The URL can be used to link to this page

03-12-2025 PC PacketPage 1 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA MARCH 12, 2025 110 EAST MAIN STREET TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 PM Emily Thomas, Chair Kendra Burch, Vice Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Commissioner Susan Burnett, Commissioner Steven Raspe, Commissioner Rob Stump, Commissioner Vacant, Commissioner IMPORTANT NOTICE This is a hybrid/in-person meeting and will be held in-person at the Town Council Chambers at 110 E. Main Street and virtually through the Zoom webinar application (log-in information provided below). Members of the public may provide public comments for agenda items in-person or virtually through the Zoom webinar by following the instructions listed below. The live stream of the meeting may be viewed on television and/or online at www.LosGatosCA.gov/TownYouTube. PARTICIPATION The public is welcome to provide oral comments in real-time during the meeting in three ways: Zoom webinar (Online): Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join: https://losgatosca- gov.zoom.us/j/84581980917?pwd=HBC1JDVAnIv95RNwWbWOUU0PKq949O.1 Passcode: 943933. You can also type in 845 8198 0917 in the “Join a Meeting” page on the Zoom website at https://zoom.us/join and use passcode 943933. o When the Chair announces the item for which you wish to speak, click the “raise hand” feature in Zoom. If you are participating by phone on the Zoom app, press *9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. Telephone: Please dial (877) 402-9753 for US Toll-free or (636) 651-3141 for US Toll. (Conference code: 602463). If you are participating by calling in, press #2 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. In-Person: Please complete a “speaker’s card” located on the back of the Chamber benches and return it to the Vice Chair before the meeting or when the Chair announces the item for which you wish to speak. NOTES: (1) Comments will be limited to three (3) minutes or less at the Chair’s discretion. (2) If you are unable to participate in real-time, you may email planning@losgatosca.gov with the subject line “Public Comment Item #__” (insert the item number relevant to your comment). (3) Deadlines to submit written public comments are:  11:00 a.m. the Friday before the Planning Commission meeting for inclusion in the agenda packet.  11:00 a.m. the Tuesday before the Planning Commission meeting for inclusion in an addendum.  11:00 a.m. on the day of the Planning Commission meeting for inclusion in a desk item. (4) Persons wishing to make an audio/visual presentation may do so only for items on the agenda and must submit the presentation electronically to planning@losgatosca.gov no later than 3:00 p.m. on the day of the Planning Commission meeting. Page 1 Page 2 MEETING CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (Members of the public may address the Commission on matters not listed on the agenda and are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Commission. Unless additional time is authorized by the Commission, remarks shall be limited to three minutes.) CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) (Before the Planning Commission acts on the consent agenda, any member of the Commission may request that any item be removed from the consent agenda. At the Chair’s discretion, items removed from the consent calendar may be considered either before or after the Public Hearings portion of the agenda.) 1. Draft Minutes of the February 12, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may be allotted up to three minutes to comment on any public hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of three minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to the Commission’s consent at the meeting.) 2. Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence, Construct a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, Construct an Accessory Structure with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on a Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 176 Loma Alta Avenue. APN 532-28-031. Architecture and Site Application S-24-042. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owner: The Thornberry 2021 Revocable Trust dated November 4, 2021, and The Donald S. Thornberry and Barbara J. Gardner Revocable Living Trust dated December 21, 2010. Applicant: Jay Plett. Project Planner: Maria Chavarin. 3. Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin. 4. Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence, Remove Large Protected Trees, and Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned HR-2½. Located at 119 Harwood Court. APN 527-56-027. Architecture and Site Application S-24-040. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Page 2 Page 3 Structures. Property Owners: Donal and Maire Conroy. Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat. Project Planner: Suray Nathan. OTHER BUSINESS REPORT FROM THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS / COMMISSION MATTERS ADJOURNMENT (Planning Commission policy is to adjourn no later than 11:30 p.m. unless a majority of the Planning Commission votes for an extension of time.) ADA NOTICE In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Clerk’s Office at (408) 354-6834. Notification at least two (2) business days prior to the meeting date will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting [28 CFR §35.102-35.104]. NOTICE REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Planning Commission after initial distribution of the agenda packets are available for public inspection at Town Hall, 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos and on Town’s website at www.losgatosca.gov. Planning Commission agendas and related materials can be viewed online at https://losgatos-ca.municodemeetings.com/. Planning Commission meetings are broadcast Live on KCAT, Channel 15 (on Comcast) on the 2nd and 4th Wednesdays at 7:00 p.m. Live and Archived Planning Commission meetings can be viewed by going to: www.LosGatosCA.gov/TownYouTube Page 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 4 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/12/2025 ITEM NO: 1 DRAFT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 12, 2025 The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, February 12, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 PM ROLL CALL Present: Chair Emily Thomas, Vice Chair Kendra Burch, Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett, Commissioner Susan Burnett, Commissioner Steve Raspe. Absent: Commissioner Rob Stump. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS John Shepardson My question relates to 220 Belgatos Road (former Mirassou School) and the fact that they appealed the DRC decision approving a lot split. The 220 Belgatos grass fields should not be split from the school buildings, because they create a fire break, a staging ground for firefighters, and a safe place to run to. The Town’s General Plan states that Santa Clara County, including Los Gatos, has a high potential for devasting wildland fires and strong land use policies and mitigation measures are necessary. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1. Approval of Minutes – January 8, 2025 2. Approval of Minutes – January 22, 2025 MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Barnett to approve adoption of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Commissioner Raspe. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. Page 5 PAGE 2 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road Architecture and Site Application S-23-042 Conditional Use Permit Application U-23-017 Subdivision Application M-23-009 APNs 529-24-032, 529-24-001, and 529-24-003 Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC Property Owner: Keet S. Nerhan Project Planner: Sean Mullin Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Hotel Structures (Los Gatos Lodge), Construct a Multi-Family Residential Development (155 Units), a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Remove Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned CH:PD:HEOZ. No Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Streamlining Process, Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2020 General Plan EIR and/or 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable. Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney, provided a PowerPoint presentation. Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. Kevin Ebrahimi (Applicant) I am the Senior Vice President of SummerHill Homes. We propose to build 155 new townhome condominiums at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, a site designated by the Town Council as a housing inventory site. We submitted an SB 330 preliminary application in June 2023. We could have opted to submit our application as a “builder’s remedy” project; however, we chose instead to design a project to comply with the Town’s objective standards with the minimum waivers possible. We began community outreach in 2023 even before submitting our development application, with the latest neighborhood meetings earlier this year. We have worked closely with our neighbor, the School District. The project complies with the State’s Energy Code and the Town’s Reach Code, will be all-electric, all the homes will have solar panels, and each garage will be EV-ready. The project will provide several public benefits: 155 new homes; 26 units designated as below market rate, 16 of the BMR units will be low-income and 10 will be moderate-income; will build a new bike and pedestrian trail along the edge of the site to provide a connection between Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and the high school; and build a reciprocal emergency access route between Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and the high school to serve the high school and the project. Page 6 PAGE 3 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 Kristin Finkelstein I am against the proposed project, which I believe raises significant concerns. This project would add high-density housing to an area ill-prepared for it, and place additional strain on infrastructure, traffic, and neighborhood character. We do not have the space to widen highway entrances and expand streets to accommodate more traffic in this part of Town, particularly in the warmer months when we experience significant beach traffic. There are several other proposed developments in our Town and we have yet to understand their cumulative impact. The project also threatens our older trees, diminishing our green spaces and wildlife habitats. Nick Lamson I am with McCarthy Development, a local property owner. I support the project and think it is a major step in addressing the community’s housing needs. This project can make it easier for people to achieve their dream of living in Los Gatos. The project is well thought out, the product type is correct, and the location provides walkable access to local amenities, which would benefit the downtown and give a needed boost to the local retailers. Jim Lyon As the Town architect indicated, this project is too dense and there is not enough green space, but the applicant blew off all the architect’s recommendations. This project also brings major traffic impacts, but the applicant is hiding behind the EIR of the 2040 Town Master Plan. The applicant has not provided the required transportation demand management program required in the Initial Study. What about wildfire evacuation with this area already a choke point in the Town? The applicant should be required to provide, on their own land, a dedicated right-turn lane for entry and exit of the project. I do not support the project as it now stands; it should be reworked. Carlos Azucena I’m speaking in support of the project. It is a challenge to get housing in Los Gatos, and this project is trying to solve the problem in the most responsible way possible, while still preserving the character of the Town and adding some benefits to the community. The project strikes a good balance of density, although we wouldn’t want anything denser. The developer’s other projects around Los Gatos seem to increase the value of those areas. Having the housing with this overlay of a certain amount of below market rate units is extremely helpful in that it could provide housing for essential workers. The project minimizes negative impacts while being an overall net positive to the Town. Nico Flores I also support this project, which is reasonable and balanced. I am a father and assistant principal and don’t have the finances to buy a house in Los Gatos, but this is an opportunity for me to keep my family here and put down roots in this wonderful Town. SummerHill is a reliable developer and have done their best to reduce the density and approach the traffic concerns. Page 7 PAGE 4 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 Lee Quintana I am a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, but I speak tonight my own behalf. I commend SummerHill Homes for the number of three- and four-bedroom units proposed under low- and moderate-income categories, which is far above what we have in Los Gatos now. It is clear the project has met all the requirements of the law. Jason Farwell I submitted a letter of support for this project. I echo the statements of the previous speakers also in support of this project. I appreciate the frustration regarding high density and the impacts, but that frustration must be directed to your State legislature and not the Planning Commission and Town staff whose hands are tied. This is a responsible development under the circumstances and it should be approved. Rich Stephens With the State demanding Los Gatos add 1,993 units, I see the proposed project as one of the better new projects in Town, and I support it. I hope other developers move away from their tall skyscrapers and more in this direction, because this project is well done. Although it has 155 units, there are 516 bedrooms, so it needs to be considered much larger than it sounds. There are 310 resident parking spaces in the complex, and that only supports six cars per ten rooms or residents, and with only 20 visitor spaces, how will residents have guests with very little parking opportunities in the near area. What if there were a fire in one of Buildings #4, #5, or #18, which would shut off Highway 9? I’d love to see the affordable income units dedicated for local teachers, firefighters, or police officers. Rue This project seems to be all or nothing in terms of what is approved or not and does not allow for nuance, which this project could use. I agree with the previous speakers who made positive comments about the design. The combination of different sized apartments and affordable housing seems fine. The real big issue is the traffic, which has not been addressed. The idea that they want to be exempted from the setback from the road pushes the buildings up to the road, which does not allow for any additional traffic modifications to be made. I encourage the commissioners to revisit the site at various times, especially before and after school. We know this project is going to move forward, the question is whether there is room to make modifications, because the hazards for the additional traffic will be disastrous if not addressed. Kevin Ebrahimi (Applicant) There was a traffic study done for the project and it was reviewed by Town staff to make sure it was adequate and met the project’s needs. There is a condition of approval to do a TDM plan, and that will come in upon approval. We exceed the State density bonus parking requirements for the site. We have several different communities throughout the Bay Area with a similar parking ratio, and it is a lifestyle decision of the people who buy into these communities. We have reviewed several different iterations of the site plan with the Fire Page 8 PAGE 5 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 Department with respect to fire and safety, building locations, and the frontage improvements that were coordinated between our traffic consultant and the Town’s traffic engineer, and the design was based on that. Closed Public Comment. Commissioners discussed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to recommend Town Code approval of an Architecture and Site Application, Conditional Use Permit, and Subdivision Application for 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. Seconded by Vice Chair Burch. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 4. 14335 La Rinconada Drive, Parcel 1 Architecture and Site Application S-23-028 APN 409-14-046 Property Owner/Applicant: MGKG Properties, LP Project Planner: Erin Walters Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish and Existing Single-Family Residence, Construct a New Single-Family Residence, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R-1:8. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction. Erin Walters, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. Greg Zierman (Applicant) Parcel 1 is the front lot of a two-lot subdivision for a lot split that was approved on September 19, 2022. The Town’s Historic Preservation Committee agreed that the house had no historical value on February 28, 2024, and it was removed from the Historic Resources Inventory List. Parcel 1 is 9,210 square feet, and the maximum allowable floor area for a house on a lot this size is 2,947 square feet and the maximum allowable garage area is 810 square feet. We propose a floor area of 2,805 square feet and a garage area of 703 square feet. The maximum allowable building height in this zoning district is 30 feet; we propose a building height of 25 feet, 6 inches. The existing house is not a candidate for remodeling or rebuilding, because the home has no foundation, and the subfloor is built directly on grade. A two-story home is proposed because the footprint of a two-story home is typically much smaller than that of a similar size single-story design, creating less impact to the site, larger yards, and greater Page 9 PAGE 6 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 setbacks. Three protected trees are proposed for removal, with replacements provided as required. The applicant has done neighborhood outreach to the immediate neighbors and those on the adjacent streets and has not received any objections or concerns; and several neighbors support the project. The project meets the objective standards of the Town’s zoning regulations and complies with the residential design guidelines for a home not located in the hillside area. Will Maynard I am the neighbor directly across the street from the subject site and have some concerns. This is a very large structure compared to the existing home and those immediately surrounding it. Other large homes on the street have a lot of greenery to soften their appearance. I asked the applicant if they planned to do the same type of landscaping, but received no answer. I am in favor of developing this neighborhood further, but I’d feel better about the project if I knew what efforts would be made to soften the appearance of this very large house. Greg Zierman (Applicant) A landscape plan will be developed during the construction drawing phase and will be included in our construction documents. We are required to replace the removed protected trees with nine 15-gallon trees. We would be glad to share our landscape plan with Mr. Maynard and any other neighbors, and certainly those nine trees may be best suited to be planted in the front yard to provide screening. There are no major windows facing any of the side properties. Closed Public Comment. Commissioners discussed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Barnett to approve an Architecture and Site Application for 14335 La Rinconada Drive. Seconded by Vice Chair Burch. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 5. 15365 Santella Court Architecture and Site Application S-24-069 APN 527-09-036 Applicant: Hari Sripadanna Property Owner: Christian and Hellen Olgaard Project Planner: Erin Walters Consider a Request for Approval of a One-Year Time Extension to an Existing Architecture and Site Application (S-18-052) to Construct a New Single-Family Residence, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Page 10 PAGE 7 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 on a Vacant Property Zoned HR-2½:PD. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Prepared for the Planned Development and was Certified by the Town Council on December 19, 2005. No Further Environmental Analysis is Required for the Individual Lot Development. Erin Walters, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. Hari Sripadanna (Applicant) This project has already been approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council. We are asking for a time extension to accommodate the building development process, as this is a highly technical project. Closed Public Comment. Commissioners discussed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Burnett to approve a one-year time extension to an existing Architecture and Site application for 15365 Santella Court. Seconded by Commissioner Raspe. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 6. Town Code Amendment Re: Special Needs Housing Town Code Amendment Application A-25-001 Project Location: Town-wide Applicant: Town of Los Gatos Forward a Recommendation to the Town Council on an Ordinance Amending Chapter 29 (Zoning Regulations) of the Town Code Regarding Emergency Shelters, Small Employee Housing, Transitional Housing, Supportive Housing, Employee Housing, Group Homes, and Findings for Reasonable Accommodation Requests Pursuant to Implementation Program AP of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Adoption of this Ordinance is Exempt Pursuant to CEQA, Section 15061(b)(3) in that it Can be Seen with Certainty that it Will not Impact the Environment. Erin Walters, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. No public comments. Page 11 PAGE 8 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 Closed Public Comment. Commissioners discussed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to recommend Town Council adoption of an ordinance amending Chapter 29, Zoning Regulations of the Town Code, regarding emergency shelters, small employee housing, transitional housing, supportive housing, employee housing, group homes, and findings for reasonable accommodation requests pursuant to Implementation Program AP of the 2023-2031 Housing Element. Seconded by Commissioner Barnett. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development • Town Council met January 21, 2025: o Introduced the ordinance for 110 Wood Road, The Meadows, and opted for the version where one floor was taken from the rear building next to the neighbors and moved to one of the front buildings. o Approved two of the Housing Element Implementation Program items the Planning Commission had previously seen. o Second reading for 120 Oak Meadow for the ordinance for a new house and the PD off Roberts Road. • Town Council held a Strategic Priorities Session on February 11, 2025. Staff will summarize Council’s comments and return to the Council for confirmation. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Vice Chair Burch - CDAC met on February 12, 2025: o Reviewed an item with the potential of developing three lots out of one parcel in the hillsides. o Commissioner Barnett was elected Chair and Commissioner Burch was elected Vice Chair of CDAC. Page 12 PAGE 9 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 12, 2025 General Plan Committee Chair Thomas - GPAC met February 12, 2025: o Forwarded a recommendation to the Planning Commission regarding an implementation program from the Housing Element, and requested staff include additional information in the staff report to show the full impact to the Town before it is forwarded to Town Council. o Reappointed Ryan Rosenberg as Chair and Commissioner Emily Thomas as Vice Chair. o New GPAC members include Councilmember Rob Rennie and Planning Commissioner Rob Stump. GPAC will do recruitment soon for more members. Commission Matters None. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the February 12, 2025 meeting as approved by the Planning Commission. _____________________________ /s/ Vicki Blandin Page 13 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 14 PREPARED BY: Maria Chavarin Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/12/2025 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: March 7, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence, Construct a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, Construct an Accessory Structure with Reduced Side Yard Setbacks, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on a Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 176 Loma Alta Avenue. APN 532-28-031. Architecture and Site Application S-24-042. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owner: The Thornberry 2021 Revocable Trust dated November 4, 2021, and The Donald S. Thornberry and Barbara J. Gardner Revocable Living Trust dated December 21, 2010. Applicant: Jay Plett. Project Planner: Maria Chavarin. BACKGROUND: On January 22, 2025, the Planning Commission discussed the item and received public testimony (Exhibit 20). The Planning Commission continued the item to a date certain of March 12, 2025, and provided the following direction to the applicant:  Reduce the floor area ratio (FAR);  Increase the side yard setback at the nook area;  Increase the side yard setback at the dining area;  Increase the side yard setback at the fireplace area;  Use frosted windows or change to clerestory windows at the restroom and children’s room on the second floor;  Work with the neighbor on the placement of the window at the stairs;  Address privacy; and  Reduce the height of the residence. Page 15 PAGE 2 OF 8 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp DISCUSSION: In response to the Planning Commission’s direction, the applicant submitted revised development plans (Exhibit 25) and a letter detailing the revisions to the project (Exhibit 21). In addition, the applicant prepared an exhibit supporting their neighborhood analysis in relation to the proposed project (Exhibit22). A summary of the applicant’s response to the Planning Commission’s direction follows. Floor Area Ratio The applicant reduced the proposed countable square footage and FAR from a total of 3,418 square feet (0.46) to 2,874 square feet (0.39). This is a total reduction of 544 square feet of countable square footage. The reduction in square footage was achieved through the following modifications to the project (Exhibit 21 and 24):  Reduction of 23 square feet at the kitchen nook area;  Conversion of 777 square feet of the lower floor into an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The area of the ADU includes a portion of below grade square footage extending beyond the building footprint above. Previously, this area was countable toward FAR, but it is now exempt from FAR since it is an ADU. Consistent with state law, the ADU is not the subject of this application and is reviewed ministerially through a Building Permit.  The remaining 804 square feet of below grade area that is exempt from FAR includes a mechanical room that has increased by 76 square feet to serve the attached ADU. The table below summarizes the revised floor area: Floor Area Summary Existing SF Original Project SF Revised Project SF Allowed SF Main Residence First Floor Second Floor Total Countable Below-Grade Area Total Countable Amount over max FAR 996 -- 996 -- 996 0 1,684.5 1,212.5 2,897 512 3,418 964 1661.5 1,212.5 2,874 0 2,874 420 -- -- -- -- 2,454 Below-Grade Area 0 984 804 Exempt Attached ADU* -- 777 Exempt Garage 280 529 529 691 **Accessory Dwelling Unit is not a part of the Architecture and Site Application. Page 16 PAGE 3 OF 8 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp The revised project results in a residence that exceeds the maximum allowable FAR by 420 square feet where the project previously exceeded the maximum allowable FAR by 964 square feet. Neighborhood Compatibility Pursuant to Section 29.40.075 of the Town Code, the maximum FAR for the subject property is 0.33 (2,454 square feet). As detailed above, the applicant has revised their project and the proposed residence now includes an FAR of 0.39 (2,874 square feet), exceeding the maximum allowable floor area by 420 square feet. The table below reflects the current conditions of the homes in the immediate neighborhood: Revised Immediate Neighborhood Comparison Address Zoning House Floor Area Garage Floor Area Total Floor Area Lot Size House FAR No. of Stories Exceed FAR? 178 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,660 325 2,985 8,090 0.33 2 No 180 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,605 733 3,338 8,010 0.33 2 No 172 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,332 630 2,962 7,132 0.33 2 No 162 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,647 622 3,269 8,680 0.30 2 No 177 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,227 484 2,711 6,640 0.34 2 No 179 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,919 577 3,496 7,500 0.39 1 Yes by 444 sf 185 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 1,206 0 1,206 7,500 0.16 1 No 116 Alta Heights Ct R-1:8 1,933 437 2,370 6,490 0.30 2 No 175 Loma Alta Ave R-1:8 2,357 400 2,757 6,100 0.39 2 Yes by 283 sf 176 Loma Alta Ave (E) R-1:8 996 280 1,276 7,435 0.13 1 No 176 Loma Alta Ave (P) Original Project R-1:8 3,418 529 3,947 7,435 0.46 2 Yes, by 964 sf 176 Loma Alta Ave (P) Revised Project R-1:8 2,874 529 3,403 7,435 0.39 2 Yes by 420 sf Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 1,206 square feet to 2,919 square feet. The floor area ratios range from 0.16 to 0.39. The applicant proposes a 2,874-square foot residence (not including the proposed 777 square-foot attached ADU and 804 square feet of below-grade square footage) and a 529 square-foot detached garage on a 7,435-square foot parcel. The proposed residence would be the second largest in terms of square footage and tied with two other parcels, for the largest in terms of FAR in the immediate neighborhood. Page 17 PAGE 4 OF 8 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp Setbacks As explained in the applicant’s response letter, the kitchen nook area was reduced in size by 23 square feet, increasing the side setback from the previously proposed four feet to five feet (Exhibit 20). The applicant has also increased the chimney setback by six inches on the side yard resulting in a side yard of three feet, six inches, where three feet was previously proposed. The revised plans also decrease the proposed width of the chimney. The applicant is willing to omit the chimney should the Planning Commission find it necessary. Windows The Planning Commission directed the applicant to use frosted glass or change to clerestory windows for the restroom and children’s room on the second floor and to work with the neighbors regarding the placement of windows at the stairwell. The applicant’s response letter does not address modifications to these windows and no changes have been made from the previous plans reviewed by Planning Commission on January 22, 2025. Privacy To mitigate privacy between the adjacent properties at 172 and 178 Loma Alta Avenue, the applicant now proposes planting Italian cypress trees along the side property lines to provide privacy screening (Exhibit 25, Sheet A-1). The proposed trees are expected to be approximately eight to ten feet tall at the time of planting. Additionally, a new seven-foot tall fence l is proposed along the property line between the proposed residence and 178 Loma Alta Avenue. Height At the Planning Commission hearing of January 22, 2025, following discussion of the relationship of the height of the proposed residence to the neighboring residences as shown on the streetscapes included on Sheet A.1-1, the applicant agreed to reduce the overall height of the proposed residence by six inches. In their response letter, the applicant explains that the heights for 162 and 172 Loma Alta Avenue depicted in the original streetscape drawings were found to be inaccurate (Exhibit 21). The applicant indicates that the height of these residences were remeasured and the streetscapes updated to depict their accurate heights. The applicant notes that, given the more accurate depiction of building heights in the streetscapes, the six- inch height reduction is not warranted; however, the height of the proposed residence has been reduced from 26 feet, six inches relative to the sidewalk, to 26 feet. The maximum height of the residence when measured pursuant to Town Code was reduced from 29 feet, six inches to 29 feet (Exhibit 25, Sheet A-7). Page 18 PAGE 5 OF 8 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp PUBLIC COMMENTS: Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 7, 2025, are included in Exhibit 23. The applicant’s response to the public comments is included as Exhibit 24. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The applicant submitted a response letter summarizing the revisions to the project (Exhibit 21), additional neighborhood analysis (Exhibit 22), and revised development plans (Exhibit 25) in response to the Planning Commission’s direction provided at the January 22, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. B. Recommendation Should the Planning Commission determine that the revised project meets the direction provided by the Planning Commission and find merit with the proposed project, the Commission can take the actions below to approve the Architecture and Site application: 1. Make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Exhibit 2); 2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030 (e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2); 3. Make the findings as required by Section 29.40.075 (c) of the Town Code for granting approval of an exception to the FAR standards (Exhibit 2); 4. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.265 (3) of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements (Exhibit 2); 5. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the exception of the requests to exceed FAR standards, for reduced side yard setbacks for a single-family residence, and for reduced side and rear setbacks for an accessory structure (Exhibit 2); 6. Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2); 7. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and 8. Approve Architecture and Site application S-24-042 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 25. Page 19 PAGE 6 OF 8 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the application. EXHIBITS: Previously distributed with the January 22, 2025, Staff Report: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings and Considerations 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Letter of Justification 5. Colors and Materials 6. Town’s Consulting Architect 7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect 8. Survey with Setbacks of Adjacent Residences 9. Arborist Report by Bo Firestone & Gardens 10. Peer Review Letter by Town’s Consulting Arborist 11. Public Comments Received Prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 17, 2025 12. Property Owner’s Response to Public Comment 13. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach Summary 14. Architect’s Response to Public Comment 15. Development Plans Previously received with the January 22, 2025, Addendum Item Report: 16. Applicant’s Summary of Neighborhood Outreach and Response Letters 17. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 17, 2025 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 21, 2025 Previously received with the January 22, 2025, Desk Item Report: 18. Correspondence Provided by the Project Architect 19. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 21, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025 Received with this Staff Report: 20. January 22, 2025 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 21. Applicant’s Response Letter 22. Neighborhood Analysis Exhibit by Applicant Page 20 PAGE 7 OF 8 SUBJECT: 176 Loma Alta Avenue/S-24-042 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2835.tmp 23. Public Comments Received Between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 7, 2025 24. Applicant’s Response to Public Comments 25. Revised Development Plans Page 21 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 22 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 22, 2025 The Planning Commission of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on Wednesday, January 22, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 PM ROLL CALL Present: Chair Emily Thomas, Vice Chair Kendra Burch, Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett, Commissioner Susan Burnett, Commissioner Steve Raspe, Commissioner Rob Stump Absent: None. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS John Shepardson -With respect to parklets in Town, particularly on North Santa Cruz Avenue, I am concerned that so many cars go through there at well over 15 miles per hours and there are only green plastic barriers to protect people. My suggestion would be one or two steel barriers in front of the parklets. I would like to see more roundabouts in Town explored. I would also like to explore something other than plastic barriers to protect bike lanes. I’d like to see the Los Gatos High School track open more in the evenings or early morning for the community. I suggest paying the Town Council members significantly, at least $75K or more, because it is probably a full-time job and this salary would open the pool of talent that could serve on the Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.228 Bachman Avenue Request for Review Application PHST-24-017 APN 510-14-053 Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: James Wood Project Planner: Sean Mullin Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision determining that the residence remain a contributor to the Historic District for property located in the EXHIBIT 20Page 23 PAGE 2 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 Almond Grove Historic District zoned O:LHP. Exempt pursuant to CEQA Section 15061(b)(3). Sean Mullin, Planning Manager, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. James Wood, Applicant/Appellant -The decision of the HPC has put 228 Bachman at a dead end, and the Planning Commission’s decision tonight will either enshrine a blight on this community that may never be erased, or it will allow a practical, community-supported solution to this problem. I would like to introduce Marvin Bamberg who has done the historical analysis. Marvin Bamberg -Our report addressed the five elements necessary for this determination and found them to be not relevant to this house. The current designation of “contributing” is due to a 1990 historic survey that called the house, “Historic and some altered, but still a contributor to the district if there is one,” however, this survey is incorrect and did not advance beyond a few minutes of documenting the structure from the street. Our research has provided more information that confirms that the survey’s interpretation of the house being, “a potential contributing structure,” is incorrect. For a property to be a contributing structure it must be architecturally compatible and developed in the period of significance; our analysis of the building concludes it is incompatible with the architecture prevalent in the district and should be categorized as Minimalist Spanish Revival rather than Mediterranean. In January 2004, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee stated the house siding was probably originally wood and was replaced with stucco, which would not be allowed today. Terry McElroy -This house is an anomaly in this historic district. The house is not associated with any significant events contributing to the Town; no significant persons are associated with this site; there are no distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction; the structure does not yield information to the Town history; the integrity has been compromised with additions; and the original siding is gone. This property is ineligible for inclusion in the Town register or the Town heritage resource and is not a historical resource as defined by the Town Code. James Wood, Applicant/Appellant -Without a doubt this property is bringing down the property values of every other house in the neighborhood and is a commercial property that has been abandoned for 20 years. We bought the property with the intention of building a home we could live in. All the surrounding neighbors support this building being demolished and another being built to Page 24 PAGE 3 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 bring consistency in the neighborhood and to preserve the property values of the community. Closed Public Comment. Commissioners discussed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Barnett to grant an appeal of a Community Development Director Decision for 228 Bachman Avenue. Seconded by Vice Chair Burch. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 2.176 Loma Alta Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-24-042 APN 532-28-031 Applicant: Jay Plett Property Owner: The Thornberry 2021 Revocable Trust dated November 4, 2021, and the Donald S. Thornberry and Barbara J. Gardner Revocable Living Trust dated December 21, 2010. Project Planner: Maria Chavarin Consider a Request for Approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, construct a new single-family residence to exceed floor area ratio (FAR) standards with reduced side yard setbacks, construct an accessory structure with reduced side yard setbacks, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit on a nonconforming property zoned R-1:8. Categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Maria Chavarin, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. Jay Plett/Applicant -Sheet A-1.1 illustrates the house height is 26.5 feet from the street, not 30 feet, relative to the neighbors. The 3-foot setback is for a chimney. The house itself is a 5-foot setback, not 3 feet. The parcel is nonconforming in terms of area, width, and irregular shape. An arborist has looked at the trees and we dug a trench exposing redwood roots on the property. The trees were struggling due to drought, so we pushed the basement down the hill under the veranda as a precaution and that portion meets the definition of “below grade space.” If the basement were all the way under the house, it would not count in square footage and Page 25 PAGE 4 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 the mass, bulk, and appearance of the structure would not change. The staff report uses Town records, but not county records, which we believe should carry equal weight, because they can be more accurate in some instances. Ion Mutlu (phonetic) - I live at 177 Loma Alta Avenue, across from the subject site and fully support the applicants’ plans to build their new home. The design complements existing architecture in the neighborhood with a fresh and thoughtful vision. Loma Alta Avenue contains a variety of structures, and this house would be a great addition. The applicants have shared their plans and have been willing to compromise with their neighbors. The house size is comparable to others in the immediate neighborhood. This is also not the highest home in the neighborhood, because mine is higher. Alison Railo - I live next door at 178 Loma Alta. We support the staff’s conclusion that this building is far to large for the lot and agree with their recommendation to deny the application. With greater than typical height and substandard setbacks this building would significantly impact our privacy and sunlight and is not compatible with the neighborhood. The applicants did not offer any compromises or modifications. We request the side yard setbacks be increased, the total FAR be reduced, and second floor stepbacks be created to ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties. Tom Valencia - I am the partner to Kelly Garton at 172 Loma Alta. Our concerns are like the neighbors at 178 Loma Alta, that the height would cause the structure to shade our house for most of the day and many months of the year; and a lack of privacy in the upstairs bedroom and master bathroom because of the reduced setbacks. We understand things will change with new construction, but we want the changes made with the community in mind and our privacy preserved. Ron Eng - I live at 175 Loma Alta. We support the structure, but the setback is a concern. I echo the comments of the other speakers regarding floor area ratio and height. Setbacks are there for safety and privacy and reducing them would be ignoring the guidelines. I hope the applicants will address the privacy concerns with perhaps frosted glass or smaller windows, or skylights if lighting is an issue. Phil Couchee - I live at 16900 Cypress Way, about a quarter mile away. I support my neighbors and their concerns. The Planning Commission must listen to the neighbors most affected, and privacy must be considered. This is new construction that can be designed however the Planning Commission decides to make accommodations to the neighbors. I urge the Planning Commission to require the new construction to have larger setbacks. Page 26 PAGE 5 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 Paul Tuckfield - I live at 162 Loma Alta, two doors down from the subject site. I hope this project can be modified to get closer or even within the guidelines for FAR and setbacks, although it is a difficult lot to build on. I saw a front elevation rendering and I think it would be a pretty house with great curb appeal, but it will be a big house that may decrease the value of the homes next door. Julie Thomas - We have lived at 180 Loma Alta since 1998. Our main concern is the plans for the house do not meet the standard FAR guidelines; it is quite a bit larger, making the home incompatible with the neighborhood and the house sizes existing. Gina Tuckfield - I agree with the front setback of the proposed home, because all the houses face the front and are close to the sidewalk. The subject lot is small, and the way the applicants are trying to get wider setbacks is unfair to the neighbors. The applicants have stated that the setback between our house and the house on the side away from them is 3 feet, and it is 8 feet; they are using that as an excuse to have smaller setbacks, but it is not accurate. The house itself is cute, but it is a massive two-story home that does not mirror other houses in the vicinity with the second story being stepped back. Exceeding the maximum floor area ratio by 984 square feet is a lot. Matt Railo - I reside at 178 Loma Alta, next door to the subject site and the applicants compared their proposed home size to our house size. Our living area is not 1,300 square feet, it is 2,600 square feet, but our lot size is larger, so any suggestion that our FAR is comparable to what is proposed is inaccurate. The proposal is to build a larger house on a smaller lot, and that is the root of our concerns. Shade studies demonstrate a detrimental impact on both sides of the proposed home, especially later in the day, but the shade stops at 3:00 pm and should be extended to 5:00 pm to reflect the spring and summer months. Story poles could allow everyone to see how these proposed plans would impact them. We support staff’s conclusion to deny the project based on the house size. Jay Plett/Applicant - We are building on a difficult lot that is half the width of the 162 Loma Alta lot. The setbacks we propose are much more compliant with required setbacks than most of the houses in the immediate neighborhood. All the neighbors look at each other’s homes and the applicants want privacy as much as their neighbors. There will be window coverings on the upstairs windows, but they could be frosted if the Planning Commission deems it necessary. The issue that is pushing the house so far over the FAR is the fact that a portion of the basement that meets the rules for a basement happens to be under the porched veranda and not under the house due to the neighboring trees. The applicants have Page 27 PAGE 6 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 worked with the 172 Loma Alta neighbors and agreed to eliminate an upstairs window that looks into their bedroom, our arborist would be onsite when installing the foundation, and the foundation would be hand dug next to their tree. All the homes cast shadows on other homes in the neighborhood. Many houses in the neighborhood also have a full two-story façade with a tall gable, so the proposed home would not be the only one. Additionally, our home is broken up with the front porch. The Town’s consulting architect Larry Cannon found our design perfectly acceptable for the neighborhood and had no qualms about the height. Mr. Cannon’s only suggestion was to move the porch back, which we did, and we dealt with his issue with the column on the back veranda. Mr. Cannon was in favor of this project. Closed Public Comment. Commissioners discussed the matter. Commissioners asked a question of the applicant. Commissioners discussed the matter. MOTION: Motion by Vice Chair Burch to continue the public hearing for 176 Loma Alta Avenue to a date certain of March 12, 2025. Seconded by Commissioner Raspe. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. 3. 220 Belgatos Road Subdivision Application M-24-011 APN 527-25-005 Applicant: Robson Homes, LLC. Appellant: Mary Cangemi Property Owner: Union School District Project Planner: Jocelyn Shoopman Consider an Appeal of a Development Review Committee decision approving a subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:10. Categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions. Jocelyn Shoopman, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Opened Public Comment. Page 28 PAGE 7 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 John Shepardson, Appellant - I am an attorney representing property owner Mary Cangemi. This slide shows the Government Code section that says the zoning and General Plan must be consistent. This slide shows the old Mirassou Elementary School site designated as public land by the General Plan, and this slide shows the same site designated by zoning as residential. The law says they must be consistent, but they are not in that school or any school in Los Gatos. The law also says when there is a conflict the General Plan takes precedence over the zoning, so we’re doing a lot split on a property that has zoning that is trumped by the General Plan. The zoning there does not apply to this decision making and the lot split itself violates the General Plan, because it is a public space and our General Plan promotes acquiring and developing more publicly accessible recreational spaces. It is in the General Plan to promote and purchase these kinds of lands, and this project would destroy it, because it would split this school for the clear intent to develop homes by taking away the recreational area. This lot split itself violates the General Plan, and that is a serious problem here and throughout the Town. Jack Robson, Applicant - The purpose of our application was to do a two-lot subdivision; there is no proposed development, construction, or change in use. The property would remain the same besides it being two lots instead of one. Town staff has confirmed we met all the requirements to create that lot. With respect to the Appellant’s comments related to a change of use or the General Plan conformance, we are not trying to modify any of that in this application. Because there is no proposed development or construction in this project, we feel the requirements related to asphalt repair and replacement and sidewalk repair and replacement on Belgatos Road and Belvue Drive do not belong in this application, because we are simply creating a legal lot split; those conditions of approval should be addressed later when we make an Architecture and Site application. We agree to the repairs and restoration of the sidewalk on Belgatos Road subject to us pulling a Building Permit, but once again, a Building Permit is subject to an application being approved. We’re just trying to recognize that the staff’s concern is related to improvements happening on both parcels, although a future application may be on one of them. Related to asphalt repairs, the language would be for us to come to an agreement prior to pulling a final Parcel Map. We recognize the need to extend the sidewalk along Belvue Drive, and we are okay with that extension and we would address it when or if an application for development is approved. Rich Dobner - I’ve lived in the Belwood neighborhood for 22 years. We have formed a group called the Preserve Belwood Neighborhood Association and have had people such as the school board and the Robson team to talk at community meetings. We have shared our input with the school regarding the possible development if the property is sold. So far everything is fine and we have no consternation around a split property. Page 29 PAGE 8 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 Steve Daniel - I have lived at 235 Belgatos for twenty years. I was on the original Preserve Belwood Committee with Mr. Dobner and tried to help the process of putting the project together and how it fit into the neighborhood. We support the project, but the latest design, while vastly improved, feels like a direct hit to us. The private road that comes off onto Belgatos will bisect our property and be directly across the street from our house. We are concerned about lights coming into our living room and master bedroom, a significant increase in street lighting, and traffic entering and exiting that driveway and parked in the road during construction. We are the most impacted of all the houses in the neighborhood. We are working with Jack Robson to find ways to lessen the impact on our house, and he has committed to working with his engineering team to look at alternatives. Jack Robson, Applicant - I just want to reiterate that this is a two-lot subdivision. There is no proposed change of use. There is no development in front of the Planning Commission. That time will come when we make a formal application, and we look forward to addressing the community and staff concerns at that time. We are active with neighborhood outreach and will remain committed to that. I would like to recognize a letter from the school district that reiterates what I am telling you, that the application being appealed is for a two-lot subdivision with no proposed change of use. John Shepardson, Appellant - These are also grass fields; there’s an issue with turf and AstroTurf. Secondly, the Union School District avoided the Naylor Act with the property exchange. My goal would be to have them comply with the Naylor Act and offer that land to the Town at no more than 25% of the fair market value, so the Town could buy the land and ultimately the school and perhaps have a community center. The very fact that we’re having a lot split on zoning that is inapplicable because it is inconsistent with the General Plan, so we just have the General Plan, and now why are we doing a lot split on public land? It is being brought by the developer with the clear intent to develop it out. I’m not sure if the lot split is even legal, because you’re doing a subdivision on zoning that is trumped by the General Plan, but you are doing a lot split on public land, and so it violates the General Plan that talks about acquiring recreational areas and it is undisputed that we would lose these fields forever. We are talking about sidewalks and already moving in a direction of developing out that lot at this stage, so it violates the General Plan. Where does the General Plan support a lot split on public land? This is a larger issue in Town, because all the schools are zoned residential and that must be cleaned up. Closed Public Comment. Commissioners discussed the matter. Page 30 PAGE 9 OF 9 MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF JANUARY 22, 2025 MOTION: Motion by Commissioner Raspe to continue the public hearing for 220 Belgatos Avenue to a date certain of February 12, 2025. Seconded by Commissioner Barnett. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. REPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development •Town Council met on January 21, 2025 and considered three items: o Adoption of a resolution for the National Avenue appeal of a Planning Commission decision. The item will come back to the Planning Commission. o Two Housing Element implementation programs were adopted and/or introduced. o The Oak Meadow PD amendment, an Architecture and Site, and Subdivision application that the Planning Commission saw previously was approved. SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COMMISSION MATTERS Historic Preservation Committee Commissioner Burnett -The HPC met on January 22, 2025: o Considered two items, both of which were decided unanimously. o Lee Quintana was elected as the new Chair of the HPC. Martha Queiroz was elected Vice Chair. Alan Feinberg is the new member, and Planning Commission Chair Emily Thomas is the new Commission member. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:23 p.m. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the January 22, 2025 meeting as approved by the Planning Commission. _____________________________ /s/ Vicki Blandin Page 31 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 32 Thornberry 176 Loma alta avenue LOS GATOS, CA 95030 REVISIONS TO PLANS PER PLANNING COMMISSION: 1.THE NOOK HAS BEEN MOVED AWAY FROM 178 BY 1'-0", GIVING THE STRUCTURE A 5'-0” SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE NOOK HAS ALSO BEEN MOVED 1'-0" BACK, INCREASING THE REAR YARD SETBACK. 2.THIS HAS RESULTED IN A SMALLER NOOK SPACE, REDUCING THE FLOOR AREA BY 23sf. 3.THE CHIMNEY HAS BEEN MOVED AWAY FROM 172 BY 6” AND ITS WIDTH REDUCED. THIS SMALL PORTION COMPRISES ONLY 10% OR LESS OF THE ENTIRE WALL LENGTH ADJACENT TO 172. WE BELIEVE THIS chimney SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT AND BE ENTIRELY EXCLUDED FROM THE SETBACK MEASUREMENT. if the commission believes the chimney should be eliminated, we will do so. 4.MEASUREMENTS OF THE NEIGHBORING BUIDING HEIGHTS WERE CHECKED FOR ACCURACY. 172 AND 162 WERE FOUND TO ACTUALLY BE HIGHER THAN THE ORIGINAL DEPICTION. THE STREETSCAPE HAS BEEN REVISED ACCORDINGLY. WE HAVE OFFERED TO REDUCE THE HOMES HEIGHT BY 6”, BUT IN LIGHT OF THE NEW FINDINGS, WE BELIEVE A 6” REDUCTION IS NOT Warranted. 5.WE HAVE PROPOSED PRIVACY LANDSCAPE SCREENING AND APPRORIATE FENCING BETWEEN BOTH 172 AND 178 TO MITIGATE ANY PRIVACY CONCERNS. this solution has been utilized successfully numerous time by the planning commission and or staff on prior projects. 6.neighbor outreach was conducted between the parties - see thornberry (176) response. EXHIBIT 21Page 33 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 40 Page 41 Page 42 Page 43 Page 44 176 Loma Alta | Appendix Neighborhood Data Address Lot Information Floor-Area Ratio Residential Setback Height Type Conforming Frontage (ft)Residential SF Lot SF Allowable FAR Residential FAR Delta to Allowable FAR Delta to Allowable SF Left Right Average Conforming Street Natural Grade 156 Loma Alta R-1:10 Yes 100 3,510.0 14,000.0 0.280 0.251 -0.029 -410 9.0 18.0 13.5 No 26.5 28.7 116 Alta Heights R-1:8 No n/a 1,933.0 6,620.0 0.340 0.292 -0.048 -318 n/a 5.0 5.0 No 24.7 24.7 161 Loma Alta R-1:8 Yes 65.03 2,631.4 8,712.0 0.320 0.302 -0.018 -156 12.0 11.0 11.5 Yes 27.8 29.0 162 Loma Alta R-1:8 Yes 62 2,652.0 8,680.0 0.320 0.306 -0.014 -126 14.0 8.0 11.0 Yes 30.0 32.3 172 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,532.0 7,039.0 0.330 0.360 0.030 209 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 24.0 28.0 175 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 55.6 2,357.0 5,560.0 0.350 0.424 0.074 411 11.0 n/a 11.0 Yes 25.9 28.0 177 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 51.09 3,018.0 6,640.0 0.340 0.455 0.115 760 10.0 4.0 7.0 No 28.5 28.5 178 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 3,260.8 8,033.0 0.330 0.406 0.076 610 4.5 4.8 4.6 No 22.5 28.0 179 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,919.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.389 0.059 444 3.2 16.0 9.6 No 26.0 26.0 180 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,605.0 7,962.0 0.330 0.327 -0.003 -22 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 25.5 30.0 185 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 1,206.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.161 -0.169 -1,269 6.0 9.0 7.5 No 13.5 13.5 187 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 2,372.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.316 -0.014 -103 7.0 6.5 6.8 No 29.5 27.6 188 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 44.95 3,229.3 7,081.0 0.330 0.456 0.126 893 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 29.4 29.4 190 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 44.95 2,991.0 7,041.0 0.330 0.425 0.095 667 8.3 8.7 8.5 Yes 23.5 23.5 191 Loma Alta R-1:8 No 50 1,989.0 7,500.0 0.330 0.265 -0.065 -486 10.0 10.5 10.3 Yes 32.0 25.1 176 Loma Alta (E)R-1:8 No 38 996.0 7,440.0 0.330 0.134 -0.196 -1,459 8.0 5.0 6.5 No 14.0 15.0 176 Loma Alta (P)R-1:8 No 38 2,874.0 7,440.0 0.330 0.386 0.056 419 5.0 5.0 5.0 No 26.0 29.5 Priority Data Key 1 Santa Clara County Assessor’s Map 1 Public Construction Documents 2 Licensed Surveyor 3 Hand Measure (see detail next slide) 4 Los Gatos ArcGIS website Page 45 Page 46 From:Lea Zhu To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Lola Alta Support Letter Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 1:39:32 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Lea Zhu, and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuableaddition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance theneighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. Byapproving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. EXHIBIT 23 Page 47 From:ying liang To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 12:02:40 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Ying, and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Ying Page 48 From:Ray Clayton To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta support letter Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 4:04:33 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] My wife and I live at . and we have reviewed the plans for this project. We feel that this proposal would benefit Los Gatos because it is a classical Victorian style, whichbest represents the history of our town's development in the late 1800s - early 1900s. So few new examples of this architecture are being built in our town, and it is refreshing to see ayoung couple admire this style. I see very modern architecture creeping into town and altering the "old town feel." We understand that some neighbors are complaining about the size, where their own homesloom over this one. We think this represents a NIMBY slant. If you look at 15 Loma Alta, which was approved by the town, I can't see any reason to deny the plans of 176 Loma Alta. Thank you,Ray & Robin Clayton Page 49 From:Qian Zheng To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta support letter Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 11:55:05 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Qian Zheng and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the LosGatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal andcontribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all theresidents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Qian Page 50 From:lisa xiong To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 12:40:30 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Committee, My name is Lisa and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Regards, Lisa Sent from my iPhone Page 51 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 11:29 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15621 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Jasmine Last Name Ting Email Address (Required) Phone Number Field not completed. Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 Loma Alta Ave, Los Gatos Message (Required) I'd like to express my support for the 176 Loma Alta proposed design. I am a Monte Sereno resident and have been to that area frequently. The Loma Alta neighborhood is transitioning, with a mixed of old and new properties. The new design will not only add value to the surrounding area, but also keep the old town's charm. The current owners gave considerations to the harmony of the neighborhood appeal and safety of the street. I urge the city to approve the proposed design. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 52 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 11:42 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15622 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Wei Last Name Tan Email Address (Required) t Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 Loma Alta Message (Required) Dear Committee, My name is Wei Tan, and I live in . I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 53 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, February 28, 2025 1:23 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15625 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Lulu Last Name Sterling Email Address (Required) Phone Number Field not completed. Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 loma alta Message (Required) Dear Committee, My name is Lulu Sterling and I live on I have reviewed the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta and believe it would be a valuable addition to the Los Gatos neighborhood. The design is harmonious with the surrounding architecture, size, and other relevant characteristics. This victorian house would enhance the neighborhood’s aesthetic appeal and contribute to its overall charm. I urge the city to consider the design favorably and grant the necessary exceptions that other residents already enjoy. By approving the design as it is, the city is giving justice to all the residents and ensure that the neighborhood remains a desirable place to live. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 54 From:Yu Chen To:Maria Chavarin Subject:PETITION IN SUPPORT OF 176 LOMA ALTA DEVELOPMENT from yu chen Date:Friday, February 28, 2025 4:51:07 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Maria, Please use the updated letter below. To the Los Gatos Planning Committee and Town Officials, My name is Yu Chen, and I reside at . I am writing toexpress my strong support for the proposed development at 176 Loma Alta and to urge theTown to approve this project in a fair and equitable manner. The proposed design aligns with the character of the neighborhood, where many homes havealready been granted similar Exceptions. The homeowners of 176 Loma Alta have madeevery effort to ensure that their design integrates harmoniously with the existing communitywhile also complying with reasonable development guidelines. However, despite these efforts,the project has faced organized opposition, seemingly aimed at blocking a fair and lawfulprocess. It is deeply concerning that a standard that has been applied favorably to others is nowbeing denied in this case. When certain homeowners in the neighborhood benefit fromapprovals while others—especially minorities—face undue obstacles, it raises seriousquestions about fairness, consistency, and equal treatment to any new comer in theneighborhood. Los Gatos should be a community that upholds fairness and inclusivity,rather than one where certain individuals attempt to impose arbitrary barriers todevelopment based on personal bias. Furthermore, the "Not In My Backyard" (NIMBY) mentality should have no place in LosGatos. Cities grow, evolve, and thrive when fair and reasonable development is encouraged.Homeowners who follow due process and comply with town regulations should not beunfairly denied the same opportunities that others have already received. Selective oppositionto projects that are consistent with existing neighborhood structures only serves toexclude and divide, rather than strengthen our community. If the Town and certain neighbors continue to obstruct the rightful development of thisproperty, the homeowner reserves the right to explore alternative legal development options,including splitting the lot and building two rental townhouses. I strongly believe that none ofthe opposing neighbors would prefer this outcome, as it would bring significant changes to theneighborhood that they themselves are trying to avoid. It is in everyone’s best interest to allowa reasonable, well-designed, and community-conscious project to proceed rather than force analternative that may be less desirable for all parties involved. I urge the Planning Committee to: 1. Ensure zoning laws are applied fairly and consistently – If other similar projectshave been approved in the neighborhood, this one should receive the same Page 55 consideration.2. Recognize the value this project brings to the community – The design enhances the neighborhood’s character, increases property values, and reflects responsiblehomeownership. 3. Reject exclusionary or unfair opposition – No resident should be unfairly targetedor disadvantaged in the planning process due to their background, less roots in a certain neighborhood or the preferences of a select few. By approving this project, the Town will affirm its commitment to fairness, inclusivity, andequal treatment for all residents of Los Gatos. The future of our town should not bedictated by those who seek to maintain exclusivity at the expense of others. I respectfully request that the Planning Committee approve the 176 Loma Alta proposal andensure that all residents—regardless of background or how much tie they have in the neighborhood—are treated justly in the planning process. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,Yu Chen Page 56 From:Rui Shen To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta support letter Date:Monday, March 3, 2025 12:52:24 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Maria, My name is Rui Shen, and I reside at After reviewing the proposed design for 176 Loma Alta, I wanted to express my support forthe project. The design is not only visually appealing but also speaks to the owners' clear intent to create adream home, one that will be a beautiful addition to our town. It’s evident that a lot of care,thought, and love have been put into every detail, showcasing their desire to build a placewhere they can live and thrive as part of the Los Gatos community. This home reflects a vision of a meaningful life in our town, and I believe it will not onlyenhance the neighborhood’s charm but also contribute to the overall spirit of the community.The owners’ commitment to creating a home that reflects their dreams and values willundoubtedly add warmth and character to Los Gatos. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Rui Page 57 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Monday, March 3, 2025 4:07 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15636 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Paul Last Name Tuckfield Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 162 Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) I live at , which is two doors down from the proposed construction at 176 loma alta. I wanted to ask a few questions about whether new plans that were supposed to address immediate neighbors' concerns actually address them. As I recall from the town meeting I attended, the council listed 3-4 specific concerns to be addressed. One was that the original plans exceed FAR limits prett aggressively. I notice the basement is now intended to be an ADU, and is now under a covered porch, and wondered if that was to technically address some concerns. My questions are: * What is the computed FAR ratio for the original plans and for the new revised plans? * does the basement square footage in the original plan or the new plan contribute to floor square footage in the FAR calculations? Page 58 * and if so did that status change in any way with the new plans? I realize I may be misunderstanding both the drawings themselves, and/or the building codes, but it seems like they aren't complyng and dont intend to comply. So thank you for any clarification you can make about the above questions. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 59 From:Faye C. Ye To:Maria Chavarin Subject:Support for the Proposed Design at 176 Loma Alta Date:Tuesday, March 4, 2025 8:39:59 PM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Good evening Maria, My name is Faye, and I live in . While I’m not an immediateneighbor of 176 Loma Alta, I have reviewed the proposed design and wanted to share mysupport as a fellow resident who cares about our community’s character. I believe the design is tasteful and fits well with the surrounding architecture in terms of style,size, and character. The Victorian house would add to the charm of the neighborhood andenhance its overall appeal. I kindly ask the town to reconsider the design and grant the necessary exceptions, as has beendone for other residents. This would reflect a fair approach for everyone in our community. Ilove our town and only wish to see it become an even better place to live. Thank you very much for considering my prospective. Best, Faye Page 60 Dear Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission, As noted in our prior le;er, my husband Ma; and I, along with our two children, have lived in the historic home at for 11 years. We want to thank the Planning Commission and Town Staff for all your work on this process so far, and respecJully submit that the applicants’ latest proposal should be denied like their first, and this Mme without further adjournment. Given the applicants’ failure to make material changes to their plans, all the comments in our previously submi;ed le;er sMll apply. In addiMon, we note the following: FAR: The applicants have completely disregarded the direcMon of the Planning Commission, parMcularly related to the proposed FAR. At the last hearing, the Planning Commission was in agreement that the proposed FAR was too high, and exceeded by too much the FAR allowed by the Town code, parMcularly in the context of our neighborhood. Comments made by three different Commission members, with concurrence from the Commission as a whole, idenMfied the FAR as a problem that needed to be addressed: "This house does not work on this lot"; "Too big of a house, too small of a lot”; and "I can't make the necessary findings to support the applicaMon.” In summarizing the Planning Commission's discussion, the Commission Chair stated: "The biggest problem we've seen from the community members, the Planning Commission, with regards to being able to make the findings, is exceeding the FAR.” Despite this crystal clear direcMon, the applicants have proposed minimal changes to the plan. The only reducMon to FAR is a 23 SF reducMon by reducing the 'nook' dimension by one foot. This is less than a 1% reducMon of the above-ground floor area. This simply cannot be what the Commission had in mind in granMng applicants another chance. In terms of their ability to reduce the excessive above-ground FAR (and alleviate impact on our neighboring property), one addiMonal thing to note is that, contrary to their architect’s asserMon at the last hearing, a second-floor step back would be enMrely consistent with Italianate style, as can be seen on NaMonal Historic Register examples of Italianate residences: h;ps://savingplaces.org/stories/what-is- italianate-architecture and h;ps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphus_W._Brower_House. Applicants could have done so (in an effort to comply with Town rule 3.3.2 regarding height and bulk at front and side setbacks), but simply have chosen not to. Privacy and Setbacks: The applicants have similarly disregarded the Commission's direcMon regarding setbacks and privacy impacts. The Commission members stated that privacy concerns could and should be miMgated. Specific direcMon provided by the Commission to the applicants included increasing the side setback (kitchen nook and dining room bump-out), removing the chimney, improving privacy by using clerestory windows in the bathroom and frosted windows in the kids’ bedrooms, and to work with the neighbors on the placement of the window in the stairway so that it would not be looking into someone else's restroom. The applicants have ignored the Commission's direcMon regarding privacy and setbacks apart from the one-foot move of the ‘nook’ and a statement that they would remove the chimney if directed by the Planning Commission. The revised plans do not include modificaMon to the windows. The applicants did not work with the neighbors on the placement of the stairway window. Page 61 The proposed use of fence and landscaping to address privacy is inadequate. A fence will be too low to screen the view from the new 2nd floor windows into our house. New landscaping, if viable, would take many years to provide any screening, and given the small side yard setback area, is likely not viable. Excessive Height / Drainage: The applicants also have ignored the Planning Commission's comment on the need to address the slope (elevaMon difference) between lots when considering building height. Because of differences in elevaMon, the proposed height will have an even greater impact on the neighboring homes. This has not been evaluated or addressed. As can be seen in the two a;ached photos, our street and the lots around applicants’ property are not flat and do not go downhill in a linear way; to the contrary, some “downhill” lots actually are higher than ostensibly “uphill” ones. Given the excepMons being sought by the applicants, and especially taking these complicaMng factors into account, any further proposals should be required to use story poles so that everyone (including the Commission members) can properly see what the actual impact of the proposed structure would be. This same issue also again raises our previously expressed concern around drainage. Applicants’ architect a;empted to casually dismiss this point at the last hearing by claiming that water does not run uphill, but (even assuming the validity of that unscienMfic asserMon) as the photos show, the direcMon of elevaMon is not so simple on our street. The applicants’ massive basement structure conMnues to pose a threat of water intrusion to our property, which is not addressed by their so far vague drainage plans. Discussions with Neighbors: At the last hearing, the Commission quite explicitly suggested to the applicants that they should listen to their many neighbors who had spoken at the hearing. Despite this, the applicants never reached out to us to discuss the project following the hearing. We actually reached out to them in an a;empt to iniMate a dialogue, and had one meeMng. However, disappoinMngly, we then heard nothing back ager that meeMng, and in fact applicants simply filed their revised proposal without ever discussing it with us. Ager we again reached out to them, we had a final meeMng, in which the applicants merely confirmed they would not make any further changes to their current submission. In other words, they made no a;empt to compromise, accepted no feedback from neighbors (or indeed the Commission), and only even met with us when we requested to do so. As we previously stated, we support the applicants’ ability to build a new house on the site, but it should be designed to be consistent with the Town's design standards and to minimize impacts on the neighboring properMes. However, as designed (and as was the case with the prior plan already denied by the Commission), with greatly excessive FAR, greater than typical height, and substandard side setbacks, the property will significantly impact our privacy and sunlight. The applicant (as stated by Staff) is proposing the largest house on one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood with a FAR much higher than either the Town's standard or other houses. This disproporMonately large house directly causes negaMve impacts to us as the neighbor. The Town Code states that an excepMon, like the one requested here, may only be granted if the proposed project is compaMble with the adjacent home. This project would not be compaMble because of the impact it would cause to our home. Nothing in the applicants’ minimally altered plans changes this conclusion. Page 62 RespecJully, Ma; and Allison Railo Page 63 From:Margo Zhao To:Maria Chavarin Subject:176 Loma Alta Support Letter Date:Wednesday, March 5, 2025 10:20:28 AM [EXTERNAL SENDER] Dear Maria, My name is Margo, and I live in . My friend showed me the design of 176 Loma Alta and I think it is a good fit to the existing community. Hope thecommittee can consider the design favorably. Thank you! Margo Page 64 Page 65 We ask you to listen to the neighbors and do what is right for the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and dedication to the Town. As a past LGUSD Board Member I know making decisions that affect the public can be challenging. Kim and Phil Couchee Page 66 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 12:30 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15644 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Paul Last Name Tuckfield Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 162 Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) I don’t understand why it still is intentionally 420 sq ft above FAR limits. It’s nearly four thousand square feet of living space, and the restrictions on square footage have been in place since long before this lot was bought. the latest iteration of the design is essentially the same as the plans shown to me several months ago. Honestly, i would have recommended to the Thornberrys to just comply with the code if i had realized the plans did not comply from the start. I did pass on this recommendation later in the town council meeting though, and they’ve had a chance to fix that since.   I hope they take the opportunity to show good faith towards the neighbors in to reduce above ground mass, and just comply with the FAR limit law.    Page 67 I think the FAR limit was specifically created to head off confrontational and risky plans from being submitted in the first place, to the benefit of all folks involved. I built a house 20 years ago, complied with the FAR law from the start, and have been happy ever since. I hope its not to late for the Thornberrys. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 68 Page 69 2 of 15 pages Setbacks of my home from approved plans; the setbacks of my home continue to be misrepresented on the proposed plans for 176 and therefore should not be used for justification of further reduced setbacks (of any kind): Roof height: Given that story poles were not required for this project, I made a request (also documented in email correspondence at the end of this letter) to clarify how much taller the proposed home would be relative to my home. For example, if I am looking up from my bathroom window, how much higher will the roof line be from my perspective? I did not receive a clarification. Instead, I was continued to be given the height relative to the sidewalk. The sidewalk is gradually sloped between the 2 properties and therefore does not provide an accurate depiction. The sidewalk at the front of my home slopes down approximately 6 inches to a 1 foot across the front of from left to right. With the height of the proposed structure having the maximum height of 30 feet, there is significant concern of the impact on the immediate neighbors regardless of the height shown in the streetscape measured from the sidewalk. Due to the height and mass of the home, the proposed structure would significantly shade my home and property throughout the calendar year, specifically the only 2 windows on the 2nd level (shadow study below with the 2 windows marked by orange boxes). An offer of lowering the height by 6 inches (a reduction of 1.67% of the total height) is clearly not a meaningful change and again as stated in the response letter, 176 does not feel that they should make any height adjustments. The response letter depicts that the height of my home is a "new finding”. Clearly the height of a home completed in 1993 is not new. I shared with the homeowner of 176 that the height of my home is 24 feet during one of the follow-up meetings. In addition to the setbacks of my home, the height was also misrepresented on the original plans. Page 70 Page 71 4 of 15 pages (purple Victorian on the right) is located on a downward slope and is not a relevant height comparison for the proposed home at 176 given the different grade of the lot, location of the home on the lot, separating driveway, and the style/pitch of the roof of ; my home is depicted on the left (gray Traditional/Craftsman): Windows: As documented in the email correspondence provided at the end of this letter, it was stated that a window study would be conducted to better understand how window placement at 176 would affect my home. A window study was not completed and therefore was not shared. My home was built with only 2 windows on the first floor and 2 windows on the second floor facing 176. The windows were placed to purposefully be off-set to the existing windows of 176. From the limited information and estimated placement of the windows, it appears all 4 windows of my home facing 176 will be impacted. On the first floor it impacts privacy into the main living room and kitchen. On the second floor it impacts the windows leading to the master bathroom and master bedroom. The new plan does not denote frosted or obscured glass. Additionally, since the windows of concern for 176 are in the stairwell, it is a high traffic area where there will be light understandably needed during the late evening and early morning. This light will filter directly into our bathroom and bedroom. As it stands, the proposed home at 176 has at least 6 windows in the stairwell alone. Given the height of the proposed structure and proximity of the home this is of significant concern. I would also like to clarify a statement made by the architect at the prior meeting held on 22-Jan-2025 — at no point in time since the original proposed plans for 176 were shared was a window removed or moved on the side facing my home. Th urrent proposed plans have a total of 8 windows facing my home and 12 windows facing . Page 72 5 of 15 pages The revised plan proposes 7-foot-tall landscaping as a method to ensure privacy. I would like to note that there previously were several established trees and vegetation along the property line and on the property of 176 that were removed before this project began. In fact, in August 2023, 176 was at risk of losing their fire insurance coverage. At the time the owners at 176 were out of town - my father, previous owner of my home, ensured the tree work was completed and provided pictures so that they could submit to their insurance company to avoid cancellation. In particular, small trees on the property line between my home and 176 were topped and are now stunted to the height of low bushes providing no privacy. As stated by the fire department in their assessment letter (Exhibit A-1) and top of mind for Los Gatos residents, 176, my home and other neighboring homes are considered to be in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Adding any significant landscaping that would provide adequate privacy given the close proximity of the homes is not an adequate nor safe measure given the increasing concern of fire. Email on 25-Jan-2025 from 176 stating a window study would be conducted; the study was never done: Page 73 FAR: The revised submitted plans from 19-Feb-2025 and 26-Feb-2025 do not clearly list the new FAR. From the information summarized in Exhibit A-1, 176 is requesting a total of 1,581 square feet (SF) (below grade) of the proposed home to be exempt and therefore not considered in the FAR. The intent of below grade/footprint of the main house FAR exemption was to allow for a decrease in mass of the above grade structure. However, the only change made since 22-Jan-2025 that would impact the above grade square footage and therefore the FAR is the removal of 23 square feet (the size of a modest closet) from the first floor. Furthermore, there is a minor expansion of the basement and a relabeling of a prior movie theater/game room to an ADU. To fit the definition of an ADU, a second small bathroom was added to the basement and the previously labeled bar is now a kitchenette. Clearly these additions and label changes do not address the concern of above ground mass brought up by the commissioners and neighbors. Despite the below grade basement not factoring into the FAR, it is important to note that the new FAR of 0.39 is still 420 SF over the allowed FAR of 0.33. Furthermore, the proposed finished livable space of the proposed construction on this 7,435 SF lot is 2,874 (main residence including 1st and 2nd floor), 1,581 SF (FAR exempt basement space which includes a guest room and an ADU) and detached garage of 528.5 SF for a total of 4,983.5 SF of finished structure. In response to the concern of above grade FAR, 176 has responded by not sufficiently decreasing the above grade massing square footage (only by 23 SF) and repurposing the basement to fit within an ADU guideline. My partner and I have remained open to meeting with 176 and the week following the 22- Jan-2025 town meeting we met in-person with 176 on 2 occasions for a total of about 3 hours. After the first meeting, there were listed actions and agreements: (1) window study to address privacy concerns (2) clarity on height of proposed home compared to my home (3) location of drain (full email correspondence is located at the end of this letter and screenshots have been provided in the above section for reference). Since those in-person meetings, 176 did not reach out or follow up on any of the requests. Then a month later, 24-Feb-2025, I refreshed the planning site and saw the resubmitted revised plans for the first time. As summarized and detailed above, none of the concerns were adequately addressed. I followed up with 176 for updates on reports set as action items and was provided no information other than pointed to the already submitted and posted (unshared) plans on the town planning site. There were options on how to navigate neighbor concerns. 176 made the deliberate choice to stop communication, not share, and minimize or ignore concerns clearly stated on several occasions by myself, fellow neighbors and commissioners. In no way were the concerns or questions brought up to 176 inhibiting the construction of a single-family home; there were multiple opportunities to discuss and align on compromises on both sides. 176 made the choice to minimize and, in many instances, dismissed their proposed plan’s impacts on others. A choice was made to disregard reasonable requests. Again, the owners of 176 did not share any proposed drawings or alternate plans before revised plans were resubmitted beginning with the plans dated 19-Feb-2025. Given that none of these plans were shared with us, we did not align nor agree to any of the proposed changes. The revised plan continues to minimize and, in many cases, ignore our remaining concerns that have repeatedly been shared with 176 on several occasions. Instead, as clearly expressed in the owners of 176 response letter, any opportunity for meaningful adjustments have been dismissed. Rules established by the planning commission (setbacks, height, FAR, neighborhood compatibility, etc.) are established to preserve privacy and address safety. Especially given changing state laws, there is a responsibility to not propagate or push the limits of any perceived loopholes, exceptions and maximums in this town. In particular, much of the justification of this proposed home is based on prior homes depicted as exceptions to the rule and, in many cases, inaccurately represented by county/town records. How far will the limits and exceptions keep on being pushed for new construction? It is important to recognize that any approved project could be precedent setting and be used to have a large and lasting impact on existing established neighborhoods. 6 of 15 pages Page 74 Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] 7 of 15 pages [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback 13 messages Blake Thornberry o homas Valencia Kelly Garton Cc Penguin Hi om & Kelly appreciate you both or taking the time to talk today and providing more eedback on our project Kelly Garton Here are some actions or us to take Conduct a window study to see the relative location o our side-acing windows to understand whether they are located directly across rom each other they are located directly across rom maintaining light intake (examples below) Study whether the height o the house can be reduced any to mitigate shadow concerns Mark the location o the storm drain on our side yard n addition we agreed to the removal o the chimney he proposed structure will now match the existing structure s 5 t setbacks m also going to note in this thread that we ve previously agreed to have an arborist onsite during the excavation o the oundation near the Chinese Elm tree to minimize impact Please let me know i missed anything hanks again or the time and eedback https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=a…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 1 of 9 Page 75 Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 2 of 9 8 of 15 pages Page 76 Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 3 of 9 9 of 15 pages Page 77 Gmail - [176 Loma Alta] Neighbor Feedback 10 of 15 pages Blake Kelly Garton Mon Jan 27 2025 at 10 09 PM o Blake hornberry Cc homas Valencia Penguin Hi Blake hank you or your time on Saturday - greatly appreciated Also thanks or providing a summary o the main points brought up during this recent discussion A ew additional details below Conduct a window study to see the relative location o our side-acing windows to understand whether they are located directly across rom each other they are located directly across rom each other we can discuss whether it s easible to move the our windows to better o set them not possible we ve previously agreed to install translucent/stained window elements to avoid direct line-o -sight while still maintaining light intake (examples below) Another option that was brought up was to alter the size or height o the windows acing With a window study it will be help ul to better understand how to preserve privacy on both sides Study whether the height o the house can be reduced any to mitigate shadow concerns he di erence in height o our 2 story home (with basement) compared to the proposed structure as discussed is a concern here is a substantial di erence in the height o our home relative to the proposed structure Per our architectural plans the maximum height o is 24' (does not include chimney) and the maximum height o proposed 176 is 30' (not including the decorative widows peak) here ore the maximum height di erence is ~6' he approximate 6' di erence does not account or the downhill grade rom 176 to which would naturally add additional height to the proposed 176 structure Although recognized that the homes across the street are typically taller it is important to note the lot di erences these homes back up to a hillside and the topography slopes down to the street Our concerns pertain to the di erences in height o the new proposed structure compared to the immediate neighboring homes and 178) particularly given the minimum 5' set backs o both and the proposed home at 176 he relative scale o height di erences is shown in the attachment rom the report provided by Cannon Design Group ( is depicted on the right) would like to point out that the request is not to match the height o he request is or reasonable consideration o reducing the overall height in relation to the neighboring structures and there ore minimizing the shading impacts on Mark the location o the storm drain on our side yard We do not have any immediate objections to the proposed drainage on the side yard However we would like to better understand how the side French drain will be shi ted https //mail google com/mail/u/0/?ik=eaa5af060d&view=pt&search=…impl=msg-a r4463335800931988329&simpl=msg-a r215701805848142410 Page 4 of 9 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 March 6, 2025 Los Gatos Planning Commission 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Support for Revised Plan at 176 Loma Alta Dear Planning Commission Members, I am writing to express my strong support for the revised plans for 176 Loma Alta and to urge the Planning Commission to approve the proposed changes. Blake and Jessica have been exceptional neighbors, making a sincere effort to address concerns raised by the immediate neighbors and modifying their plans accordingly. Their revisions demonstrate a thoughtful and reasonable approach to balancing their own needs with the feedback from the neighborhood. The key adjustments include: 1. Reducing the house height by 6 inches, addressing concerns about massing. 2. Reducing the size of the nook, increasing the setback to 178 Loma Alta. 3. Converting the basement into an ADU, ensuring no further misunderstanding regarding below-grade space and FAR calculations. Notably, the basement never contributed to the massing of the house in the first place. 4. Planting privacy vegetation between 172 Loma Alta to address and mitigate neighbor privacy concerns. These changes are showing a genuine effort to scale back and accommodate feedback. Blake and Jessica have gone above and beyond to work with their neighbors, even as some of those opposing the project reside in homes with similar bulk and mass. It is important to recognize their good-faith efforts rather than impose unreasonable barriers to their project. I respectfully urge the Planning Commission to approve the revised plan and allow these considerate homeowners to move forward. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Ayhan Mutlu (immediate neighbor) Page 84 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 4:59 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15646 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Gina Last Name Tuckfield Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) General Planning Inquiry Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) Hi Maria and Erin, We live at Loma Alta Ave., two doors down from 176 Loma Alta Ave. I attended the planning commission meeting on 1/22/25. At the end of the meeting the commissioners asked the Thornberry’s at 176 to make several changes. They did not do what was asked of them such as, significantly decrease FAR, chimney, window study/placement, increase setbacks, and overall height. The only thing they did do was find the ADU loophole, which allows them to add 544 sq. ft. by adding a toilet to the basement and turning the bar into a kitchenette. They are still exceeding FAR 420 sq. ft. They knew the lot was nonconforming when they purchased it. We built our home and stayed within all of the rules, never entertaining the thought of trying to break any rules. I’m not understanding what sets them apart from not having to follow the rules put in place by our town. Page 85 For comparison, our lot size is 8680 sq. ft. and our house is 2652 sq. ft. We maxed out our size, without breaking any rules and having zero conflict with neighbors. The Thornberry’s at 176 have a nonconforming lot size of 7435 sq. ft. and the plans show the house at 2874 sq. ft. The basement is 1581 sq. ft. I do realize that this is not included in the FAR calculations. But, they will have an overall living space of 4455 sq. ft. Why, with this much space on a small, nonconforming lot should they be entitled to an additional 420 sq. ft.? Does this now set a precedent that anyone can break the FAR rules? I’m asking that you hold the Thornberry’s at 176 accountable to the FAR rules like the rest of the town. Thank you for your consideration. Gina Tuckfield Loma Alta Ave. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 86 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Thursday, March 6, 2025 10:23 PM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15647 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Yifan Last Name Ge Email Address (Required) Phone Number Field not completed. Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) Comment Regarding A Planning Project Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) 176 Loma Alta Avenue Message (Required) The current house at the address is quite old. A new construction would be a great addition to the community, and I believe it will enhance the community’s appeal. Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Page 87 From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 9:34 AM To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Online Form Submission #15648 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER] Community Development Contact Form First Name Gina Last Name Tuckfleld Email Address (Required) Phone Number Tell Us About Your Inquiry (Required) General Planning Inquiry Address/APN you are inquiring About (Required) Loma Alta Ave Message (Required) Hi Maria and Erin, I would like to add one more thing to the letter I sent you yesterday regarding the size of 176 Loma Alta Ave. Not only is it excessive in square feet, but the visual appearance of it from the sidewalk is larger than the houses in the area. It is two stories high with a “large fiat roof.” Whereas, the other homes are only one story with a “peak roof” from the sidewalk and the second stories are set back. You can refer to the photos of and Loma Alta that Kelly Garton ) sent you. It is so large that it is impacting the houses ( and ) on each side of it. Page 88 Thank you, Gina Tuckfleld Add An Attachment if applicable Field not completed. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser Page 89 From: Thomas Valencia Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 8:07 AM To: Maria Chavarin <MChavarin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Concerns of Proposed Home at 176 Loma Alta Ave. [EXTERNAL SENDER] Hi Maria, Please see the attached document outlining concerns of the resubmitted plans for 176 Loma Alta Ave. Please confirm receipt of the letter. Best, Tom Valencia Page 90 Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission, I am a resident of , the house immediately bordering the proposed project at 176 Loma Alta. After the recent town meeting regarding the proposed construction of 176 Loma Alta, the town commissioners requested that 176 Loma Alta find ways to work with the neighbors to address concerns about impacts; however, 176 Loma Alta has chosen to resubmit plans with disregard to the clear and specific concerns reviewed by the commissioners and neighbors. The challenges of the lot at 176 Loma Alta could have been easily reviewed and seen before purchase of the lot. Just as the first plans that were submitted and denied, the revised proposed plans lack the general consideration of building codes, existing conditions, and the impacts on neighboring homes. The revised proposed plans were not shared or aligned with the neighbors on either side ( and ) before resubmission. FAR The total FAR is not clearly stated in the revised plans. The proposed home at 176 remains well over the allowed FAR by 420 square feet. The proposed home is over the allotted FAR even with an exemption of 1,581 square feet of finished basement/ADU space. The recategorizing of the basement section is clearly a deceptive attempt to be allowed more square footage under the appearance of an ADU. The main concern regarding the FAR is the above ground square footage. In response, the applicants are proposing a reduction of 23 square feet on the first level, which accounts for less than 1% of the above ground square footage. This does not adequately address the commissioner’s and neighbors’ concerns about the large mass of the home. Height The proposed height would significantly impact neighboring homes on either side by shading the interior and exterior spaces for several hours a day throughout the year. Loma Alta Ave. is sloped in multiple directions and the height comparison in the plans does not give an accurate view or comparison of what the impacts and height would be when compared from a different location (i.e., side of house, back yard). Of course, a structure regardless of height would naturally shade neighbors. However, the shadows cast by the proposed structure are amplified due to the proximity (reduced setbacks), location of the home on the lot relative to the neighboring homes, substantially higher roof, as well as the high flat shape of the roofline. A reduction of 6 inches (that the applicant doesn’t even want to honor) does not acknowledge the severe impacts on the preexisting homes. Privacy From the beginning of plan development, it was shared with the applicant that there were significant concerns with any windows that could impact the privacy of the master bedroom and bathroom. On multiple occasions the applicants were asked to clarify specifically where the windows would be placed, but there were uncertainties regarding the placement of the windows and structure itself. Despite agreeing to conduct a window study, the applicant never followed up. Placement of the home and features of the home including windows, should be known, and made clear for understanding of impacts on privacy before the home is constructed. There was no study done to assess window placement and there was no proposal to resize, shift or remove a window. The 176 Loma Alta revised proposed plans have made no adjustments to the windows/ placement on the side of the neighboring . The reason stated for this is that the windows are aesthetically meant to be a certain size and placed in specific locations. Throughout the neighborhood, homes have made architectural adjustments to maintain privacy and reduce impacts to privacy between homes. A reduction in the number of windows on the side of a house, high windows and skylights are common methods used to maintain such a sense of privacy. 