receiving the comments from staff and amending the plans to show three-foot tall fencing within the front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle, the owners applied for a Fence Height Exception (FHE-22-001). After working with staff and learning that staff could not support the exception request, the application was withdrawn on April 12, 2022; • On August 4, 2023, following a complaint, the Town issued an administrative warning (Attachment 1, Exhibit 6) regarding an unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive; • On September 7, 2023, the subject Fence Height Exception application (FHE-23-005) was submitted (Attachment 1, Exhibits 7 and 8), requesting approval to install a six-foot tall fence along the front and street-side property lines and within the corner sight triangle; • On September 27, 2023, the Community Development Director and Town Engineer determined that the required exception findings could not be made, and denied the request (Attachment 1, Exhibit 9); and PAGE 3 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: January 11, 2024 BACKGROUND (continued): • On October 5, 2023, the applicant and owners appealed this decision to the Planning Commission (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11). On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of a Community Development Director denial of an exception request for construction of a six-foot tall fence located within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle for the subject property. The Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Community Development Director denial of the fence height exception request. On November 17, 2023, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the applicant (Martin Lettunich) on behalf of the property owner (Rushikesh Kulkarni). Consideration of the appeal by Town Council was scheduled for December 19, 2023. On December 1, 2023, the appellant made a request for a continuance of the item to a date certain of January 16, 2024. Because this item was publicly noticed and because the Town Code Section 29.20.280 requires that the Town hold a public hearing within 56 days of an appeal (in this case by January 3, 2024), the Town Council opened the public hearing on December 19, 2023 and continued the appeal hearing to January 16, 2024. No one provided testimony on December 19, 2023. Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.295, in the appeal, and based on the record, the appellant bears the burden to prove that there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, or that its decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. If neither is proved, the appeal should be denied. If the appellant meets the burden, the Town Council shall grant the appeal and may modify, in whole or in part, the determination from which the appeal was taken or, at its discretion, return the matter to Planning Commission. If the basis for granting the appeal is, in whole or in part, information not presented to or considered by the Planning Commission, the matter shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review. DISCUSSION: A. Project Summary The property owner has requested a fence height exception for construction of a six-foot tall wooden fence on top of an approximately two-foot tall retaining wall along the front corner of the property. The application requests exceptions to the required front yard setback, street side setback, and corner sight triangle. Currently, there is an unpermitted three-foot tall bamboo screen attached to the approved three-foot tall wooden fence along the corner of the property. PAGE 4 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: January 11, 2024 DISCUSSION (continued): As noted in the Background Section above, the property has undergone substantial remodel and redevelopment over the past few years. Building Permit B21-1157 allowed construction of an outdoor patio; a six-foot tall fence along the southern (rear yard) and western (internal side yard) property lines and outside of the required front setback, street side setback, and corner sight triangle; and allowed construction of a three-foot tall garden wall along the eastern (street side yard) property line and a two-foot tall retaining wall along the northern (front yard) property line. As retaining walls adjust the grade behind them, fence height is measured from the higher grade; per Town Code, a three-foot fence can be built above the retaining wall in the front or street-side setback if it complies with the Town Engineer’s corner sight triangle requirements (Attachment 1, Exhibit 10). Town staff visited the site to take pictures, and prepared Attachment 1, Exhibit 12 to highlight which areas of the perimeter fencing is approved and compliant versus non- permitted and non-compliant. The area in green identifies the areas of the perimeter fence and wall that are compliant with code, while the area in red shows the portion of the fence that does not comply with code and requires an exception or modification. The front property line and street-side property lines are differentiated from each other, and the corner sight triangle area is also highlighted. Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315, fences and gates are limited to six feet in height with one foot of lattice on top (seven feet total), but are limited to, “three feet in height when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director.” The proposed fence is limited to three feet by Code, as it is within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle. Town Code Section 29.40.0320, provided below, allows an exception to any of the fence regulations if a property owner can demonstrate that one of the following conditions exist. Sec. 29.40.0320. - Exceptions. An exception to any of these fence regulations may be granted by the Community Development Director. A fence exception application and fee shall be filed with the Community Development Department and shall provide written justification that demonstrates one (1) of the following conditions exist: (a) Adjacent to commercial property, perimeter fences or walls may be eight (8) feet if requested or agreed upon by a majority of the adjacent residential property owners. (b) On interior lots, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or hedges, behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of eight (8) feet high provided the property owner can provide written justification that either: PAGE 5 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: January 11, 2024 DISCUSSION (continued): (1) A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening; or (2) A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem. (c) At public utility facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency access locations, exceptions may be granted where strict enforcement of these regulations will result in a security or safety concern. (d) A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. (e) A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship. The November 8, 2023 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1) discusses the applicant’s justification and staff analysis of the proposed fence in relation to these findings. B. Planning Commission On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and considered testimony from the appellant, and the public (Attachment 3). After asking questions, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the appeal. The Commission discussed the appellant’s concerns. The Commission determined that the property was in-fact a corner lot and subject to the corner sight triangle requirements. The Commission did not see substantial evidence that there was a security concern or a special privacy circumstance associated with the property configuration that isn’t applicable to other properties in the Town. Additionally, the fence being located within the required corner sight triangle was referred to by the Commission as a safety issue. After completing their deliberations, the Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Community Development Director denial of the Fence Height Exception application. C. Appeal to Town Council The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on November 17, 2023 by Martin Lettunich on behalf of Rushi Kulkarni (Attachment 4). The appellant stated that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion and that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The appeal did not provide any supporting evidence for these two statements and for this reason, and because the property owner has since submitted a revised justification letter in place of these claims, there is no staff analysis. In addition, the appeal states that the owners are having a traffic study done to show that there is not a public safety issue. This item is discussed in more detail below. Finally, the PAGE 6 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: January 11, 2024 DISCUSSION (continued): appeal states that the fence along the north side of the property was reviewed and approved in the field. While conversations with inspectors have been described by theapplicant, the approved plans do not reflect the current fence height and no Planning Division review or approval was issued for the increased fence height. Following the November 17, 2023 appeal submittal, the property owner began working with Town staff and a traffic consultant to review the corner sight triangle concern. As a result of preliminary conversations with the traffic consultant and Town staff, it became apparent that the corner sight triangle requirements were applied correctly; and therefore, the height requirements shown in Attachment 1, Exhibit 10 do apply. On January 9, 2024, the property owner provided a revised justification letter for their appeal and Fence Height Exception request (Attachment 5). The request is now two-fold. First, they are requesting approval of a fence height exception to allow the six-foot tall solid fence along the front (north) property line to remain. Second, they are requesting to use a combination of the approved three-foot solid fence topped by a three-foot open-view fencing along the sight corner to increase visibility for drivers and address their concerns with “coyote sightings right along the curbside by my property” and “strangers that regularly frequent the street to access Vasona Park trail.” In regards to the first part of this request, the height of the fence within the front setback would require an exception, and is not substantially in a different location from the previous fencing that could have been maintained or replaced in kind. This portion of the fence is not within the corner sight triangle. Therefore, staff finds that granting of an exception would not result in a traffic safety concern. In regards to the second part of the request, the proposal does improve visibility within the corner site triangle by proposing an open view fence for those portions above the three- foot height limit; however, it still exceeds the maximum height allowed in the corner sight triangle and required front and street side setback areas. Therefore, even for the revised proposal, an exception would not be granted. CONCLUSION: A. Recommendation For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Town Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution denying the appeal (Attachment 6). PAGE 7 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: January 11, 2024 CONCLUSION (continued): B. Alternatives Alternative One: if the Council finds merit in the appeal it should continue the application to the next meeting and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution to grant the appeal, grant the exception to the Town’s fence regulations with direction on specific modifications, and identification of the facts that support the following required 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 (e): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Required findings for granting an exception to the Town’s fence regulations: ■ A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives; or ■ A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship. Required findings for granting an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission: ■ There was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission; or ■ The Planning Commission decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. Alternative Two: Grant the appeal and remand the item back to the Planning Commission given that the applicant/appellant is now exploring design options that were not considered by the Planning Commission. In addition, review by the Parks and Public Works staff concluded that if the existing wooden fence within the corner site triangle were to be reduced to be no more than three feet in height, as measure from top of the curb or edge of pavement, then staff would not object to the proposed open view fencing above that height. If the Council choses either of these or another alternative, staff will return at a subsequent meeting with the appropriate resolution. The Council should put into the record all facts that it used to make the required findings as noted in this report so they can be properly documented in the resolution. PAGE 8 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: January 11, 2024 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice of the Town Council hearing was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. COORDINATION: The Community Development Department coordinated with the Parks and Public Works Department in the review of the fence height exception. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: 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 and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. ATTACHMENTS: 1. November 8, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 1 through 12 2. November 8, 2023, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 13 3. November 8, 2023, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes 4. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision, received November 17, 2023 5. Revised Justification Letter 6. Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Deny the Project PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate 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: 11/08/2023 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: November 3, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 124 Garden Hill Drive. APN 424-23-084. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni. Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for construction of a six-foot tall fence within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle on property zoned R-1:8, located at 124 Garden Hill Drive. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: R-1:8 – Single-Family Residential Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan, Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 8,712 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 53 ATTACHMENT 1 PAGE 2 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 3, 2023 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 and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. 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 and Section 15301: Existing Facilities; and  As required by Section 29.40.320 of the Town Code for granting a Fence Height Exception. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located at the southwestern corner of Garden Hill Way and Garden Hill Drive, one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17 (Exhibit 1). The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential properties. Over the past few years, the subject property has been sold and redeveloped. A summary of this history is provided below:  November 15, 2017, the previous owner emailed the Town, asking if they can move their approximately five-foot tall fence out to the front and street-side property lines. Town staff informed them that this was not allowed per the then current Fence Ordinance as the area is within the corner sight triangle (Exhibit 10);  April of 2018, the property was sold;  August 6, 2019, the Town adopted a new Fence Ordinance with stricter regulations regarding front yard and street-side yard fence heights and locations, along with a new exception process;  August 24, 2020, Building Permit application B20-0574 was submitted for a 969-square foot addition to the front and rear of the residence (Exhibit 4). Town staff provided the following plan correction on September 2, 2020, during the review: “There is an existing five-foot high non-conforming fence located in the front yard setback. Generally, fences located in the front setback are required to be a maximum of three feet in height. In the future, should you wish to maintain or replace this fence, it shall be done in kind pursuant to Section 29.40.0325 of the Town Code.” The building permit was issued on January 10, 2021, and finaled by Town staff on June 29, 2022; Page 54 PAGE 3 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 3, 2023 BACKGROUND (continued):  November 23, 2021, Building Permit application B21-1157 was submitted for an outdoor barbeque, arbor, and perimeter wall and fence (Exhibit 5). Town staff provided the following plan correction on December 14, 2021, during the review: “Sheet L-4, reduce the height of the corner wall and fence to a maximum of three feet when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director.” Following this comment, the plans were revised to show a fence and wall that complied with the Town’s height requirements. The building permit was issued on April 12, 2022, and finaled by Town staff on May 2, 2023;  On February 24, 2022, after receiving the comments from staff on B20-0574 and B21- 11157 and amending the plans to show three-foot tall fencing within the front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle, the owners applied for a Fence Height Exception (FHE-22-001). After working with staff and learning that staff could not support the exception request, the application was withdrawn on April 12, 2022;  On August 4, 2023, following a complaint, the Town issued an administrative warning (Exhibit 6) regarding an unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive;  On September 7, 2023, the subject Fence Height Exception application (FHE-23-005) was submitted (Exhibits 7 and 8), requesting approval to install a six-foot tall fence on top of a retaining wall along the front and street-side property lines and within the corner sight triangle;  On September 27, 2023, the Community Development Director and Town Engineer determined that the required exception findings could not be made, and denied the request (Exhibit 9); and  On October 5, 2023, the applicant and owners appealed this decision to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 11). Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.255, any interested person as defined by Town Code Section 29.10.020 may appeal to the Planning Commission any decision of the Planning Director. For residential projects, an interested person is defined as, “a person or entity who owns property or resides within 1,000 feet of a property for which a decision has been rendered and can demonstrate that their property will be injured by the decision.” The appellant/owner meets the requirements. Page 55 PAGE 4 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 3, 2023 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is located at the southwestern corner of Garden Hill Way and Garden Hill Drive, one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17 (Exhibit 1). The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential properties. B. Project Summary and Zoning Compliance The property owner is appealing the Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for the construction of a six-foot tall wooden fence on top of an approximately two-foot tall retaining wall within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle. DISCUSSION: A. Fence Height Exception The property owner has requested a fence height exception for construction of a six-foot tall wooden fence on top of an approximately two-foot tall retaining wall along the front corner of the property. The application requests exceptions to the required front yard setback, street-side setback, and corner sight triangle. Currently, there is an unpermitted three-foot tall bamboo screen attached to the approved three-foot tall wooden fence along the corner of the property. As noted in the Background Section above, the property has undergone substantial remodel and redevelopment over the past few years. Building Permit B21-1157 allowed construction of an outdoor patio; a six-foot tall fence along the southern (rear yard) and western (internal side yard) property lines and outside of the required front setback, street side setback, and corner sight triangle; and allowed construction of a three-foot tall garden wall along the eastern (street side yard) property line and a two-foot tall retaining wall along the northern (front yard) property line. As retaining walls adjust the grade behind them, fence height is measured from the higher edge of grade; per Town Code, a three-foot fence can be built above the retaining wall in the front or street-side setback if it complies with the Town Engineer’s corner sight triangle requirements (Exhibit 10). Town staff visited the site to take pictures, and prepared Exhibit 12 to highlight which areas of the perimeter fencing is approved and compliant versus non-permitted and non- compliant. The area in green identifies the areas of the perimeter fence and wall that are compliant with code, while the area in red shows the portion of the fence that does not comply with code and requires an exception or modification. The front property line and Page 56 PAGE 5 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 3, 2023 DISCUSSION (continued): street-side property lines are differentiated from each other, and the corner sight triangle area is also highlighted. Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315, fences and gates are limited to six feet in height with one foot of lattice on top (seven feet total), but are limited to, “three feet in height when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director.” The proposed fence is limited to three feet by Code, as it is within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle. Town Code Section 29.40.0320, provided below, allows an exception to any of the fence regulations if a property owner can demonstrate that one of the following conditions exist. Sec. 29.40.0320. - Exceptions. An exception to any of these fence regulations may be granted by the Community Development Director. A fence exception application and fee shall be filed with the Community Development Department and shall provide written justification that demonstrates one (1) of the following conditions exist: (a) Adjacent to commercial property, perimeter fences or walls may be eight (8) feet if requested or agreed upon by a majority of the adjacent residential property owners. (b) On interior lots, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or hedges, behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of eight (8) feet high provided the property owner can provide written justification that either: (1) A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening; or (2) A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem. (c) At public utility facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency access locations, exceptions may be granted where strict enforcement of these regulations will result in a security or safety concern. (d) A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. (e) A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship. Page 57 PAGE 6 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 3, 2023 DISCUSSION (continued): The Letter of Justification (Exhibit 8) cited conditions (b)(1) related to a special privacy concern, (b)(2) related to a special wildlife problem, (d) related to security, and (e) related to a special circumstance associated with the property configuration for justification of the exception request. For conditions (b)(1) and (b)(2), staff could not support the exception as subsection (b) only applies to the side and rear fences on interior lots. This is a corner lot, and the exception is for the front and street side yards; therefore, subsection (b) of Town Code Section 29.40.0320 is not applicable. For condition (d), the provided justification is as follows: “It is also a special security concern given the fact that my client has three young children who have no place to play outside but in that area. We see no alternative ways to address the safety of my client’s children other than to have a tall fence to keep the children in and the coyotes out […]. The fence at 3 feet high is not workable to avoid the threat from the coyotes.” Town staff could not support the exception request under condition (d) as the property is located in an urbanized, residential subdivision. If the potential of a coyote sighting were deemed a “special security concern,” then most properties in the Town would be eligible. Additionally, the owners are allowed to construct a six-foot tall fence with one-foot of lattice above (seven feet total) if they move the fence location back to the meet the required front and street side yard setbacks. As noted in the Background Section above, the owners were notified before and throughout their remodel process that the fence height at this location is limited to three feet. They proceeded with their house addition and remodel plans, which impacted which areas of the lot were available for outdoor use. For condition (e), the provided justification is as follows: “My client is of East Indian descent. He belongs to a religion which places special importance on the sun and its east west passage through the sky. According to the tenants of his religion, he is to hold prayer sessions on the east side of his yard. He has tried to do so, but, prior to erecting the bamboo fence, the neighbors would stop and watch his private prayer sessions with his family. The lack of privacy with a short fence made it very difficult and uncomfortable for my client and his family to practice their faith.” Town staff could not support the exception request under condition (e). As noted in the Background Section above, the owners were notified before and throughout their remodel process that the fence height at this location is limited to three feet. They proceeded with their house addition and remodel plans, which impacted which areas of the lot were available for outdoor use. Additionally, the owners are allowed to construct a six-foot tall fence with one-foot of lattice above (seven feet total) if they move the fence location back to the meet the required front and street side yard setbacks. Page 58 PAGE 7 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 3, 2023 DISCUSSION (continued): The Letter of Justification also argues that this is not a true road intersection, but instead a bend of a road, and therefore the corner sight triangle requirements should not be applicable. As a part of the Town’s review, the Town Engineer reviewed the request and confirmed that the corner sight triangle requirements are valid at this location, and also denied the exception request. For the reasons outlined in this section, the Town denied the exception request on September 27, 2023 (Exhibit 9). B. Appeal Analysis The Decision of the Community Development Director to deny the fence height exception was appealed on October 5, 2023 (Exhibit 11). The appeal form did not provide any additional reasoning for the request for the Town or Planning Commission to consider. The Planning Commission should review the previous exception justification points listed above to determine if the exception request can be approved. C. 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 and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. At the time of preparation of this report, no public comment has been received. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The property owner is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the fence height exception to allow a new six-foot tall wooden fence within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle. Page 59 PAGE 8 OF 8 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 3, 2023 CONCLUSION (continued): B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny the fence height exception application based on the reasoning provided in this report. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; 2. Grant the appeal and approve the fence height exception with the findings in Exhibit 2 and the draft conditions provided in Exhibit 3; or 3. Grant the appeal with additional and/or modified conditions. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Required Finding 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted 4. Building Permit B20-0574 Approved Plans 5. Building Permit B21-1157 Approved Plans 6. Administrative Warning, Dated August 4, 2023 7. Project Plans, Received September 7, 2023 8. Letter of Justification, Received September 7, 2023 9. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter, Dated September 27, 2023 10. View Area Diagrams 11. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision, Received October 5, 2023 12. Pictures of Subject Property Page 60 LA R K A V SB HIGHWAY 17NB HIGHWAY 17NB 17 RAMP 85ARROYO GRANDE WYNB 17 RAMP LARKGARDEN HILL DRL A S A S T A S D R IVY H I L L W YLA CANADA CTLA CIENEGA CTHOL L Y H I L L W Y 124 Garden Hill 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) - Updated 08-23-23 to link to "Town Assessor Data" (sm) EXHIBIT 1 Page 61 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 62 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser6\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2F7F.tmp PLANNING COMMISSION – November 8, 2023 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 124 Garden Hill Drive Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005 Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23-084. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni. Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty. 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 findings for granting a Fence Height Exception: Per Town Code Section 29.40.0320, the applicant has provided written justification that demonstrates one of the following conditions exist: ■ A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. ■ A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship. EXHIBIT 2 Page 63 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 64 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser6\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp9937.tmp PLANNING COMMISSION – November 8, 2023 DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 124 Garden Hill Drive Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005 Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23-084. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni. Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty. 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 intensification beyond this authorized use requires a Conditional Use Permit amendment. 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 per Section 29.20.335 of the Town Code. Reasonable extensions of time not exceeding one year may be granted upon application, and can be granted if approved by the deciding body prior to the expiration date. Therefore, it is recommended that applications for a time extension be filed with the Community Development Department at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the approval. 3. 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 EXHIBIT 3 Page 65 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser6\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp9937.tmp 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 at 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. Page 66 GENERAL project NOTES/requirements ShEET INDExX - notes GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION vICINITY mAP PARCEL mAP jurisdiction approval stamp(s) Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted12/15/20Project InfoA0.1 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.PROJECT CONSULTANTS special notes Professional Stamp m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 950321.GOVERNING CODES: All work shall conform to the following codes and standards: A)2019 California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2 (Based on 2018 IBC) B)2019 California Residential Code (CRC) Title 24, Part 2.5 (Based on 2018 IRC)C)2019 California Electric Code (CEC) Title 24, Part 3 (Based on 2017 NEC) D)2019 California Mechanical Code (CMC) Title 24, Part 4 (Based on 2018 UMC)E)2019 California Plumbing Code (CPC) Title 24, Part 5 (Based on 2018 UPC) F)2019 California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6 G)2019 California Fire Code (CFC) Title 24, Part 9 (Based on 2018 IFC) H) 2019 CalGreen Building Code Title 24, Part 11 In addition to the codes referenced above, all work shall conform to all local ordinances and codes as applicable. Cross reference all code numbers and verify consistency as required. 2.All work done pursuant to these drawings and specifications shall comply with all ordinances and regulations which apply to the work and shall in any case conform to the latest edition(s) of the CRC/IRC/CBC/IBC (CA Residential Code/ International Residential Code & California Building Code/International Building Code) currently enforced and all city, county and/or state codes as applicable. 3.Britt Rowe shall not be held responsible for the design, coordination and/or implementation of any and all “Design-Build” work, including but not limited to the following: See the appropriate code references below for design and installation requirements. A)Electrical: Per CEC (California Electric Code) current edition. B)Mechanical: Per CMC (California Mechanical Code) current edition. C)Plumbing: Per CPC (California Plumbing Code) current edition.D)Fire Sprinklers: CFC (California Fire Code) Verify and address all additional local ordinances and codes which may apply to the specific “Design-Build” application as required. 4.Britt Rowe is not responsible for the design, coordination, or implementation of any work performed by consultants, including but not limited to, structural engineering, soil engineering, civil engineering, land surveying, electrical engineering, landscape architecture and/or Title 24 Energy compliance. 5.In addition to inspections required by CBC 110, the owner, contractor and/or structural engineer of record, acting as the owner’s agent, shall employ one or more special inspectors or jurisdiction approved Testing Agencies, who shall provide “Special Inspections” during the course of construction for the following types or work per CBC 1704, 1707 or 1708 including but not limited to: A)Concrete: Where the structural design exceeds a (F’c) of 2500 PSI B)On site structural welding, including welding of reinforcing steel. C)Drilled piers, caissons and structural masonry.D)Retrofit epoxy set hold downs and/or anchor bolts. Special inspector’s approvals/credentials shall be provided to the local jurisdiction upon request. 6.All general contractors and/or subcontractors shall be licensed with possession of the appropriate insurance policies ie: Workman’s Compensation,Liability, etc... and a valid business license within the jurisdiction of the subject property project site. 7.Britt Rowe is not responsible for the erection, fabrication and/or relative job safety. The general contractor and/or subcontractors shall comply with all required safety orders per CAL-OSHA requirements and regulations. 8.The general contractor and/or subcontractors are to verify ALL existing conditions and/or discrepancies before commencing with work in order to ensure conformance with the “Construction Documents”. ALL discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of Britt Rowe and/or the Structural Engineer of Record prior to commencement of construction. All requests for “Change Orders” shall be submitted in writing to Britt Rowe for approval. 9.Regardless of dimensions shown, all new work shall align exactly with existing work with respect to floor elevations, column centerlines, wall faces, etc...(UNO) 10.Layout for new work is largely based upon relationships to existing conditions of the site and/or existing structures. Any questions regarding the intentrelated to the layout of the new work shall be brought to the attention of Britt Rowe, prior to the commencement of any work. The contractor shallimmediately notify Britt Rowe of all discrepancies prior to the commencement of any work. 11.Preference shall be given to written/figured dimensions on the drawings over scaled measurements. The “Plans, Specifications and General Notes” are intended to agree and supplement one another. Anything indicated in one and not the other, shall be executed as if in all. In cases of direct conflict, the most restrictive shall govern. 12.All work shall be plumb, square and true and shall be of good “Workmanlike” quality as acceptable to the appropriate trade’s standard practices and those of the trade’s councils and/or organizations. 13.Any work and/or item not specifically called for in the drawings, but required for a complete and fully functioning installation consistent with the intent of the “Construction Documents” shall be supplied by the general contractor and/or subcontractors as required. 14.The intent of the “Construction Documents” is to include ALL labor, materials, equipment and transportation necessary for the complete and proper execution of the work. 15.The project “Specification Book” shall take precedence over noted specifications when applicable. 16.Civil, Soil and Structural Engineering specifications shall take precedenceover any other specifications. 17.Britt Rowe retains all rights and ownership to all drawings and specifications. These documents may not be used in whole, or in part, without the expressed written consent from Britt Rowe. 18.The Owner/Developer/Client reserves the right to make alterations to the design during the course of construction. All changes shall be approved by the local building official and shall, in any case, comply with the current editions of the CRC, CBC, CMC, CPC, CFC, CEC and/or CES as required. 19.New Construction or remodeling is largely dependent upon existing site conditions and therefore a “Site Survey” is recommended and if provided, shall be generated by a licensed Land Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer and shall contain the following information: Property corners, property lines, existing building(s), easements, topography lines, utilities and/or significanttrees. If a Site Survey is NOT provided, Britt Rowe will not be held responsible for any and all discrepancies relating to the site and existing conditions. Inany event, Britt Rowe shall not be responsible for work performed by others and provided for the purpose of completing the project. 20.all “deferred submittals” shall first be submitted to the registered designprofessional who shall review them and forward them to the building official with notation indicating the deferred submittal documents have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with the design of the building. The deferred submittal items shall not be installed until the deferred submittal documents have been approved by the applicable building official. BUILDING DESIGNER BRITT • ROWE 108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354.6224 (office) (408) 656-4732 (mike cell) (408) 656-1983 (tony cell) (415) 595-3458 (David Cell) peloncito@me.com T24 ENERGY ANALYST FRI ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC. Mr. Nicholas Bignardi 21 N. Harrison Avenue, Suite 210 Campbell, CA 95008 (408) 866-1620 nick@friconsulting.com STRUCTURAL ENGINEER charles williams r.c.e. Mr. Charles Williams P.E. PO Box 1152 Mountain View, CA 94042 (650) 279-8756 clwrce@aol.com 9/12/19, 1’08 PM124 Garden Hill Dr - Google Maps Page 1 of 2https://www.google.com/maps/place/124+Garden+Hill+Dr,+Los+Gatos…35bae1852ae7’0xe7c37eeb7083d9b3!8m2!3d37.2489444!4d-121.9613975 Map data ©2019 200 ft 124 Garden Hill Dr Los Gatos, CA 95032 124 Garden Hill Dr Owner:Rishi and ashi kulkarni 124 garden hill drive los gatos, CA 95032 81.rishi@gmail.com Project Address:124 garden hill drive los gatos, CA 95032 APN:424-23-084 Lot Size:8,976 sf (.21 acres) Lot Slope:flat Zoning:r-1:8 Tract: 1520 (lot x) Occupancy Group:R3/U Type of Construction:V-B NOTE: CORNER LOT: LOT ORIENTATION IS DETERMINED BY LOT GEOMETRY AND NOT BY ADDRESS. SCOPE OF WORK: New Master bedroom and bath addition to the rear of an existing single story, single family residence. see plans. Attic height is less than 7’-0”H: Remodeled area = 1214 SF. Floor Areas (e) Living Area 1,214 sf (e) garage 457 SF (2-car cov.)allowable = 798 sf far: (0.0889) (n) living area addition 969 sf (n) covered porch 16 sf @ front entry (n) Total living Area 2,183 SF allowable = 2,856 sf far: (0.318) Setbacks Provided Required Front (per planning)(e) 20’-3”25’-0” Rear (per planning)20’-6” @ addition 20’-0" Left Side (per planning)(e) 7’-4”8’-0” Right Side (per planning)(e) 7’-11"8’-0” Coverages Proposed building @ grade 3464 sf dwelling, garage, porches, patios Building Height Proposed Allowed max. ridge (N) 18’-11”30’-0” Sht. ID Drawing Title A0.1 Title Sheet and General Project Info A0.2 CalGreen Notes misc.“Blueprint for a clean bay” A1.1 Site Plan - notes A1.2 Construction Management Plan A2.1 existing floor plan - demolition a2.2 existing exterior wall retention plan a2.3 existing exterior elevations A3.1 proposed floor plan a4.1 roof plan/notes/details A5.1 Exterior Elevations A5.2 Exterior Elevations A6.1 Building Cross Sections D.1 wall framing Details DW.1 Door/Window Schedules/notes E.1 proposed Electrical Plan EN.1 CA Electrical Code Notes - elect. legend en.2 CA Electrical Code Notes en.3 CA Energy Commission Notes en.4 CA Energy Commission Notes f.1 scc fire department job site safety GN.1 ca building code Notes GN.2 ca building code Notes GN.3 ca building code Notes m.1 ca mechanical notes p.1 ca plumbing code notes S.1 Foundation Plan - notes 1 S.3 Roof Framing Plan SD.1 Structural Details SD.2 Structural Details sd.3 Structural Details sd.4 Structural Details sd.5 Structural Details sd.6 Structural Details sd.7 Structural Details SN.1 Structural Notes SN.2 Structural Notes T24-1 Title 24 Energy calculations T24-2 Title 24 Energy calculations Sht. ID Drawing Title 2 RI RI RI R2 R2 10/29/20 12/13/20 MChavarin EXHIBIT 4Page 67 Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted11/11/20Site PlanA1.1 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.Professional Stamp Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 950320 4'8'16' RI 10'-0"20'-0"10'-0"P.U.E. (e) 18'-7"8'-0"ssb15'-0"street side sb45'-5"(e) 21'-0"fsb20'-0"rsb 25'-0"front sb (e) 36"h picket fence(e) 6'-0H painted wood fence6'-6"36" min.(e) 7'-1" 0' -12" site plan 1/4" = 1'-0" 124 garden hill drive apn: 424-23-084 lot size: 8,976 sf (.21 acres) zoning: r-1:8 tract: 1520 (lot x) wui: no gas 400a elec. 120.82' 100.82'75.00'55.00'124 garden hill drive garden hill drive6'-6"w public parkway 4'-6"w public sidewalk (e) stamped conc. driveway (e) residence (e) garage (e) free-standing patio cover o/sand 8'-0" ssb 15'-0" street ssb 25'-0" fsbcenterline of street s58°34'20"Es31°25'40"wn58°34'20"ws31°25'40"w (e) residence r = 20'-0"(n) addition (n) addition front orientation per planning6" curb edge of paving courtyard porch (e) painted wood fence corner sight triangle(e) painted wood fence (5'-0"h) (e) painted wood fence (6'-0"h) ada ramp (n) walkway (e) 12" lgstreet tree(e) 12" lgstreet tree(e) 2" lgstreet tree(e) 2 " l g st r e e t t r e e(e) 26"mty. pine(e) painted wood fence (5'-0"h)end of sw/pw/curb(e) 2" tree(e) brick wall (+30"h) 18"w gutter(e) 18" multi-trunktree(e) 36"h painted picket fence (e) 36"h painted picket fence (e) 36"h picket fence(e) gravel45°accond. wm (e) conc. apronapproach w w w e e (e) oh elec. lineg g (e) ug gasp.u.e. linerelocate water main w/pressure regulatorand shut off front per planningleft street side per planning ss ss install c.o.@ plupgrade serviceas needed andprovide underground.convert to ug utility per pgeuge uge provide straw wattlesaround entire projectfor the duration ofconstruction to control storm water run-off during construction. SITE PLAN NOTES: 1.See Civil Engineer’s “Grading and Drainage Plan(s)” as applicable and/or required for topography, site work and underground construction (typ.) All grading shall be performed in accordance with all local codes and requirements. Civil Engineer’s plans shall take precedence over any architectural site plan(s) and/or landscape plan(s). 2.When required and as applicable, a licensed Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall provide written certification of setback compliance from property lines and all relative pad elevations for all new construction on the site. 3.Unless noted otherwise on Civil Engineering Plans (Grading and Drainage), the ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of 5% for a minimum distance of 10’-0” measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10’-0” of horizontal distance, a 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Drainage swale used for this purpose shall be sloped 2% where located within 10’-0” of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10’-0” of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2% away from the building. CBC1804.4. See exception for allowable finish grade slope reduction to 2% away from structure. 4.When existing sewer laterals are approved for reuse, existing lines shall be televised and approved by the local sanitation district prior to final inspection. Provide a new clean out located @ the property line with an approved back flow prevention device approved by the sanitation department (as applicable). 5.in new construction, all utilities shall be installed underground (uno). See the utility provider’s plans and specifications for layout, details and service(s) to be provided. verify w/jurisdiction for special municipal requirements. 6.All trees marked on the “Site Plan” not scheduled for removal shall be protected by the appropriate tree protection measures identified by the consulting Arborist of record or local planning jurisdiction as applicable and required as a condition of approval. No equipment, materials or work shall commence until all tree protection fencing is installed. Tree protection fencing shall remain in place until the project is ready for final inspection. Any work required within the fenced protected area shall be performed with hand tools. 7.As applicable, see consulting Landscape Architect’s drawings for flatwork, paving, recreational fixtures, proposed planting and irrigation installations. 8.R319.1 Address identification. Buildings shall he provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall he legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not he spelled out. Each character shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height with a stroke width of not less than 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Where access is by means of a private road and the building address cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCULATIONS lot size = 8,976 sf ITEM LOCATION (E) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE (N) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE DIFFERENCE/TOTAL (E) RESIDENCE 1,214 SF -1,214 SF (N) ADDITION 969 SF + 969 SF (E) DRIVEWAY 431 SF -431 SF (N) front walk 128 SF + 128 SF (n) courtyard 151 sf + 151 sf (n) porch/pedestals 66 sf + 66 sf (N) door landings 77 sf + 77 sf Total 1,645 SF (18.3%)1,391 sf (15.4%)3,036 sf (33.9%) RI10/29/20 Page 68 Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted12/15/20CMPA1.2 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.Professional Stamp Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 950320 4'8'16' RI construction management plan 1/4" = 1'-0" 124 garden hill drive apn: 424-23-084 lot size: 8,976 sf (.21 acres) zoning: r-1:8 tract: 1520 (lot x) wui: no gas 400aelec. 120.82' 100.82'75.00'55.00'124 garden hill drive garden hill drive(e) stamped conc. driveway residence garage (e) free-standingpatio cover o/sand s58°34'20"Es31°25'40"wn58°34'20"ws31°25'40"w (e) residence r = 20'-0"edge of paving (e) painted wood fence (e) painted wood fence (5'-0"h) (e) painted wood fence (6'-0"h)(e) 12" lgstreet tree(e) 12" lgstreet tree(e) 2" lgstreet tree(e) 2 " l g st r e e t t r e e(e) 26"mty. pineend of sw/pw/curb(e) 2" tree(e) 18" multi-trunktreeac cond. (e) conc. apron approach e (e) oh elec. lineconvert to ug utility per pgeprovide straw wattles around entire project for the duration of construction to controlstorm water run-offduring construction.(e) painted wood fence (6'-0"h)#1 #2 #3 #4 #6 #5 #7 #8 #9 #10 #10 (e) wooden fence to remain for security (e) wooden fence toremain for security #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 Bulk material storage and loading/unloading access gate (chain link) installed in (e) fence. Fence replaced upon completion concrete wash-out dumpster bin for daily debris loading typ. chain link job site security fencing project address and information signage Chain link access gate temporary toilet and power supply additional secure material storage job site parking along both streets abutting property Construction management plan notes: 1.solid and demolition waste management: Provide designated waste collection areas and containers on site away from streets, gutters, storm drains, and waterways. arrange for regular disposal. Waste containers shall be covered at all times, except when waste is to be deposited. See “construction waste management plan”. 2.Hazardous waste management: provide proper handling and disposal of hazardous waste materials by a licensed hazardous waster material handling contractor/hauler. Hazardous wastes shall be stored and properly labeled in sealed containers. 3.spill prevention and control: provide proper storage areas for liquid and solid materials, including chemicals and hazardous substances, away from streets, gutters, storm drains, and waterways. spills must be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soil disposed properly. 4.Material delivery, handling and storage: in general, materials should not be stockpiled on site. where temporary stockpiles are necessary and approved by the town of Los gatos, they shall be covered with a secure covering material and located in designated areas near construction entrances and away from drainage paths and waterways. Barriers shall be provided around storage areas where materials are in potential contact with run-off. 5.handling and disposal of concrete: when concrete trucks and equipment are washed on-site, concrete waste water shall be contained in designated containers or in a temporary lined water-tight pit where wasted concrete can harden for later removal.In no case shall fresh concrete be washed into the road right-of-way. 6.Sanitary/septic water management: temporary sanitary facilities shall be located away from drainage paths, waterways, and traffic areas. only licensed sanitary and septic waste haulers shall be used. 7.inspection and maintenance: areas of material and equipment storage sites and temporary sanitation facilities must be inspected weekly. problem areas shall be identified and appropriate additional and/or alternative measures implemented immediately. 8.job site security: install a secure construction fence at the perimeter of the property with lockable access gates for vehicles and material delivery. existing residential fencing may be used as an applicable portion of the required fencing. Provide a job site informational signage facing the public street as required by the Town of los gatos building department and santa clara county fire department. R212/13/20 Page 69 Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted11/11/20(e) Floor PlanA2.1 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.Professional Stamp Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 95032150703103103636 2628 26110 36386068 36383638 36383638281836383068710462868 0 2'4'8' 0' -12" left SW rear NW right NE Front SE (e) floor plan: demo 1/4" = 1'-0" (e) garage Area: 457 SF (e) living area: 1214 sf (e) covered porch: 92 sf (e) 2x DF Stud Wall to remain gas elec.twh2-car garage family room entry cov. porch breakfastkitchendining room bath: 2 master bedroombath: 1 bedroom: 2bedroom: 3 d w ref.range ws shwr. (e) fp opening covered 18'-7" to pl (rear)20'-8" to plstreet side sideyard21'-2" to plint. sideyard1. each room is currently equipped with a mini-split local ductless htr/ac. to be removed 2. roof slope: 4/12 typ. w/asphalt shingles. 3. plaster exterior siding typ. 45'-5" to pl(front)cabinetremove masonry fireplace and chimney (e) 2x DF Stud Wall to demolish (n) door/window opening in (e) stud wall partialinfill removepartialinfillinfill removereplace removeremove remove partialinfillinfillinfillreplaceDEMOLITION NOTES: (As applicable) 1.Scope of work to be removed and/or demolished shall be indicated on the drawings and shall include the demolition, removal and/or relocation of existing materials and/or assemblies necessary to install and/or construct the project as indicated on the proposed floor plans, elevations and other plans contained within the construction document set. All demolition shall coordinate with the extent of the proposed construction indicated on the approved plans and shall, in any case, conform to all local and state building codes. 2.The general contractor shall obtain an approved “j-number” from the bay area air quality management district (baaqmd) as applicable prior to any demolition. 3.The general contractor and/or subcontractors shall be provided the opportunity to visit the project site to become familiar with the scope of demolition required. 4.The general contractor shall be responsible for all demolition performed and shall design, construct and provide proper shoring and structural support/bracing as required throughout the demolition process and project construction as required per CAL OSHA requirements. 5.The general Contractor shall provide protective, construction fencing around the project site and will work within the confines of the site fencing whenever possible. However, depending upon site and structure conditions, alternative methods of demolition and alternative types of equipment may be used to ensure the safest and most efficient means of operation. This may involve modification of the site fencing from time to time in order to complete the demolition activities. coordination with the Property owner shall be required in advance. 6.All existing portions of the project that are designated to remain shall be protected from damage. Any question as to what shall remain shall be brought to the attention of the architect/designer and/or property owner prior to commencement of the work. 7.In accordance with the “construction Waste Management Plan”, all demolition debris that will not be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse by the property owner and/or general Contractor will be loaded into semi-end dumps and hauled to a disposal facility for further recycling or landfill. The “construction Waste Management Plan” provides detailed information on percentages of material to be recycled or disposed and the designated recycling and/or disposal facilities to be used. 8.Disconnect all electrical prior to any demolition by other trades. Disconnect, cap and clearly identify gas lines as required prior to any demolition by other trades. 9.During the course of demolition, it shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to use whatever methods required to limit the amount of airborne dust and dirt. Follow all “Bay Area Air Quality Management District” recommendations and requirements (as applicable) for all aspects of the demolition, including, as applicable, the removal of asbestos and/or any other hazardous materials located at the project site. 10.the general Contractor shall coordinate with the property owner or their authorized representative, to determine all existing equipment and devices to be retained by the owner. the general Contractor shall carefully remove all equipment and devices to be retained, preserve and store the equipment in a location designated by the owner. the general Contractor shall be responsible for removal, preservation, storage, and protection of all equipment and devices designated to be removed and re-installed. 11.Remove and replace all dry-rotted/termite damaged framing members as required and permitted. Remove (e) walls, windows and doors as indicated on the Demolition Plan. Reconstruct, relocate and/or replace per new floor plan. Remove (e) baseboards, crown and casing where walls, windows and doors are to be removed and replace per new finish plan/schedule as applicable. 12.Remove/relocate (e) electrical fixtures, switches and outlets as required. Upgrade main panel as required to service new electrical loads. Remove (e) circuits to sub-panel or main panel or to nearest active switch or junction box. Safely tie and cap all terminations as required. 13.Remove (e) floor covering in all areas of demolition and replace per finish schedule or plan. Remove all cabinetry as indicated on plans as applicable to the new layout. 9.Remove all rough plumbing, fixtures and hardware as indicated on plans as applicable. Cap terminations as required. 10.If utility service is to be interrupted, verify and confirm w/owner regarding timing to limit inconvenience. Provide temporary service as required and permitted by local jurisdiction. 11.Provide dumpster and haul away debris as required to maintain a clean job site. All construction interference with public streets, curbs, gutters and walkways shall be approved by the local jurisdiction and shall in any case kept cleaned and free of any debris that may interfere with their normal function. Page 70 Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted11/11/20(n) Floor PlanA3.1 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.Professional Stamp Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 95032W03 D03 D04 D07 W14 W04 W05 W07 W06 D05 W10 W11W08W09 D06D15D17D16 D22 D18 D13 D14 D10 D08 D09 D12 D01 W16 W02 W01D02 D25 W15 D19 D11 W12 W13 D20D21 D23 D24 0 2'4'8' W17 D.1 W1 D.1 W1 D.1 W4 D.1 W4 D.1 W5 D.1 W6 RI RI RI 3'-0"min.(e) 56'-10"verify 3'-0"32'-10"13'-2"addition(e) 56'-10"verify 11'-6"addition(e) 27'-6"verify13'-2"addition(e) 20'-6"verify 13'-0"2'-0"7'-11"13'-4"2'-0"3'-0"8'-6"13'-4"2'-4"10'-10"2'-4"10'-10"17'-2" 6'-6"4'-2"6'-6" 5'-7"5'-3"5'-7"5'-3"3'-1"3'-5"3'-5"3'-1"5'-11"5'-7"8'-1"19'-5"2'-8"10'-6"3'-10"5'-5"1'-4"5'-9"7'-5"9'-7"2'-3"8'-7"4'-6"6'-4" 5'-6"3'-0"2'-0"6'-0"6"4'-8"2'-8"3'-6"6'-1"3'-10"5'-5"3'-10"10'-8"2'-4"6'-2"6'-2"13'-6"@ courtyard wall 14'-10"2'-4"3'-6"4'-6"10'-2"7'-2"3'-6"3'-5"9'-5"8" 3'-6"6'-5"2'-4"2'-4"2'-0" 2'-4"4'-1"3'-6"8"1'-6" 4'-0"4'-0" 36"min. 36"min.36"min.6'-6" 2'-4"9'-1"2'-0"1'-7"3'-10"11'-0"5'-5"3'-10"10'-10"7'-1" 5'-5"5'-5"5'-0" 3'-2"3'-10"3'-10"7'-2"3'-6"2'-4"30"typ.30"typ.0' -12" LEFT SW Rear NW RIGHT NE FRONT SE (n) floor plan 1/4" = 1'-0" (e) garage Area: 457 SF (e) living area: 1214 sf (n) addition: 969 sf (n) covered porch: 16 sf (n) 2x DF Stud Wall to construct use 2x4 df#2 studs @ 16"oc (uno) gas 400a elec.(e) twh2-car garage entry cov. porch bedroom: 2 bedroom: 3 d w ws linen cl. bath: 2 cl. pwdr. guest bedroom g. bath kitchen family room living room (e) 2x df stud wall to remain master bedroom island ref.rangeovenseatseat patio line of (e) wall line of (e) wall line of (e) wall 2x6 wall2x6 wall2x6 wallt. eg eg t. t. dw t. 20 min. fr door t.2%1%2%1% 1%2r2rvaulted clg. 9'-6" clg. tray clg. @ 8'-10"± 9'-6" clg. coffered clg. plate @ 8'-0" 9'-6" clg. 9'-6" clg. 9'-6" clg. 9'-6" clg.9'-6" clg. m. bath 9'-6" clg. 9'-6" clg. 9'-6" clg. 4/12 7/12 7/12 7/12 (e) conc. slab to remain infill wall where (e) masoryfireplace is to be removed new concrete step into house: max. riser ht. = 7.75" 32"H ± low courtyardwall w/adhered stoneveneer and cap 24" x 24"uf access drop-down firerated atticladder accessclg.clg.9'-6" clg. 9'-6" clg. clg. line of sloping ceiling down to 8'-0" plate ht.clg.clg.4040 niche50703080relocate twh and water softener to exterior side of wall and provide weather protectivecabinet t.door @ grade (no landing) (e) door/window opening infill framed t.vent dryer to ext.42"w prefabricated ng, direct vent firreplace w/stone surroundand hearth per crc: majestic: cdvr42sc7 (see d.1)max. riser = 7.75"LEFT SIDE PER PLANNING DEFINITION FRONT PER PLANNING DEFINITION RIGHT SIDE PERPLANNING DEFINITION REAR PER PLANNING DEFINITION 8'-0" clg.@ closet 8'-0" clg. @ soffit verify (e) panel size and upgrade to 400a min. contact pge new services dept. and install utility undergroundas required 100asp2x6 stud wall cl dining area 9'-6" clg.cldeskbuffetclg.8'-0" platedormer t. t. t. t.t. t. glass encl.t. glass encl.t. glassencl. t. new doors and windows: Please see sheet DW.1 for door/window schedule for the following information: 1. door and window sizes. 2. door and window material. attic access doors in the attic shall be 1-3/8" min. solid core or 20 minute rated panels, w/self (or automatic) -closingand self-latching @ separation walls between the garage and residence. attic erv atticfau ge 7.8cf elec. dryer w/90 feetof long runventing: see specs@ this sheet: Y A6.1 Y A6.1 X A6.1 X A6.1 10/29/20, 4)14 PMGE® 7.8 cu. ft. Capacity Smart Front Load Electric Dryer with Steam and Sanitize Cycle - GFD85ESPNRS - GE Appliances Page 5 of 7https://www.geappliances.com/appliance/GE-7-8-cu-ft-Capacity-Smart…ont-Load-Electric-Dryer-with-Steam-and-Sanitize-Cycle-GFD85ESPNRS Dryer Cycles Bulky / BeddingCottonsDelicatesMixed Loads Perm Press Quick Dry Sanitize Steam Dewrinkle Steam RefreshTimed DryTowelsWasher Link Long Vent Capability Up to 90 feet Temperature Options High/Medium/Low/Extra Low/No Heat Control Type Capacitive TouchPower On/OffRotary-Electronic w/LEDsStart/Pause Moisture Sensor Sensor Dry Style Front-Loading Dual Thermistors Yes Additional Cycles Air FluffDelay Dry - up to 24 hoursEcoDry Reduce Static Remote Start Sanitize Steam Dewrinkle Steam Refresh Dryness Levels Damp DryExtra DryLess DryMore Dry Timed Dry 120 MinutesLess Time - More Time + Presets (10,20,40,60,90) Wrinkle Care Cycle Yes Communication Washer Link Pedestal Optional Steam Dewrinkle Yes SteamRefresh Yes WiFi Connect Built-In 24 49-3000206 Rev 1 Installation Instructions EXHAUSTING THE DRYER (cont.) • DO NOT bend or collapse ducting. Use elbows if turns are necessary. • DO NOT use excessive exhaust length. Cut duct as short as possible. • DO NOT crush duct against the wall. • DO NOT set dryer on duct. • DO cut duct as short as possible and install straight into wall. • DO use elbows when turns are necessary. Elbows Using exhaust longer than specified length will: • Increase the drying times and the energy cost. • Reduce the dryer life. • Accumulate lint, creating a potential fire hazard. The correct exhaust installation is YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. Problems due to incorrect installation are not covered by the warranty. The MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE length of the exhaust system depends upon the type of duct, number of turns, the type of exhaust hood (wall cap) and all conditions noted on the chart. • Internal elbows added for side or bottom vent conversions must be included in the total elbow count. • Any elbow greater than 45° should be treated as a 90° elbow; one elbow of 45° or less may be ignored. • Two 45° elbows will be treated like one 90° elbow. • For the side exhaust installations, add one 90° elbow to the chart. • For every additional 90° elbow, reduce the allowable vent system length by 10 feet. • When calculating the total vent system length, you must add all the straight portions and elbows of the system (including the transition duct). EXHAUST LENGTH EXHAUST LENGTH FOR NORMAL VENT MODELS RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM LENGTH Exhaust Hood Types Recommended Use only for short run installations 4" DIA. 4" 4" DIA. 4" DIA. 2-1/2" No. of 90° Elbows Rigid Metal Rigid Metal 090 Feet60 Feet 160 Feet45 Feet 245 Feet35 Feet335 Feet25 Feet 425 Feet15 Feet EXHAUST LENGTH FOR LONG VENT MODELS RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM LENGTH Exhaust Hood Types Recommended Use only for short run installations 4" DIA. 4" 4" DIA. 4" DIA. 2-1/2" No. of 90° Elbows Rigid Metal Rigid Metal 0 200 Feet 175 Feet 1 185 Feet 165 Feet 2175 Feet155 Feet 3165 Feet145 Feet 4155 Feet135 Feet 5145 Feet125 Feet RI RI GE Dryer: GFD85ESPNRS 10/29/20 A durable placard (minimum size of 4.5") must be permanently affixed on a wall near and visible from the dryer location. The placard shall state the actual length of the installed dryer exhaust vent and include the following language: warning: check the manufacturer installation instructions for any domestic dryer than will be installed at this location. the instructions should allow the dryer to be connected to an exhaust duct (vent) that is a maximum ___ feet long. do not remove this placard. Page 71 Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted11/11/20Roof Framing PlanA4.1 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.Professional Stamp Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 950320 2'4'8' A4.1 FL1 A4.1 FL3 A4.1 FL3 A4.1 FL1 roof plan 1/4" = 1'-0" roof slope: 7/12 typ. (uno) roofing material: class a, asphalt shingles typ. overhang: 12" typ. 4/12 7/12 7/12valleyflat roof:sloped 2% min.ib pvc single ply-80 membraneslope 2%valleyhiphiphipvalleyridgeridgehipridgeshed roof (3) "velux" fs-c04 temperedglass skylights (icc: esr-0199)ridgevalleyvalleyfl1 flashing: eave @ gutter standard Roofing material per exterior elevations. See Plans. Roof sheathing (CDX plywood or OSB) and specified underlayment. Underlayment laps over metal eave flashing. 26GA G.I. (or copper) flashing w/drip extending up roof a min. of 4". Flashing laps fascia (and gutter as applicable). Gutter (as occurs). See Roof Plan and exterior elevations. Some gutter products have eave flashing as an integral part of their construction. Roof rafters per framing plans. Fascia per exteriorelevations. 5"min. fl3 flashing: valley Roofing material per exterior elevations and specified underlayment (CDX plywood or OSB). Maintain 5" clearance between roofing material @ valley. Valley rafter. 26GA G.I. (or copper)valley flashing w/hemmed edges turned up, full length w/1" crimp @ center Roofing material overlaps valley flashing 4" min. In locations of severe weather, provide bituminous sheet waterproofing, lapped over valley flashing @ both sides for full length of valley. attic ventilation calcs (crc r806) new roof area Area of Accessible Roof to be Ventilated 2,336 sf Length of Eave (LF) w/RR @ 16”OC 148’-11” lf Length of Eave (LF) w/RR @ 24”OC Number of Blocks w/(3) 2” Dia. Holes none: attic is insulated w/ccsf insulation (icc: esr-3159) number of Blocks w/(4) 2” Dia. Holes Ventilation Provided by Eave Blocks n/a Additional Ventilation Provided by Alternative Means n/a Total Venting Required n/a Total Venting Provided n/a roof material/FRAMING NOTES Roof Slope 7/12 (Typ.) Roofing Material Class A, 40 year asphalt roofing shingles. Color selected by owner. Overhang 12” typ. (uno) Sheathing 1/2” CDX plywood, nailed w/10d @ 6”OC edge and 10”OC field. Use 19/32” OSB sheathing as option. Provide radiant barrier plywood as required per T24 Calculations Underlayment 30# Asphalt roofing paper or equal. Install per manufacturer’s specifications Flashing Provide 26GA G.I. metal flashing @ ALL valleys, ridges, roof to wall intersections and roof penetrations per CBC Section 1503.2 1.rafters shall be provided with full depth closed cell spray foam insulation (icc: esr-3183) throughout attic: no venting required: see t24 and ca energy code for required hers inspection and verification. 2.Provide attic access per CRC R807.1. Minimum access opening shall be 22” x 30”. RI RI 10/29/20 Page 72 Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted11/11/20Ext. ElevationsA5.1 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.Professional Stamp Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 950328'-0"wall plate18'-11"ridge ht.10'-0"@ family room shed (beyond)2'-9"3'-3"7'-8"(n) Front elevation (SE)1/4" = 1'-0" left side per planning 7/12 class a, asphalt roofing shingles typ.@ all roof planes. g.i. gutters: profile per owner:option: copper 7/8" (3-coat) plaster siding typ. texture approved by owner adhered stone veneer @courtyard site wall:pattern and color to beapproved by owner. plaster siding @porch plinths 2x painted fascia w/1x2 shingle mold and g.i. "z" edge flashing decorative louvered attic vents: cosmetic only returned eaves typ. sectional roll-up garage door fixed window @garage gable 18'-11"garage 2'-9"(n) left side elevation (SW)1/4" = 1'-0" rear side per planning 7/12 class a, asphalt roofing shingles typ. @ all roof planes. g.i. gutters: profileper owner:option: copper adhered stone veneer @ courtyard site wall: pattern and color to be approved by owner. plaster siding @ porch plinths 7/8" (3-coat) plaster siding typ. texture approved by owner exterior landing per crcw/max. riser ht. = 7.75" exterior elevation finish schedule roofing Class A, asphalt shingles, o/minimum 30# building paper or equal, o/CDX or OSB “radiant barrier” roof sheathing as required by t24 calculations as applicable. Roof material colors and/or manufacturers shall be selected and approved by the property owner. Where roof slopes are less than 4/12, use (2) layers of roofing underlayment. CRC R905.2.2 and R905.7.2 exterior siding Exterior Walls: 7/8”, (3-coat) plaster siding, o/g.i. expanded metal lath, o/(2) layers of grade “d” building paper or equal, o/CDX plywood or osb wall sheathing, nailed @ 6/12 minimum. See engineer’s “Shear Wall Schedule” for specified plywood thickness and minimum nailing requirements. Non Shear Walls: Provide a minimum of 3/8” CDX plywood wall sheathing, “Full Wrap”. Nail w/8d @ 6/12 minimum. For remodel projects, only new walls shall receive full wrap sheathing (UNO). Wall Base: A minimum 0.019-inch (0.5 mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet gauge), corrosion-resistant weep screed or plastic weep screed, with a minimum vertical attachment flange of 3-1/2 inches (89 mm) shall be provided at or below the foundation plate line on exterior stud walls in accordance with ASTM C 926. The weep screed shall be placed a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) above the earth or 2 inches (51 mm) above paved areas and shall be of a type that will allow trapped water to drain to the exterior of the building. The weather-resistant barrier shall lap the attachment flange. The exterior lath shall cover and terminate on the attachment flange of the weep screed. doors & windows All exterior doors (with glass) and windows shall be constructed with dual paned, low “E” glazing. Tempered glazing shall be required per CRC Sections R308 and R311. Door and window manufacturer shall be selected and approved by the property owner. See Sheet DW.1 and DW.2 for additional door and window notes and schedules. accents See Exterior Elevations for additional wall and roof details and specifications. RI10/29/20 Page 73 Britt Rowe shall retain all rightsand ownership to all drawingsand specifications. The contentsof the drawings may not be usedin whole, or in part, withoutexpressed written consent givenby Britt Rowe. All constructionshall comply with all local &national building codes. Allcontractors shall verify allconditions to assureconformance to these codes. REVISIONS:# 408.354.6224 (office) 408.354.6514 (fax) www.britt-rowe.com 108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.Los Gatos, CA 95030 BR SCALE:DRAWING:DRAWN BY:printed:Noted11/11/20Ext. ElevationsA5.2 Britt • Rowe m.a.r.Professional Stamp Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes m.kulkarniRESIDENCE124 garden hill drivelos gatos, ca 9503218'-11"mx. ridge8'-0"(e) wall plate(n) rear elevation (NW)1/4" = 1'-0" right side per planning class a, asphalt roofing shingles typ.@ all roof planes. g.i. gutters: profileper owner: option: copper g.i. foundation dripscreed @ base ofstructure per crc. 7/8" (3-coat) plaster siding typ. texture approved by owner 7/12 4/12± 2x painted fascia w/1x2 shingle mold and g.i. "z" flashing returned eaves@ gable ends "velux" fixed ventilating, tempered glass skylights (icc:esr-0199)8'-0"wall plate10'-0"@ shed roof18'-11"ridge ht.(n) right side elevation (nE)1/4" = 1'-0" front side per planning verify height of kitchen counter and splash (asapplicable) before orderingthis window exterior landing per crc w/max. riser ht. = 7.75" class a, asphalt roofing shingles typ. @ all roof planes. g.i. gutters: profileper owner: option: copper see sheet dw.1 for door and window information g.i. foundation drip screed @ base ofstructure per crc. 7/8" (3-coat) plaster siding typ. textureapproved by owner exterior elevation finish schedule roofing Class A, asphalt shingles, o/minimum 30# building paper or equal, o/CDX or OSB “radiant barrier” roof sheathing as required by t24 calculations as applicable. Roof material colors and/or manufacturers shall be selected and approved by the property owner. Where roof slopes are less than 4/12, use (2) layers of roofing underlayment. CRC R905.2.2 and R905.7.2 exterior siding Exterior Walls: 7/8”, (3-coat) plaster siding, o/g.i. expanded metal lath, o/(2) layers of grade “d” building paper or equal, o/CDX plywood or osb wall sheathing, nailed @ 6/12 minimum. See engineer’s “Shear Wall Schedule” for specified plywood thickness and minimum nailing requirements. Non Shear Walls: Provide a minimum of 3/8” CDX plywood wall sheathing, “Full Wrap”. Nail w/8d @ 6/12 minimum. For remodel projects, only new walls shall receive full wrap sheathing (UNO). Wall Base: A minimum 0.019-inch (0.5 mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet gauge), corrosion-resistant weep screed or plastic weep screed, with a minimum vertical attachment flange of 3-1/2 inches (89 mm) shall be provided at or below the foundation plate line on exterior stud walls in accordance with ASTM C 926. The weep screed shall be placed a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) above the earth or 2 inches (51 mm) above paved areas and shall be of a type that will allow trapped water to drain to the exterior of the building. The weather-resistant barrier shall lap the attachment flange. The exterior lath shall cover and terminate on the attachment flange of the weep screed. doors & windows All exterior doors (with glass) and windows shall be constructed with dual paned, low “E” glazing. Tempered glazing shall be required per CRC Sections R308 and R311. Door and window manufacturer shall be selected and approved by the property owner. See Sheet DW.1 and DW.2 for additional door and window notes and schedules. accents See Exterior Elevations for additional wall and roof details and specifications. RI10/29/20 Page 74 * Air Admittance Valve not Permitted *Island Loop Vent not Permitted. *Vent Pipe for the outdoor sink installation shall extend not less than 10 feet above the surrounding ground and shall be securely supported. CPC Section 906.4 *Provide a cover for the outdoor sink, which is required by the Town Building Division to allow the sink that is open to the sky to discharge into the sanitary sewer system per CPC Section 714.2 *The Sanitary Sewer Drainage System of the new outdoor kitchen must be separate and independent from the main dwelling with an independent connection with the public or private sanitary sewer system downstream from the main house sewer line to the street. CPC Section 311.0 2019 California Building Code, Vol. 1 & 2 2019 California Residential Code 2019 California Plumbing Code 2019 California Mechanical Code 2019 California Electrical Code 2019 California Energy Code 2019 California Existing Building Code 2019 California Historical Building Code 2019 California Green Building Standards 2019 California Fire Code 2018 International Code for Property Maintenance 2018 International Existing Building Code* *Chapters 9, 14 & Appendices A2, A3, A4 & A5 only REVISION M.C. MC EXHIBIT 5Page 75 Page 76 Page 77 Page 78 Page 79 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 80 Community Development Department • 110 E. Main Street408.354.6872 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca TOWN OF LOS GATOS CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION August 4, 2023 Rushikesh Kulkarni and Ashwini Bhave 124 Garden Hill Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Administrative Warning Re: Code violation at 124 Garden Hill Dr, Los Gatos The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department has received a concern regarding the above referenced property. The concern is regarding a sight distance issue with a six-foot-tall fence located on the corner of Garden Hill Drive. After consulting with the Town’s traffic Engineer, it was determined that the fence height must be brought down to no taller than three (3) feet in height in the corner sight triangle area. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.40.0315. - Height, materials and design, and location. (3) Fences, walls, gates, and hedges may not exceed three (3) feet in height when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street (as required by the zone), driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director. Trees, hedges, and vegetation within a corner sight triangle shall meet the requirements of section 26.10.065. EXHIBIT 6 Page 81 Building plan B21-1157 above indicates where the fence is to be three feet in height. Accordingly, we are asking that the fence on the corner of Garden Hill Drive be maintained to a height no taller than three feet in height by September 1, 2023. I can be reached at ameyer@losgatosca.gov or 408-399-5746 if you should have any questions regarding this notice. Respectfully yours, Allen Meyer Code Compliance Officer Town of Los Gatos Page 82 EXHIBIT 7Page 83 Page 84 Page 85 Page 86 EXHIBIT 8 Page 87 Page 88 Page 89 Page 90 Page 91 Page 92 Page 93 Page 94 Page 95 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 96 TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION (408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593 September 27, 2023 Martin Lettunich 455 Los Gatos Blvd, Suite 101 Los Gatos, CA 95032 RE: 124 Garden Hill Drive Fence Height Exception (FHE-23-005) Requesting Approval for an Exception to Construct a Six (6) Foot Tall Fence Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street-Side Yard Setback, and Corner Site Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23-084. APPLICANT: Martin Lettunich PROPERTY OWNER: Rushikesh Kulkarni The Los Gatos Community Development Department and the Town Engineer of the Parks and Public Works Department have reviewed the referenced application for a fence height exception pursuant to Section 29.40.0320. On September 27, 2023, the Los Gatos Community Development Department and Town Engineer have denied the request as the required findings could not be made. Additionally, the Town Engineer could not support the exception to the corner sight triangle per Town Code Section 26.10.065 – Obstructions at corners of intersecting streets. PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Section 29.20.255 of the Town Code, this decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the denial date. Any interested person may appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Appeals, with the completed Appeal Form and appeal fee payment, must be submitted within 10 days from the date of denial, or by 4:00 p.m., October 9, 2023. If you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact Project Planner Ryan Safty at (408)354-6802 or via email at RSafty@losgatosca.gov. Sincerely, Ryan Safty Associate Planner N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Garden Hill Drive\124\FHE-23-005\Closing Documents\Action Letters\124 Garden Hill Drive - FHE-23-005 - Denial Action Letter 09-27-23.docx CIVIC CENTER 110 E. MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CA 95030 EXHIBIT 9Page 97 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 98 30’ RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE 30’ NOT TO SCALE STREET STREET C L 30’ 30’ LEGEND: Corner Sight Triangle CORNER SIGHT TRIANGLE 200’ EDGE OF ROADWAY/FACE OF CURB RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE NOT TO SCALE STREET STREET C L 200’ 200’ LEGEND: Traffic View Area TRAFFIC VIEW AREA EDGE OF ROADWAY/FACE OF CURB 200’ 15’ 15’ EXHIBIT 10 Page 99 DRIVEWAY VIEW AREA FRONT AND STREET SIDE YARD AREA NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK REAR YARD SETBACK FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE LEGEND: Driveway View Area LEGEND: Front and Street Side Yard Area STREET SIDEWALK PROPERTY LINE DRIVEWAY 10’ 10’ Sidewalk Example STREET PROPERTY LINE DRIVEWAY 10’ 10’ No Sidewalk Example STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK STREET Page 100 EXHIBIT 11Page 101 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 102 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 11/8/2023 ITEM NO: 2 DESK ITEM DATE: November 8, 2023 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 124 Garden Hill Drive. APN 424-23-084. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni. Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty. REMARKS: Exhibit 13 includes neighbor support letters, received from the applicant on November 7, 2023. EXHIBITS: Previously received with the November 8, 2023, Staff Report: 1.Location Map 2.Required Finding 3.Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted 4.Building Permit B20-0574 Approved Plans 5.Building Permit B21-1157 Approved Plans 6.Administrative Warning, Dated August 4, 2023 7.Project Plans, Received September 7, 2023 8.Letter of Justification, Received September 7, 2023 9.Fence Height Exception Denial Letter, Dated September 27, 2023 10.View Area Diagrams 11.Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision, Received October 5, 2023 12.Pictures of Subject Property ATTACHMENT 2 PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005 DATE: November 8, 2023 Received with this Desk Item Report: 13. Neighbor Support Letters, Received November 7, 2023 This Page Intentionally Left Blank LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Jeffrey Barnett, Chair Melanie Hanssen Kathryn Janoff Emily Thomas Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Joel Paulson Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (619) 541-3405 ATTACHMENT 3 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR BARNETT: We’ll now move on to Item 2 on our agenda for tonight in which we are asked to consider an appeal of a Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for construction of a 6’ tall fence located within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner side triangle on property zoned R-1:8. Located at 124 Garden Hill Drive. APN 424-23-084. Fence Height Exception Application is FHE-23-005. Categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and Section 15301, Existing Facilities. The property owner is Rushikesh Kulkarni, the Applicant/Appellant is Mr. Martin Lettunich, and the project planner is Ryan Safty. Can I see a show of hands from Commissioners who have visited the property? That’s unanimous. Any disclosures? There are no disclosures. Mr. Safty, do you have a Staff Report for us tonight? RYAN SAFTY: Yes, thank you, Commissioners. Before you is an appeal of a Community Development Director LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 decision to deny a fence height exception request at 124 Garden Hill Drive. The property is located in a single- family residential neighborhood one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17. The property owner is requesting approval to construct a 6’ tall wooden fence within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner side triangle. The fence would be located along both the front and street side property lines. Per Town Code, fences and gates are limited to 3’ in height when located within any of these areas: the front yard, the street side yard, or the corner side triangle. As noted in the Staff Report, the property has been redeveloped with two Building Permits over the past few years. During both of these Building Permit reviews the project plans originally showed a 6’ tall fence out on the corner of this property. Town Staff provided written comments on both of these Building Permits informing the property owners of our rules, and in both times the fence was reduced to the Town maximum 3’ height. Both Building Permits were issued and finaled. On August 4th the Town received a complaint that the fence at this property was over 6’ tall, and therefore on September 7th we issued an administrative citation. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 An exception request was submitted for the exception. The Applicants cited several conditions: B-1, B- 2, D, and E. Conditions B-1 and B-2 are only applicable to the side and rear property lines of interior lots, so therefore we could not consider those. For Condition D, which is special security concern, the Applicant claims a taller fence is needed as there have been coyote sightings within the neighborhood and in order to protect their children playing within this front yard area the 3’ fence would not quite do it. However, Staff could not support the request under Condition D, as the property is located in an urbanized residential subdivision. If a coyote sighting were deemed a special security concern, then most of the properties in the Town would be eligible for an exception. The owners are also allowed to install a taller fence if they move it back to meet our setback requirements. Lastly, as noted in the report, the owners were notified before and throughout the remodel process that the fence height at this location is limited to 3’. They proceeded with the housing and remodel addition, which LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impacted which areas of the lot were available for outdoor use. For Condition E, which is special circumstances associated with the property configuration, the Applicant cited religious freedom, stating that their religion requires them to hold prayer sessions on the east side of the yard, and doing this with a 3’ fence caused privacy concerns. However, similar to the reason cited for Condition D, Staff could not support the request. The owners are allowed to move the fence back and increase the height, and additionally, they were aware of our fence height requirements during this process. In addition to Planning not being able to support the height exception, the Town Engineer also cannot support the exception to the corner side triangle. For these reasons, the Town denied the exception request on September 27th. On October 5th this denial was appealed, however, the appeal did not bring up any new points for consideration tonight. Neighbor support letters were received yesterday; we received six or seven of them, and they were distributed today as a Desk Item. Town Staff also noticed a potential publishing error with Exhibit 2. It sounds like maybe not all of you LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 guys had this issue. In any event, if the Director can please share the screen so I can quickly outline what this was supposed to show. The area in neon green identifies the areas of the fence and wall that are compliant with code. The area in red shows the portions of the fence that do not comply with code and either require an exception or must be removed, and that red area is somewhat difficult to see but it’s on top of the green extending to the right of it. I highlighted both the front and street side property lines so it is clear to the Commissioners, as well as where the corner site triangle requirements would be applicable. Based on the discussion provided in the Staff Report, Staff does recommend the Commission deny the appeal, uphold the decision of the Director, and deny the Fence Height Exception. This concludes Staff’s presentation, and both Planning Staff and Parks and Public Works Staff are here to answer any questions. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that report, and I’ll ask my fellow commissioners if they have questions at this time? I don’t see any, so we’ll now open the public portion of our public meeting tonight and give the Appellant an opportunity to address the Commission for up LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to five minutes. I see Mr. Lettunich approaching, so if you could just come to the microphone and we’ll be happy to hear what you have to say. MARTIN LETTUNICH: Good evening, thank you for allowing us to speak tonight. First of all, with regard to the document that was just shown on the screen, the red portion of the fence that’s along the side yard was approved and permitted according to permits that we have, so I don't know why all of a sudden that is not permitted. It used to go all the way around, and then we removed the section just above the 3’ line. Basically the problem that we have with this is, if you’ve been out to the site, there is absolutely no problem with viewing any traffic or pedestrians, and there is plenty of room on the sidewalk. The main issue here, I think, is there isn’t an intersecting street. Our lot basically is a lot that has one street that it abuts, and that’s Garden Hill Drive. The only one that comes close to being considered a street intersection would be Farm Hill, which is a cul-de-sac; and the other one is Green Hill, which is also a cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac at Farm Hill parallels, or runs right into and stops where it intersects Garden Hill, so it’s really LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not an intersection there. Our property abuts only one street, and under code a piece of property that abuts one street is an interior lot, it is not a corner lot, so I don’t think the rules you’re applying to the street and to our property is appropriate to begin with. Could we show the video? I’m sure you’ve already seen the pictures, and maybe you’ve already seen the video. This is driving down Garden Hill, going around the corner where the fence is. There are absolutely no vision problems from a vehicle. We’re going to turn around here and come back the other way, and this is going back down Garden Hill, and that’s the fence across the street. Now, this is parked on Green Hill Road, and there are still photos in your file that show that there is no obstruction. This is Green Hill. Looking out there you can see all the way down and around that corner, and on Farm Hill that truck is turning left there. If he had gone absolutely straight without turning he would have gone right into Farm Hill Road. From everything I’ve been able to find that would not be considered as coming out of Farm Hill, that it wouldn’t be considered a corner lot, and a street triangle regulation would not be required. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The concern about the coyote is that he has small children that play in his yard, and it will show you the yard in a second. That’s the yard inside, and all the bamboo you can see is where the 3’ fence would be. If you move that back by the setback required it takes almost a third of his yard away, and there would be absolutely no reason to do that, aesthetically or any other reason. We have the support of the neighbors, and we have support of what I believe is the definition under what the streets are and whether or not there needs to be a traffic triangle there. I thank you. If you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer them. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, appreciate that, and we’ll see if there are any questions for you. I don’t see any. I have a question. When you learned of the Town’s position regarding the site triangle, did you have any direct verbal communication with the Town about their interpretation? MARTIN LETTUNICH: I’ve mentioned it several times. Everybody continues to say it needs to have a traffic triangle there. I don’t see why. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BARNETT: I had another question for you. Can you explain why the Fence Height Application exception was withdrawn on April 12, 2023? That was the earlier point in time prior to the current application. MARTIN LETTUNICH: I don’t understand the question. CHAIR BARNETT: I understand that there was an earlier application for a fence height exception, and that was withdrawn. MARTIN LETTUNICH: I was not involved at that time. CHAIR BARNETT: It looks like your client was. Can I ask you to state your name and address? RUSHIKESH KULKARNI: Thank you, Chair. My name is Rushikesh Kulkarni; I’m the owner of 124 Garden Hill. The earlier application was withdrawn simply because we were in the process of getting the construction permits and we had initially appealed with the Town to grant permission to erect a 6’ fence over there, and once they had said that that would not be in conformance with the ordinance, in the interest of moving forward with the construction process and not getting stalled with respect to getting the Final Occupancy Permit, we decided to put that issue on the side and revisit it later, as we did, so LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that’s the reason why we withdrew that initial request for exception, as it was not granted. CHAIR BARNETT: Are there any questions of the owner? I don’t see any. If you can stay there, I don’t care which one of you answers. You were aware of the Fence Ordinance when you submitted your plans and the Town approved them; the change from the 6’ to the 3’ was something the Town had communicated to you was necessary, and so you changed the plans to conform to the Town’s position? RUSHIKESH KULKARNI: That is correct. We were aware and the Town had informed us. We were challenging the assumption of the corner street definition, because according to my read of the ordinance it says that if the corner triangle is defined as the intersection of two streets and the setback requirements are 30’ from the point of intersection. In this case, if you notice the corner around which the street turns, the street that comes in and then continues is Garden Hill Drive. There are no two streets. There is also a double yellow line as opposed to dotted yellow line, which means there is technically not even a divider on the street, whereby traffic is technically not LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 even allowed to turn left, so it’s a through-street where the traffic is supposed to just drive through. My interpretation was that it’s not a corner, and I had challenged that assumption, but at the end of the day the visiting inspector onsite said that that ordinance is open to interpretation of the inspection officer and the Planning Department, and it is their interpretation and their point of view that you have to go by. So again, in the interest of pursuing the construction on time as well as my needs to finance and refinance the project on time, given how interest rates were moving, I decided to drop the issue. That wasn’t necessarily acknowledging or agreeing with the Town’s position, but more accepting that it is an issue that I will revisit later. CHAIR BARNETT: I see. Thank you for that. Other Commissioner questions at this time? I am not seeing any. We’d normally open this for public comment. Is there anyone on Zoom? JENNIFER ARMER: We would invite anyone on Zoom who wishes to speak on this to raise their hand. It does look like we’ve got a few people who are raising their hand to speak on this item. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, if you wish to go forward with that, I’d appreciate it. JOEL PAULSON: The first to speak will be Michael. MICHAEL: I live on 295 Garden Hill Drive. I drive past this corner every day and have for the last four years when I purchased the property originally. I am very much in support of the height of this fence; in fact when I first saw the shorter fence I thought that it was a mar in the vision of the neighborhood and it was strange to look into my neighbor’s back yard. I didn’t actually know my neighbor at the time, and after I got to meet him I asked him about this and he explained what had occurred. I think it is a more aesthetic view. I have no concern at all about the visibility as I’m coming around Garden Hill Drive in either direction; like I said, I drive this every day. I’m aware of the coyotes and other wild animals and agree there is a safety risk for his family. Thank you. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for those comments. JOEL PAULSON: The next speaker will be Hamanchiu (phonetic). LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HAMANCHIU: Hi, my name is Hamanchiu. I live on Farm Hill Way, the adjoining street. Like the other neighbor I cross this street daily multiple times, like every time I leave or come to my house. I have not once faced any visibility problem on this corner, so I don’t think that that’s a concern. I agree with the concern regarding the coyote and safety, and do feel that a higher fence would be beneficial. Thank you. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir. JOEL PAULSON: Next speaker will be Nickette. NICKETTE (phonetic): Hello everyone, this is Nickette. We live just across the street at 135 Green Hill Way and we’ve lived there for about 5.5 years. I have no concerns with the height of the fence being increased as well. In fact, our kids play in Rushikesh’s back yard a lot of times and we get worried with a short fence for our kids as well. So again, we’ve been living here about 5.5 years and I see no safety concerns; I drive there everyday. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you very much, sir. JOEL PAULSON: Next will be Google Pixel 7. WENLU (phonetic): My name is Wenlu and I live at 123 Green Hill Way. Two things I want to mention as well. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Like Mike said earlier, I’m driving through this road every day, because it’s how I get to Highway 17. Initially when I first saw it one side was high and the other one was low; I thought it looked really strange and I don’t really like it. But when I talked to Rushikesh and I asked him, he said this is just because of the regulation. The second issue I want to say is the safety concern. To be honest, I’m living in cul de sacs and I got my car broke in. I talked to my neighbor within the same cul-de-sac, my neighbors on 131 and 135; they both had people come into their front yards and go through their cars at night. I’d love to feel like this is a safe town, but the reality of it is that it is not a safe town, and I think it is important to be able to feel safe living here, so that’s my comment. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir. Any further public members on Zoom? JOEL PAULSON: I don’t see any other hands raised, Chair? CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, thank you very much. So now the Applicant and/or this attorney may come forward with any additional comments you wish to make, up to three minutes. Not required to. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MARTIN LETTUNICH: The one comment I just want to point out is when you look at an intersecting street the corners lots are usually on each side of that street and it forms the area that the triangle applies to. If you look at the situation on this street, there is no such thing. If it were Green Hill directly across from the driveway side, there is no shoulder or curve on our side for a triangle to fit on, and on the other side it’s the two lots that are on either side of Farm Hill that would be considered corner lots. Our lot is not a corner lot. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir. Any questions at this time? If not, I’ll close the public portion of the public hearing and ask Commissioners if they have questions for Staff, wish to comment on the appeal, or introduce a motion for consideration by the Commission? Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have a question for Staff. On this interpretation of the corner versus other lot, the way I was looking at the plans it looked to me like you were marking it relative to the 15’, not a greater setback, but is it the case that if it is determined to be a corner lot that the setback is double? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RYAN SAFTY: The setback itself doesn’t change based on a corner lot. The corner lot requirements though, I will let Parks and Public Works answer that question. JAMES WATSON: James Watson, Parks and Public Works. I’m not sure I understand the question. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The Applicant/Appellant was contesting the interpretation of the corner lot, and one of the things that was mentioned was having to have a greater setback on account of being determined to be a corner lot, so I’m just trying to verify: a) Is that the case in our ordinance; and b) What is the current situation in terms of the setback? I was looking at the plans and it looked like it was marked for 15’. RYAN SAFTY: I can try again to answer that question, as long as it’s not related to the ins and outs of the corner site requirements. If this were not a corner lot, and let’s say we treated both of these property frontages as a front yard, it would actually be more of a setback requirement for the fences. One thing to clarify, the corner site triangle is just one aspect that Staff cannot support. There is still a 6’ tall fence within the front and street side yard setback requirements, and those are completely different. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think that answered my question. CHAIR BARNETT: There is the issue of religious practice that was mentioned in the appeal, and I wonder if Staff has any comment on that issue? RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. We did check in with the Town Attorney on this question. It is clear that the Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does apply here. There are a few things that the law prohibits, but based on the Town Attorney’s read, the Town is treating the residents the same as others and so this law has not been violated. It’s not a significant burden, it’s necessary for traffic visibility, and it is the least restrictive means in that the residents have the option of abiding by the setback requirement. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that clarification. Are there other questions? Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: For Staff. The Applicant/Appellant has argued that this is not a corner lot by definition. Can you please comment on that? JAMES WATSON: Parks and Public Works, James Watson. Is Mike Vroman available online? MIKE VROMAN: Yes, I’m here. Mike Vroman, Senior Traffic Engineer. I would have to disagree with the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attorney that from a traffic engineering perspective there is an intersection with Garden Hill Drive and Farm Hill Way. You can also make the contention that Green Hill may also be, because it’s directly across from 124 Garden Hill and could also be part of that intersection, but there is definitely an intersection with Garden Hill Drive and Farm Hill Way, so by that means I would say it is a corner lot from a traffic perspective. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions or comments? Let me check my notes. JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, I can also share the definition of corner lot from the Town Code, in case that’s helpful. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. JENNIFER ARMER: A corner means a lot situated at the intersection of two or more streets, or bounded on two or more abutting sides by street lines. Based on my experience with the Town Code it would not be important that the same name was applied to those two sides, in this case we have two street-side property lines that are perpendicular to each other, and so we would determine that to be a corner lot. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. One other question regarding the testimony of the Applicant/Appellant who argued that the 6’ fence toward the rear of the property was approved in the drawing package, and yet in the diagram that you provided us and showed on the screen that section of that fence that is 6’ tall is indicated as out of compliance. Could you comment on that? RYAN SAFTY: Certainly, and thank you for the question. Staff did provide the final Building Permit plan sets for both of them. There was not an approved 6’ fence out there. On the side they are referring to a 3’ garden wall was approved. I don't know if that portion was built, but that was not in the approved plans. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Hanssen, please. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I don’t have a question. I do have a comment though. As I said on the other item this evening, these are very difficult because we didn’t have that stringent of a Fence Ordinance prior to 2019. There are a lot of people out there that have preexisting fences; this may not be the case. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I also am sympathetic to hearing that a 3’ fence doesn’t provide security, but this is what was decided when the Town created a Fence Ordinance and the Town Council approved it. This requirement for the 3’ fence, it was known that it wasn’t going to provide a lot of security, and I think as Staff mentioned, with all due respect, coyotes are a concern, but we do have this Fence Ordinance; it’s applicable to everybody in their front yard with the 3’ fence. I’m having trouble finding that there is cause for granting the appeal, as I’m not hearing the justifications based on undue hardship or a special privacy concern that isn’t applicable to anyone else in town. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Other Commissioners? Or we’re open for a motion. Commissioner Janoff. COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Yes, and on this item a significant concern for me is the fact that our traffic staff does find an issue that it is a corner lot, unlike the item that we saw before, and so I will not be supporting the appeal. CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I want to echo Commissioner Janoff’s comments. I understand the Applicant’s concerns, and I appreciate all of the work that you’ve done and the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 home that you have built is gorgeous and a lovely part of that neighborhood. However, the issue with the traffic, I’m seeing this as a corner lot as according to Town Staff, and because of that, that triangle is something that I think needs to be prioritized and is important, and so I am not in support of granting this appeal with how this fence is structured at this moment. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that. I share the same concern. I think as a planning commission we don’t have any independent legal basis to challenge our Staff’s report, and this is a safety issue, which is always a concern. While I share my fellow commissioners’ comments about the hard work you’ve put into this and we respect that very much, I’m unable to support it primarily because of the Town’s Public Works Department statement and conclusions. We might be open for a motion. Commissioner Thomas. COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I move to deny the appeal of the Community Development Director’s Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for construction of a 6’ tall fence located within the required front yard setbacks, street side yard setback, and corner side triangle on LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023 Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 property zoned R-1:8, APN 424-23-084. I don’t have to make any findings, correct? JENNIFER ARMER: No findings required. CHAIR BARNETT: Is there a second to that motion? Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I second the motion. CHAIR BARNETT: Any discussion? If not, please raise your hand if you’re in support of the motion. It passes unanimously. Thank you very much for coming tonight and sharing your thoughts, and also for submitting materials in advance. JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, the decision of the Commission can be appealed to Town Council by any interested person as defined by Town Code Section 29.10.020 within ten days on forms available online with fees paid. The final deadline is 4:00pm on the tenth day. CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. (END) This Page Intentionally Left Blank ATTACHMENT 4 Dear Jennifer and Ryan: I’m writing this letter as a replacement appeal for my previously filed appeal (submitted by Martin Lettunich on my behalf) to the town council regarding fence exception for 124 Garden Hill Dr, Los Gatos, CA 95032. To memorialize the sequence of events w/r/t my fence, I have included below the relevant chronology of events: 1.We built a 6’ fence along the front side of the property along Garden Hill Dr and a 3’ fence along the corner sight triangle and side property line along Garden Hill Dr. This fence construction was reviewed by town inspectors Bobby DeHerrera and Eric Christianson and approved via final inspection onsite. They subsequently signed the final inspection card and issued the Occupancy certificate for our property. 2.As we began living at the property, we started to experience quite a few security hazards due to the short 3’ fence height esp. as my little kids (ages 3 and 6) would play in the yard. We had a few coyote sightings right along the curbside by my property where the fence height is only 3’ as well as several strangers that regularly frequent the street to access Vasona Park trail. Out of concern for my kids security as well as secondary privacy concerns, we erected a temporary bamboo fence along the corner sight triangle area and the side of the house. This bamboo fence added an additional 3’ fencing above the original 3’ fence making the total fence height around the corner 6’ 3.Subsequently, I received a citation from the city regarding the bamboo fence obstructing traffic view and not being compliant with the town ordinance 4.Upon receiving the citation, I appealed to the Planning Commission to grant me an exception to have my fence height along the sight triangle to be 6’ high 5.During the original Planning Commission hearing, Martin Lettunich, whom I had hired as a consultant to represent me, argued that the corner sight triangle fence ordinance didn’t apply to my lot as it wasn’t a corner lot. The Planning dept recommended to the Commission that the exception for corner sight triangle cannot be granted due to (i) traffic visibility concerns and (ii) the lot was still a corner lot. Additionally, the planning dept. also raised the issue of the 6’ fence along the front of my house not being permitted per planning approved permit since it doesn’t comply with the 15’ front yard set back requirements 6.Following the rejection of my appeal by the planning commission, Martin Lettunich appealed to the town council to grant me the 6’ height exceptions on the following grounds: (i) the front side fence was already permitted and sight inspector approved (ii) the corner fence should be allowed because its not a corner lot. 7.I then engaged with the Planning Dept (Jennifer and Ryan) to find a constructive path forward that would address the city’s concerns while providing for my security and safety needs as the property owner 8.To further assess my situation, I provisioned a third-party traffic study from Sandis. Nate Levine from Sandis performed a preliminary traffic study to established line of sight guidelines for vehicles along the corner of our property. Nate also collaborated and consulted with city traffic engineer Mike V. Following a few back and forth discussions between Nate and Mike, it was ATTACHMENT 5 understood that the traffic study findings, while suggesting that a 5’6” setback along the corner could allow for a 6’ fence height, were ultimately deemed inadequate by Mike. Based on the prelim traffic study, Mike wasn’t comfortable to recommend granting me the exception even if I were to pull the fence 5’6” inside the property line from the corner. 9. Based on the above fact patterns, I had another discussion with Jennifer and Ryan on Monday, Jan 8th whereby I recommended the following considerations for the town council as part of my revised current appeal: a. The 6’ fence I’ve built along the front side of the lot is substantially a replacement fence of what already existed previously. The previous fence was a 6’ fence that was ~5’ setback from the property line. The newly built fence is also a 6’ fence but has a 4’5” setback from the property line. Since the variance is only 7”, and our immediate neighbors along that side of our house have no issues with the design, I would like to request an exception to allow me to keep this newly constructed fence. As such, this was reviewed and approved by sight inspectors Bobby DeHerrera and Eric Christiansen and they signed the permits and occupancy certificate upon reviewing the fully built fence. It’s also worth noting that the citation I received did not mention this fence. b. For the corner fence (bamboo fence), I propose that we will remove it and comply with the citation request. However, to ensure the security of my children, I would like to request an exception to allow me to build a see through fence with iron bars along the sight triangle and front side of the property. Hopefully, this will be viewed as a fair compromise where I’m completely willing to give up my privacy but would like to request the city grant me the permission to ensure my security c. I have included below, photo evidence to show the setback of 4’ 5” for the front fence to demonstrate it’s substantially a replacement of existing fence. I have also included a photo of examples of iron bar see through fence we would build if granted the exception for the corner height of the fence. This iron bar fence would add an extra 3’ on top of the existing 3’ fence making the total fence height 6’ but the top 3’ of it being see-through fence. Requesting exception be granted to keep the permanent fence in the above picture on the front side as its substantially a replacement of existing fence. See evidence of 5’ setback previously from google image below followed by tape measured set back showing current 4’ 5” setback. Will agree to remove the bamboo fence and requesting exception to replace the bamboo fence with a see through iron bar fence. Sample iron bar fence shown below. This iron bar fence will add 3’ on top of existing 3’ solid wood fence along the sight triangle ensuring a happy median for traffic visibility as well as our security. ATTACHMENT 6 DRAFT RESOLUTION 2024-___ RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND CORNER SIGHT TRIANGLE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. APN 424-23-084 FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION APPLICATION: FHE-23-005 PROPERTY LOCATION: 124 GARDEN HILL DRIVE PROPERTY OWNER: RUSHIKESH KULKARNI APPELLANT/APPLICANT: MARTIN LETTUNICH WHEREAS, on August 4, 2023, the Town issued an administrative warning for a code violation at 124 Garden Hill Drive for an unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2023, the property owner applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive; and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2023, the Town denied the exception request because the findings listed in Town Code Section 29.40.0320 could not be made; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the exception request was appealed to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered an appeal of the Community Development Director denial of an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for an unpermitted six-foot tall fence in the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and traffic view area at the corner of Garden Hill Drive; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director denial of the exception request; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2023, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; and Draft Resolution to be modified by Town Council deliberations and direction. WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on December 19, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the Town Council continued the public hearing to a date certain of January 16, 2024; and WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for their meeting on January 16, 2024, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the Town Council was unable to make the findings required to grant an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission, in accordance with Town Code section 29.20.275, with the Town Council finding the following: 1. There was not an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission; and 2. The Planning Commission decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission decision to deny an exception the Town’s fence regulations is denied. 2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by state and federal Law. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 16th day of January 2024, by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA DATE: ___________________ ATTEST: TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA DATE: ___________________ This Page Intentionally Left Blank