176 Page 91 Loma Alta has refused to consider these options. Instead, the applicant left the windows as is with no room for compromise. Vegetation Screen When the applicant purchased the lot there were several mature trees present. The applicant removed several trees including many that were a much taller privacy screen than 7 feet. The proposed 7-foot vegetation screen does not adequately address privacy concerns of the second story windows. Furthermore, with consideration of proximity of homes to each other any plan to plant vegetation directly between the homes poses a fire risk. Chimney The placement of the chimney with a proposed 3-foot 6 inches setback encroaches onto the neighboring property and is near the root system and canopy of a large Chinese elm. Even after the applicant agreed in writing that the chimney would be removed, it remains in the revised plans. Existing Trees of Neighboring Homes The reduced setbacks and placement of structures on the property present concerns for the stability of existing trees on both sides of 176 Loma Alta. Trenching, grading, removal of 25% of a root system and building towards an existing canopy could impact the trees. If the stability and/or health of the trees are compromised, they could potentially become unstable and become a danger during drought or extremely wet/windy seasons. For the proposed home at 176, FAR, height, privacy, and chimney were all specific elements the planning commissioners emphasized as needing to be addressed. In addition, it was also stressed that these concerns should be discussed with the neighbors to find an acceptable way to mitigate impacts. Instead, even after meeting with the applicants and establishing action items, the applicants never followed up with the requested information and never shared revisions prior to resubmission. We have remained supportive of the applicants building a new home and have met with them on several occasions with positive intent. Despite several opportunities to align on compromises on both sides, the neighbors and planning commissioner’s concerns have been greatly dismissed and the evident impacts on others have been ignored. Respectfully, Tom Valencia Page 92 From: Barbara Gardner Sent: Friday, March 7, 2025 6:37 AM To: Maria Chavarin <MChavarin@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Public Comments S-24-042, 176 Loma Alta Ave. [EXTERNAL SENDER] To the Los Gatos City Planners and the Los Gatos Planning Commission Re: S-24-042, 176 Loma Alta Ave. I think the Thornberrys are being treated unfairly. Decisions made by Los Gatos city planners and the planning commission are expected to be based on facts and identifiable and objectively measured parameters. They are not expected to be based on emotional pleas concerning items these bodies are not empowered to regulate. The city planners concluded that the proposed setbacks of 176 Loma Alta are compatible with the neighborhood, given the preponderance of non-conforming lots. As the Thornberrys have documented, their proposed setbacks, as well as their overall house size, FAR, height and size of their lot - are all within the range of what neighboring homes have. These are the types of issues the planning commission is empowered to judge. In addition there is widespread sentiment that the proposed home is indeed a lovely one, and in keeping with the neighborhood styles. Neighbors living close to 176 Loma Alta have enjoyed the benefits of living near the smallest house in the neighborhood for many years. They have gotten used to it, and take some of the advantages it has conferred for granted. This is normal, it’s understandable. People often resist change. But it becomes a problem when people feel attached to keeping the benefits of living next door to such a small house, and view it as something they are entitled to. As was detailed in submitted documents, Blake and Jessica reached out to their neighbors last fall, and received endorsements from many, and lack of objection from the others. However, just prior to the first planning commission meeting in January, and unbeknownst to Blake and Jessica, their immediate neighbors made efforts to undermine their prior outreach. Page 93 The objections largely amount to wanting to deny Blake and Jessica the exceptions for their non-conforming lot that most of their neighbors already enjoy. It is only fair for the city planning process to consider objections for items which are out of line with either building guidelines or precedent. But, when the majority of the other nearby neighbors with non-conforming lots presently enjoy multiple exceptions to current guidelines, then the refusal to grant similar exceptions in this case can easily be construed as biased, and as a non-fact based process that is discriminatory. The Thornberry’s proposal for their home on 176 Loma Alta should be approved. Joan Gardner Member, community-at-large Page 94 176 Loma Alta Proposal Response from Blake & Jessica Thornberry 3/7/2025 Please find the following attached below: 1)Neighborhood Outreach History 2)General Response to Public Comment •House Size & FAR •FAR Comparison to Adjacent Neighbors •Setbacks •Privacy Page of 1 8 EXHIBIT 24 Page 95 1) Neighborhood Outreach History We met with staff numerous times for guidance in the design of this project and to gain understanding of town design guidelines and policy. After our initial design was submitted, per Town policy, we met with the neighbors as directed to explain the project. We were met with objection from but no speciﬁc objections were articulated by them. All of the other immediate neighbors gave us there approval. asked that an arborist be present during construction to help protect their front yard tree it was agreed the stairwell windows may or may not need to be obscured at time of framing. We readily agreed with their requests and to move forward. The planning commission gave direction for us and to consult with staff as directed to revise our plans accordingly. The Town deadline for our submittal was Feb 26. Prior to the deadline to submit, on Monday, February 24, we requested of the neighbors at and (the neighbors on each side) to meet and review. The neighbors told us they were unable to meet until March 2 as was going on vacation. We offered to meet immediately, but were told they did not have the time and it would need to wait upon their return March 2. We submitted revised plans to Town on end of day Weds Feb 26. Staff contacted us for some clariﬁcations on the following Thursday and Friday, the 27th and 28th. We reached immediately on Mar 2 to and to meet and then met at end of day. The neighbors indicated they reviewed the plans on line and and were not satisﬁed. We had plans available at the meeting, but they offered no constructive thoughts nor wanted to review the plans together with us. – only they were still not happy. With every iteration with the neighbors at , they kept moving the goal posts of demands. There is no need to to do a window study as we are proposing to plant a dense privacy hedge between our house and both and . On Thursday, March 6, we received at end of day letters of objection from staff the neighbors sent in at the last minute. The deadline for us to respond and for the response to be included in the staff report was next day Friday the 7th at 11am ( this letter). Page of 2 8 Page 96 Page 97 We believe this project clearly ﬁts within the average and median of the neighborhood in terms of height, size, setbacks, and complies in every way with the Town's design guidelines for non-conforming lots. makes an issue that they complied with setbacks – of course they did – they're lot is in a state of over-compliance – the lot meets and exceeds the zoning requirements. There bis no issue here. Page of 4 8 Page 98 Page 99 Page 100 Based on the existing setbacks our neighbors enjoy relative to our property, it is unreasonable for them to object to anything greater-than-or-equal-to 5’-0”. Our setback with is 5’-0” — with the exception of a chimney that we’ve made smaller in the latest revision. If the planning commission wishes us to remove the chimney, we can. Our setback with is also 5’-0”. In the latest revision we reduced the size of the nook to match the 5’-0” setback nominally enjoys with our property — despite the fact that their surveyed setback is only 4”-6’. The second-story setback with 178 is 9’-6”. Privacy We share a mutual and natural desire for privacy with our neighbors. We’ve offered to provide landscaping privacy and fencing, which is better than the existing condition today. Currently, Loma Alta has a two-story house with unobstructed views of our property and dwelling. (see photo below) Loma Alta has a large side window 4’6” from the property that looks into our property and dwelling. (see photo below) Both and were constructed decades after our existing dwelling. Minimal consideration for privacy was given during their construction. With our proposal, we seek to improve the privacy situation for all. (see diagrams below) Page of 7 8 View of from backyard of 176 View of from side yard of 176 Page 101 Page of 8 8 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 112 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Planning Manager Reviewed by: 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: 03/12/2025 ITEM NO: 3 DATE: March 7, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 10 Charles Street. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-001. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan. Project Planner: Sean Mullin. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal of a Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for an existing fence partially located in the Town’s right-of way and exceeding the height limitations within the required front yard and street-side yard setbacks on property zoned R-1D, located at 10 Charles Street. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential Zoning Designation: R-1D, Single-Family Residential Downtown Applicable Plans & Standards: Town Code, General Plan, Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 7,500 square feet Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D South Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D East Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8 Page 119 PAGE 2 OF 7 SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpE98A.tmp CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. FINDINGS:  The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 (e): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.  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 corner of Charles Street and Los Gatos Boulevard (Exhibit 1). The surrounding properties are residential uses. The subject property is developed with a single-family residence. On November 11, 2022, the Town issued an Administrative Warning for a code violation at the subject property for construction of a fence exceeding height limitations within the required side yard area (Exhibit 4). This letter requested that the property owner reduce the height of the fence to no more than three feet or apply for a Fence Height Exception. Following issuance of the Administrative Warning, the property owner contacted Town Planning staff who communicated to the property owner that the new fence exceeded the maximum height allowed in the required front and street-side yard setbacks, as well as the traffic view area and corner sight triangle. Staff indicated that the Town Code offers an exception process that allows for deviation from the Town’s requirements if the appropriate findings are made by the Community Development Director. On January 10, 2023, the applicant applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations (FHE-23-001) for the construction of the fence, which does not comply with the Town Code fence height regulations for fences located in the required front and street-side yard areas, as well as the traffic view area and corner sight triangle (Exhibit 5). The exception request was based on concerns related to safety and security. Planning and Engineering staff initially supported the request (Exhibit 6), finding that the open design of the fence and the width of sidewalk/planting strip mitigate the traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. Following a site visit by staff to prepare an exhibit to support granting the exception (Exhibit 7), staff noted that portions of the fence are located in the Town’s right-of-way, a fact not available during initial Page 120 PAGE 3 OF 7 SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpE98A.tmp consideration of the exception request. In consultation with the Engineering Division, it was determined that the Town could not make the findings required for granting an exception due to the fence being located in the Town’s right-of way and the exception request was denied on March 23, 2023 (Exhibit 8). On April 3, 2023, the decision of the Community Development director was appealed to the Planning Commission by the property owner, Firouz Pradhan (Exhibit 9). On the appeal form, the appellant indicated that they were seeking additional information and discussing the matter with the Parks and Public Works Department to seek resolution. A Letter of Justification discussing the appeal was provided to staff on March 2, 2025 (Exhibit 10). Pursuant to the Town Code Section 29.20.255, any interested person as defined by Section 29.10.020 may appeal to the Planning Commission any decision of the Community Development 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 property owner/appellant meets the requirements. Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.265, the hearing of the appeal shall be set for the first regular meeting of the Planning Commission in which the business of the Planning Commission will permit, more than five days after the date of filing the appeal. The Planning Commission may hear the matter anew and render a new decision on the matter. In coordination with the property owner/appellant, the hearing by the Planning Commission was delayed for personal reasons until March 12, 2025. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is located at the corner of Charles Street and Los Gatos Boulevard (Exhibit 1). The surrounding properties are residential uses. The subject property is developed with a single-family residence. B. Project Summary and Zoning Compliance The property owner is appealing the Community Development Director decision to deny an exception to the fencing regulations for a fence partially located in the Town’s right-of way and exceeding a height of three feet located in the front and street-side yard areas, traffic view area, and corner sight triangle (Exhibits 9 and 10). Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.265, the Planning Commission may hear the matter anew and render a new decision on the matter. Page 121 PAGE 4 OF 7 SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpE98A.tmp DISCUSSION: A. Fence Height Exception The property owner requested an exception to the fence regulations for a fence exceeding a height of three feet located in the front and street-side yard areas, traffic view area, and corner sight triangle (Exhibit 5). Exhibit 7, prepared by staff, shows the approximate location of the fence in question, highlighting the portions that are located in the Town’s right-of-way. The total height of the wood fence is five feet, four inches tall. The fence is comprised of two sections: a solid two foot, two-inch-tall lower section with vertical wood boards; and an upper three feet, two- inch-tall section with wood lattice with five inch openings (Exhibit 5). Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315 (a)(3), fences, walls, gates, and hedges may not exceed a height of three feet when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle, unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director. This regulation is intended to minimize conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, and cars by ensuring fences, walls, gates, and hedges do not obstruct the view from a car at an intersection of two streets. Limiting the height of fences and gates to no more than three feet in these areas allows drivers and pedestrians a view of each other while continuing to afford property owners the opportunity to define the boundaries of their property. The required front setback in the R-1D zone is 15 feet, the required street-side setback is 10 feet, and the traffic view area and corner sight triangle are dimensioned in Exhibit 11. The proposed five-foot, four-inch tall fence is set at the front property line, then turns east and enters the Town’s right-of- way, paralleling the curb along Charles Street (Exhibit 7). 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 Page 122 PAGE 5 OF 7 SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpE98A.tmp (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 property owner requested an exception based on safety and security concerns (Exhibit 5). As noted above, staff initially supported the exception request given the mitigating factors that addressed pedestrian and traffic issues; however, once the fence was determined to be in the Town’s right-of-way, staff was unable to support the exception request. The Town denied the exception request on March 23, 2023 (Exhibit 8). B. Appeal The decision of the Community Development Director to deny the Fence Height Exception application was appealed by the property owner on April 3, 2023 (Exhibit 9). In their Letter of Justification, the property owner reiterates their safety and security concerns, and discusses the unique characteristics of the property and goals of mitigating safety issues with the open view portion of the fence (Exhibit 10). When initially considering this justification, staff supported the requested exception. The primary reason for denial of the exception request was due to the location of the fence in the Town’s right-of-way. In their Letter of justification, the property owner indicates that a portion of the fence was inadvertently built in the Town’s right-of-way, which helped provide reasonable and fair access to approach the front yard. The property owner also noted that locating the fence within the property boundary would make exterior circulation between the front yard and the side yard impractical. Further, relocating the fence onto the property may require removal of a cluster of oak trees. Finally, the property owner offers their willingness to sign any needed agreements with the Town in order to maintain the fence in the Town’s right- of-way. Private improvements located in Town rights-of-way can create safety and Town liability issues and are not typically permitted. When allowed, an Encroachment Permit and License Agreement are typically required through the Parks and Public Works Department. Page 123 PAGE 6 OF 7 SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpE98A.tmp C. Environmental Review 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS: The property owner provided letters of support from two neighbors (Exhibit 10). Written notice was sent to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. No additional public comments were received at the time of this report's preparation. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The property owner is requesting that the Planning Commission grant their appeal of the Community Development Director’s decision to deny an exception to the fencing regulations, approving the exception for a fence partially located in the Town’s right-of-way and exceeding a height of three feet located in the front and street-side yard areas, traffic view area, corner sight triangle, and the Town’s right-of-way. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny the requested exception due to safety and Town liability issues created with public improvements located in the Town’s right-of- way. 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. Page 124 PAGE 7 OF 7 SUBJECT: 10 Charles Street/FHE-23-001 DATE: March 7, 2025 C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser11\AppData\Local\Temp\tmpE98A.tmp EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted 4. Administrative Warning VL-22-578 5. Fence Height Exception Request – Letter of Justification 6. Email between Planning and Engineering staff 7. Annotated Site Plan Prepared by Staff 8. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter 9. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision 10. Letter of Justification for Appeal 11. Traffic view Area Diagrams Page 125 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 126 LOS GATOS BLBELLA VISTA AVCHAR L E S S T WHEE L E R A V HARDI N G A V WHITNEY AVYOSEMITE WYHOLLYWOOD AVLOS G A T O S - S A R A T O G A R D 10 Charles Street 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 127 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 128 PLANNING COMMISSION – March 12, 2025 REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR: 10 Charles Street Fence Height Exception FHE-23-001 Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan Project Planner: Sean Mullin 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 a Fence Height Exception pursuant to Section 29.40.320 of the Town Code: ■ 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 129 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 130 PLANNING COMMISSION – March 12, 2025 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 10 Charles Street Fence Height Exception FHE-23-001 Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Exception Request for an Existing Fence Partially Located in the Town’s Right-of Way and Exceeding the Height Limitations within the Required Front Yard and Street-Side Yard Setbacks on Property Zoned R-1D. APN 532-36-022. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owner/Applicant/Appellant: Firouz Pradhan Project Planner: Sean Mullin 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 listed below. 2. EXPIRATION: The Fence Height Exception approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding (including without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town or its agents, officers or employees related to an approval of the Project, including without limitation any related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to) defend such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at applicant’s sole cost and expense. Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred by Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon demand any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines EXHIBIT 3 Page 131 appropriate, all the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the applicant’s indemnity obligation. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 26. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT‐OF‐WAY (LICENSE AGREEMENT): The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for the private improvements (fence) constructed within the Town’s right‐of‐way. The agreement shall commit the Owner to always maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition; ensuring local vegetation around the private improvements complies with Town Code sections 23.10.080, 26.10.065, and 29.40.030; providing proof of insurance coverage for the improvements; and indemnifying the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Public Works and recorded by the Town Clerk at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk‐Recorder. Page 132 EXHIBIT 4Page 133 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 134 EXHIBIT 5Page 135 Page 136 Page 137 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 138 From:James Watson To:Sean Mullin Subject:RE: 10 Charles - Fence Height Exception Date:Tuesday, January 31, 2023 1:32:22 PM Attachments:image004.png image010.png Good afternoon, Sean, Thank you for the opportunity to opine on the request for exception to the Town’s Fence Height ordinance for the property at 10 Charles Street. Engineering supports this exception. Engineering’s support is attributed primarily to the location of the property being adjacent to the high traffic intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard and Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. Additionally, the Engineering Department recognizes the fence was designed with open lattice material to mitigate the fence’s impact on the line-of-sight between traffic on Charles Street and both pedestrian traffic on the near sidewalk of Los Gatos Boulevard and vehicular traffic on Los Gatos Boulevard. The width of the sidewalk and planter strip adjacent to Los Gatos Boulevard provides space for a driver turning onto Los Gatos Boulevard to check for traffic in both directions prior to entering the Los Gatos Boulevard roadway. Therefore, it is my opinion that the height and open design of the proposed fence does not create a safety hazard at this location. Please let me know if you need any additional information. Thank you. Best Wishes, James Watson, P.E. | Interim Town Engineer Parks and Public Works | 41 Miles Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 Phone: 408.354.5236 | jwatson@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov | https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca From: Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov> Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2023 12:13 PM To: James Watson <JWatson@losgatosca.gov> Subject: RE: 10 Charles - Fence Height Exception Hi James, Following up on our conversation about this fence…after much consideration, Planning is going to support the exception. During our conversation you mentioned that you could go either way. I was wondering if you can send me a quick email confirming that Engineering can support the exception y,//dϲ Page 139 and that given the visual openness of the fence, increased setback created by the sidewalk, stop sign, and traffic light the proposed fence would not create a safety hazard. This statement will be added to the project file. Let me know if you would like to discuss further. Thank you, Sean Sean Mullin, AICP භ Senior Planner Community Development Department භ 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6823 භ smullin@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov භ https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOURS: Counter Hours: 8:00 AM – 1:00 PM, Monday – Friday Phone Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday – Friday Town offices are now open. In accordance with the Santa Clara County Public Health Office Order, we strongly recommend masks indoors regardless of vaccination status. All permit submittals are to be done online via our Citizen’s Portal platform. All other services can be completed at the counter. For more information on permit submittal, resubmittal, and issuance, please visit the Building and Planning webpages. General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com Housing Element update, learn more at https://engagelosgatoshousing.com CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address. 3 Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. From: Sean Mullin Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2023 4:20 PM To: James Watson <JWatson@losgatosca.gov> Subject: 10 Charles - Fence Height Exception Hi James, Page 140 I am reviewing a requested Fence Height Exception for 10 Charles Street. The applicant requests approval to construct a fence exceeding three feet in height within the required front and street-side setback, within the corner sight triangle, and within the traffic view area. Attached is the Letter of Justification, photos, and neighbor support letters for the request. Are you available to review the request and provide feedback from the Engineering perspective? Please let me know if you would like to set up a meeting to discuss further. Best regards, Sean Sean Mullin, AICP භ Senior Planner Community Development Department භ 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos CA 95030 Ph: 408.354.6823 භ smullin@losgatosca.gov www.losgatosca.gov භ https://www.facebook.com/losgatosca COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HOURS: Counter Hours: 8:00 AM – 1:00 PM, Monday – Friday Phone Hours: 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM, Monday – Friday Town offices are now open. In accordance with the Santa Clara County Public Health Office Order, we strongly recommend masks indoors regardless of vaccination status. All permit submittals are to be done online via our Citizen’s Portal platform. All other services can be completed at the counter. For more information on permit submittal, resubmittal, and issuance, please visit the Building and Planning webpages. General Plan update, learn more at www.losgatos2040.com Housing Element update, learn more at https://engagelosgatoshousing.com CONFIDENTIALITY DISCLAIMER This e-mail is intended only for the use of the individual(s) named in this e-mail. If you receive this e-mail and are not a named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us at the above e-mail address. 3 Think Green, please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Page 141 7KLV3DJH ,QWHQWLRQDOO\ /HIW%ODQN Page 142 PORTION OF FENCE LOCATED IN TOWN’S RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPERTY LINE EXHIBIT 7Page 143 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 144 TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION (408)354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593 March 23, 2023 Firouz Pradhan 10 Charles Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 Via email RE: 10 Charles Street Fence Height Exception FHE-23-001 The Los Gatos Community Development Department and Parks and Public Works Department have reviewed the referenced application for a fence height exception pursuant to Section 29.40.0320. On March 23, 2023, the Los Gatos Community Development Department has denied the request as the required findings could not be made and the fence is located in the Town’s right-or-way. 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., April 3, 2023. If you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact Project Planner Ryan Safty at (408) 354-6823 or via email at SMullin@losgatosca.gov. Best regards, Sean Mullin, AICP Senior Planner N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Charles Street\10\FHE-23-001\Charles Street, 10 - FHE-23-001 - Denial Action Letter 03-23-23.docx CIVIC CENTER 110 E. MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CA 95030 EXHIBIT 8 Page 145 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 146 EXHIBIT 9Page 147 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 148 FENCE EXEMPTION APPLICATION – 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95032 March 2, 2025 Sean Mullin Planning Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Respected Mr. Mullin.. 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95030 – FENCE HEIGHT EXEMPTION [FHE-001] I am writing for your and the Planning Commission’s kind consideration to grant exemption in response to your letter dated 03/23/23 issued by your office regarding the fence being in the Town’s right of way. I would like to bring to your attention, through this submission, the unique characteristics & circumstances surrounding the property, the specific concerns we have had around safety & security, the principal goals we established for the design & construction of this fence, and, finally, the diligent steps we undertook to meet these goals, both for ourselves and the community at large. UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS & CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY 1. Charles is a quiet, dead-end street, with just five neighbors living on the entire street! Accordingly, there is little or no traffic on the street. 2. The subject home (10 Charles St), though located at the corner of Los Gatos Blvd & Charles, has its entry door and address sign on Charles St, 3. The main living room, and the secondary bedroom – typically and often occupied by our elderly mother, or our grandchildren when they visit us – opens on the main Boulevard through a large pair of French doors. 4. While egressing from Charles St to the Boulevard, there is a legal STOP sign that ensures the exiting cars come to a complete stop before turning in either direction. 5. The home exactly across from the subject property has a fence that is identical in height and form, except for the specific shape of the lattice. 6. The yard fronting the Los Gatos Boulevard side is the primary yard area that is being used for kids’ play area and outdoor leisure activities, and has vegetable beds and other floral decorations planted. 7. Access to the front yard is slightly tight as the front, right hand side corner of the home has been blessed with a cluster of heritage oak and other trees. (See picture attached). 8. The subject property was under major renovation and repair for a period of almost 2 years during the pandemic, and there was a 6-feet tall, opaque construction fence surrounding the property that did not result in any concerns that we were aware of. -THIS SPACE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK - EXHIBIT 10Page 149 FENCE EXEMPTION APPLICATION – 10 CHARLES STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95032 SPECIFIC FACTORS IN THE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE 1. Safety & Security: It is clear that the safety & security was of key concern. This was amplified multi-fold when we had two distinct incidents of an intruder loitering around at the door leading to the front bedroom, in one instant to be warned of alerting the police unless the person left immediately. No threat was imposed, nor an imminent danger to life or property. 2. Visibility: We were equally concerned about the visibility whilst existing Charles St, until we spoke with some of the neighbors, and carefully analyzed the facts contained in (1) through (8) above. Letters from a couple of neighbors expressing their unequivocal support for the fence and its zero impact on the visibility has been attached for your reference. (See Letters from Neighbors, duly attached) 3. Access to the Front Yard: We needed to make sure that access to the front yard, the principal outdoor area for kids’ play, is easily available. (See picture attached). DILIGENT STEPS UNDERTAKEN TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE FENCE The custom-built fence is a combination of a 26” tall, lower opaque section, overlaid with a 38” lattice work. The lattice work is custom designed to provide maximum visibility by its orientation and size of the openings (5”). See picture attached. This allows a clear sight or visibility to any south-bound traffic from Los Gatos Boulevard. In fact, the fence was designed and built in consultation with some of the neighbors, and we are working closely to establish their comfort level. Inadvertentently, part of the fence was built in the public right of way, and this has helped provide a reasonable and fair access to approach the first yard. Had we built the fence along the property line, such access would have either been impractical, or would have required removal of a cluster of heritage oak trees. CONCLUSION I hope we have been able to demonstrate that the specific goals and concerns of the community have been met, and while we may have been short in meeting the letter of the code, we have clearly met the spirit of the law. REQUEST We once again humbly request you to grant us the exception. To this end, we are willing to provide the Town any necessary documentation to protect itself as well as to create an explicit and formal understanding that such concessions may be reversed at will as deemed necessary by the Town. Finally, please feel free to reach out to me in case you may have any questions or concerns. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, _____________ Firoz Pradhan Tel: Email: Enclosures: (1) Fence design details with dimensions (2) Letter(s) from Neighbors (3) Fence photos (4 pgs) Page 150 View egressing from Charles St. Notice cluster of trees that block some of the visibility, while the wide, open lattice work provides clear visibility of oncoming cars and pedestrians. page 1 of 4 Page 151 Close-up view at the STOP sign at Charles St while egressing onto Los Gatos Blvd providiing clear visibility. page 2 of 4 Page 152 View of the fence adjacent to the neighbor towards downtown. Notice that the fence has been clipped,and was done in consulation with this neighbor (Michelle). page 3 of 4 Page 153 Similar fence belonging to the neighbor across the subject home. page 4 of 4 Page 154 Page 155 Page 156 Page 157 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 158 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’ For more information, please read Town Code Section 26.10.065. Obstruction at corners of intersecting streets. For more information, please read Town Code Section 26.10.065. Obstruction at corners of intersecting streets. EXHIBIT 11 Page 159 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 160 PREPARED BY: Suray Nathan Assistant Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/12/2025 ITEM NO: 4 DATE: March 7, 2025 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence, Remove Large Protected Trees, and Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned HR-2½. Located at 119 Harwood Court. APN 527-56-027. Architecture and Site Application S-24-040. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owners: Donal and Maire Conroy. Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat. Project Planner: Suray Nathan. RECOMMENDATION: Consider a request for approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence, remove large protected trees, and site work requiring a Grading Permit on property zoned HR-2 ½, located at 119 Harwood Court. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential (0-1 dwelling unit/acre) Zoning Designation: HR-2½ - Hillside Residential Applicable Plans & Standards: Town Code, General Plan, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Parcel Size: 29,556 square feet Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½ South Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½ East Residential San Jose N/A West Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½ Page 161 PAGE 2 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. FINDINGS:  The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures;  As required by Section 29.10.09030 (e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures;  The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations);  The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for single-family residences with the exceptions to build outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) and to construct a retaining wall exceeding 50 linear feet in a continuous direction; and  The project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan. CONSIDERATIONS:  As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the east side of Harwood Court, approximately 0.70 miles south of Blossom Hill Road (Exhibit 1). All surrounding properties are zoned Hillside Residential and developed with single-family residential uses. The property is zoned HR-2½ and has a gross lot size of 29,556 square feet. The average slope of the property is 34.4 percent and the resulting net lot size is 11,822 square feet. On May 16, 2024, the Town approved a Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) Urban Lot Split submitted by the current owners for this Architecture and Site application. The Urban Lot Split divided a 64,993- square foot lot into two parcels: a 35,437-square foot lot developed with a 4,402-square foot two-story dwelling; and the subject property, a 29,556-square foot lot developed with a 1,184- square foot two-story dwelling. On July 30, 2024, the applicant applied for an Architecture and Site Application (S-24-040) for a Page 162 PAGE 3 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 proposed 3,245-square foot two-story residence with an attached garage. The project includes 1,933 square feet of below-grade square footage that would not count toward the size of the residence. The proposed project meets the technical requirements of the Town Code for floor area, height, setbacks, and on-site parking. The project is being considered by the Planning Commission due to the applicant’s request for an exception to the LRDA and a retaining wall exceeding 50 linear feet without a break pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is located on the east side of Harwood Court, approximately 0.70 miles south of Blossom Hill Road (Exhibit 1). All surrounding properties are zoned Hillside Residential and developed with single-family residential uses. B. Project Summary The applicant is proposing a new 3,245-square foot two-story residence with an attached garage. The project includes areas of below-grade square footage that would not count toward the size of the residence. The proposed house would be located at the northern end of the hillside property. The proposed residence would have a maximum height of 17 feet, 10 inches. The project requires exceptions to the HDS&G for a building located outside the LRDA and to construct a retaining wall exceeding 50 linear feet in a continuous direction without a break. C. Zoning Compliance A single-family residence is permitted in the HR-2½ zone. The proposed residence is in compliance with the allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and on-site parking requirements. DISCUSSION: A. Architecture and Site Analysis The applicant proposes construction of a new 3,245-square foot, two-story residence with an attached two-car garage (Exhibit 10). The project proposes a contemporary style residence with subdued natural colors to blend with the surrounding hillside environment. The applicant provided a Letter of Justification detailing the project and the requested exceptions to the HDS&G (Exhibit 4). In addition to the 3,245 square feet of countable FAR, the residence includes 1,933 square feet of below-grade square footage. The residence includes an attached 1,094 square-foot garage, of which 972 square feet is located below Page 163 PAGE 4 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 grade and does not count toward FAR. The remaining 122 square feet of the garage located above grade is within the 400 square feet allowed for a garage on the property. A summary of the floor area for the proposed residence is included in the table below. Floor Area Summary Proposed Above Grade Square Footage Proposed Below Grade Square Footage Total (gross) Upper Level 2,021 0 2,021 Lower Level 1,224 961 2,185 Garage (Lower Level) 122 972 1,094 Total (gross) 3,367 1,933 5,300 Garage Credit (up to 400 sf) (122) Below Grade Square Footage, not countable toward FAR (1,932) Total Countable Floor Area 3,245 B. Building Design The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed contemporary-style project on August 12, 2024 (Exhibit 5). The Consulting Architect had no issues or concerns and stated in the report that the proposed home is well designed and well-integrated into its sloping hillside site. The Consulting Architect provided no recommendations for changes. C. Neighborhood Compatibility Pursuant to the Town Code and the HDS&G, the maximum allowable floor area for the subject parcel is 3,900 square feet. The following table reflects the current conditions of the immediate neighborhood and the proposed project: FAR Comparison - Neighborhood Analysis Address Zoning House SF Garage SF Total FAR Lot Size Building FAR No. of Stories 119 Harwood Ct (E) HR-2 1/2 963 1,464 2,427 29,556 0.03 2 119 Harwood Ct (P) HR-2 1/2 3,245 1,094 4,488 29,556 0.11 2 119 Harwood Ct (Parcel A) HR-2 1/2 4,402 1,395 5,797 35,437 0.12 2 125 Alerche Dr HR-1 2,275 500 2,775 38,333 0.06 1 5760 Harwood Rd (County) N/A 4,501 0 4,501 101,930 0.04 2 16641 Harwood Rd HR-2 1/2 5,134 600 5,734 84,071 0.06 2 115 Harwood Ct HR-2 1/2 5,425 784 6,209 53,579 0.10 2 118 Harwood Ct HR-2 1/2 5,410 825 6,235 86,249 0.06 2 551 Santa Rosa Dr HR-2 1/2 5,704 1,580 7,284 58,806 0.10 2 Page 164 PAGE 5 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 104 Harwood Ct HR-2 1/2 4,146 720 4,866 48,352 0.09 2 108 Harwood Ct HR-2 1/2 4,790 782 5,572 52,272 0.09 2 The immediate neighborhood is predominantly two-story single-family residences. Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate area range in size from 2,275 square feet to 5,704 square feet. The floor area ratios range from 0.04 to 0.12. The proposed residence would be 3,245 square feet with a floor area ratio of 0.11. The proposed residence would be the second largest home in the immediate neighborhood in terms of FAR and the ninth in terms of floor area. D. Building Height and Visibility The proposed home is not visible per the HDS&G’s visibility analysis criteria as less than 24.5 percent (5.6 percent) of the north elevation can be seen from the viewing platform at the intersection of Selinda Way and Los Gatos–Almaden Road (Exhibit 10, Sheet A-3). The proposed two-story residence has a maximum height of 17 feet, 10 inches, which is below the maximum allowable height of 25 feet per the HDS&G for non-visible residences. The proposed two-story residence has a low-to-high height of 23 feet, 10 inches tall, where a maximum low to high height of 35 feet is allowable in the HDS&G. E. Least Restrictive Development Area The HDS&G includes a standard requiring buildings to be located within the LRDA. The purpose of mapping the LRDA is to identify the most appropriate area or areas on the lot for locating buildings in the least constrained areas. Topography is one of the elements used to determine the LRDA, which has a slope limitation of less than 30 percent. A portion of the proposed building footprint would extend beyond the existing LRDA (Exhibit 10, Sheet A-4). In their Letter of Justification, the applicant indicates that before the existing structure was built, the entire lot had no areas with slopes less than 30 percent and the existing LRDA was created for the existing structure and the driveway. Additionally, the applicant states that any addition to the existing house would not be located in the LRDA unless the addition is a detached structure and hinders the functionality of the house (Exhibit 4). Due to site constraints, the applicant requests an exception to allow a portion of the building to be located outside of the limited LRDA. The diagram below illustrates the area of the building that is proposed to be located outside of the LRDA, as highlighted by the bold red line. Page 165 PAGE 6 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 F. Retaining Walls The Site Elements Section of the HDS&G includes a guideline requiring that retaining walls not run in a straight, continuous direction for more than 50 feet without a break, offset, or planting pockets to break up the long flat horizontal surface. A proposed retaining wall located approximately four feet from the rear of the residence, is approximately 67 feet long. The applicant notes in the Letter of Justification that the guidelines’ intention is for aesthetic reasons. The proposed retaining wall is behind the residence and would not be visible and its purpose is to hold the hill back for more efficient drainage and safe access around the house. Additionally, the applicant states that providing a break in the wall would increase grading (Exhibit 4). The applicant requests an exception to allow the retaining wall to be longer than 50 feet. The following diagram illustrates the location of the proposed 67-foot long retaining wall, as highlighted by the bold red line. Page 166 PAGE 7 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 G. Tree Impacts The development plans were reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 6). The inventory contains 20 protected trees comprised of six different species: eight coast live oaks; four buckeyes; three blue oaks; two black oaks; two toyons; and one valley oak. The project proposes removal of two of the protected trees (#261 and #263), one of which is a large protected tree (Exhibit 10, Sheet L4.1). The Consulting Arborist provided recommendations for tree preservation and planting eight replacement 24-inch box trees to offset the proposed tree removal (Exhibit 10, Sheet L6.0). The development plans show that 14 trees would be planted to offset the tree removal. H. Parking and Guest Parking Pursuant to Section 29.10.150 (c)(1) of the Town Code, a single-family residence requires two on-site parking spaces. The applicant has satisfied the requirement by including an attached three-car garage (Exhibit 10, Sheet A-7). The Hillside Specific Plan requires four additional guest parking spaces, and four guest spaces are proposed on the north side of the existing driveway (Exhibit 10, Sheet A-4). I. Neighbor Outreach The applicant provided a sample letter and the list of homes where they hand-delivered the letter (Exhibit 8). No public comment has been received at the time of this report's preparation. Page 167 PAGE 8 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 J. CEQA Determination 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Story poles and project signage were installed on the site by January 8, 2025, in anticipation of the March 12, 2025, Planning Commission hearing (Exhibit 9). Written notice was sent to property owners and residents within 500 feet of the subject property. No public comment has been received at the time of this report's preparation. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application to demolish an existing single-family residence and construct a new single-family residence, remove large protected trees, and site work requiring a Grading Permit on property zoned HR-2 ½. The project is consistent with the property's zoning and General Plan Land Use designation. The project is in compliance with the objectives standards of the Town Code related to allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and on-site parking requirements. Due to the desired architectural program and the site's constraints, the applicant requests exceptions to the HDS&G for a building located outside of the LRDA and to construct a retaining wall exceeding 50 linear feet in a continuous direction without a break and has provided a Letter of Justification discussing these requested exceptions (Exhibit 4). Aside from the requested exceptions, the project complies with the Zoning Code, HDS&G, and Hillside Specific Plan. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the request and, if merit is found with the proposed project, take the following steps to approve the Architecture and Site application: 1. Find that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Exhibit 2); 2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030 (e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2); 3. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) (Exhibit 2); 4. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, with the exception to build outside of the Least Restrictive Development Page 168 PAGE 9 OF 9 SUBJECT: 119 Harwood Court/S-24-040 DATE: March 7, 2025 Area (LRDA) and to construct retaining walls that exceed 50 linear feet in a continuous direction (Exhibit 2); 5. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and 6. Approve Architecture and Site application S-24-040 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 10. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Planning Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the application. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Letter of Justification 5. Consulting Architect’s Report 6. Consulting Arborist’s Report 7. Applicant's response to the Consulting Arborist's Report 8. Applicant’s neighborhood outreach efforts 9. Story Pole Photos 10. Development Plans Page 169 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 170 HARWOOD RDH ARWOOD C T ALERCHE DR RI D G E T R A I L 119 Harwood Court 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 171 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 172 N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Harwood Court\119\S-24-040\Public Meeting Documents\Planning Commission\ PLANNING COMMISSION – March 12, 2025 REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 119 Harwood Court Architecture and Site Application S-24-040 Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construct a New Single-Family Residence, Remove of Large Protected Trees, and Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned HR-2 ½. APN 527-56- 027. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the CEQA Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owners: Donal and Maire Conroy Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat Project Planner: Suray Nathan 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(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Required finding for the demolition of existing structures: ■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of an existing residence: 1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be replaced; 2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance; 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it exists; and 4. The economic utility of the structures was considered. Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations: ■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations). Required compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines: ■ As required by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G), the project is in compliance with the applicable sections of the HDS&G with the exceptions to build outside the least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) and to construct a retaining wall exceeding 50 linear feet in continuous direction without a break. EXHIBIT 2 Page 173 N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Harwood Court\119\S-24-040\Public Meeting Documents\Planning Commission\ Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan ■ The proposed development is consistent with the development criteria included in the Specific Plan. CONSIDERATIONS Required considerations in review of Architecture and Site applications: ■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project. Page 174 PLANNING COMMISSION – March 12, 2025 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 119 Harwood Court Architecture and Site Application S-24-040 Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construct a New Single-Family Residence, Remove of Large Protected Trees, and Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned HR-2 ½. APN 527-56-027. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to the CEQA Section 15303(a): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owners: Donal and Maire Conroy Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat Project Planner: Suray Nathan TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC, or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. 4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 5. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report for the project, on file in the Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. 7. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures consistent with Section 29.10.1005 of the Town Code shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. 8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties. 9. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard EXHIBIT 3 Page 175 must be landscaped. 10. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. 11. STORY POLES/PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE: Story poles and/or project identification signage on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture and Site application. 12. EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 13. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that requires all exterior materials be maintained in conformance with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 14. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the property owner shall execute a five-year maintenance agreement with the Town that the property owner agrees to protect and maintain the trees shown to remain on the approved plans, trees planted as part of the tree replacement requirements, and guarantees that said trees will always be in a healthy condition during the term of the maintenance agreement. 15. TREE DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that identifies the on-site trees that were used to provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their replacement if they die or are removed. 16. NESTING BIRDS: To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Construction activities that include any tree removal, pruning, grading, grubbing, or demolition shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15) to the greatest extent feasible. If this type of construction starts, if work is scheduled to start or if work already occurring during the nesting season stops for at least two weeks and is scheduled to resume during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction surveys for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction. If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. Two surveys for active nests of such birds shall occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the second survey conducted with 48 hours prior to start of construction. Appropriate minimum survey radius surrounding each work area is typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors. Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have Page 176 fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active. 17. SPECIAL-STATUS BATS: Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal or structure demolition activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, in trees within 50 feet of the development footprint, and within and surrounding any structures that may be disturbed by the project. These surveys will include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, construction access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked. If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and no further measures are required. If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents will be prepared prior to grading permit issuance and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures will be implemented: a. If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they will be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they will be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats will be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the CDFW) will be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance will occur until after the nursery season. b. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures scheduled to be disturbed by project activities, the individuals will be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist. If pre-construction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees to be removed, exclusion Page 177 structures (e.g. one-way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qualified biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery season. Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the CDFW prior to construction. If needed, other methods conducted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist could include: carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance of any structures will be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night will be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/structure disturbance). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation. 18. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN REMAINS: a. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50- meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. b. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. c. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5( e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. d. A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. 19. DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRATS: This project will implement the following standard measures to minimize impacts on woodrats and active woodrat nests on the project site. a. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within 30 days of the start of work activities. If active woodrat nests are determined to be present in, or within 10 feet of the impact areas, the conditions below (Avoidance and/or Nest Relocation) will Page 178 be implemented, as appropriate. If no active woodrat nests are present on or within 10 feet of impact areas, no further conditions are warranted. b. AVOIDANCE. Active woodrat nests that are detected within the work area will be avoided to the extend feasible. Ideally, a minimum 10-foot buffer will be maintained between project activities and woodrat nests to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a small buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, nest relocation (below) would represent a greater disturbance to the woodrats than the adjacent work activities. c. NEST RELOCATION. If avoidance of active woodrat nests within and immediately adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the work areas is not feasible, then nest materials will be relocated to suitable habitat as close to the project site as possible (ideally, within or immediately adjacent to the project site). Relocation efforts will avoid the peak nesting season (February-July) to the maximum extent feasible. Prior to the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist will disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge outside of the construction area. Disturbance of the woodrat nest will be initiated no earlier than one hour before dusk to prevent the exposure of woodrats to diurnal predators. Subsequently, the biologist will dismantle and relocate the nest material by hand. During the deconstruction process, the biologist will attempt to assess if there are juveniles in the nest. If immobile juveniles are observed, the deconstruction process will be discontinued until a time when the biologist believes the juveniles will be capable of independent survival (typically after 2 to 3 weeks). A no-disturbance buffer will be established around the nest until the juveniles are mobile. The nest may be dismantled once the biologist has determined that adverse impacts on the juveniles would not occur. 20. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding (including without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town or its agents, officers or employees related to an approval of the Project, including without limitation any related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to) defend such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at applicant’s sole cost and expense. Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred by Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon demand any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application, Page 179 permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the applicant’s indemnity obligation. 21. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Division 22. PERMITS REQUIRED: a. A Building Permit is required for the renovation and construction of the single-family residence and attached garage. b. Additional Building Permits will be required for retaining walls that are not part of a building foundation and that support a surcharge. c. A separate Building Permit will be required for the PV System and must be finaled prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. 23. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2023, are the 2022 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Reach Codes. 24. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be included on plan sheets within the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. 25. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process. 26. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”. 27. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation, and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 28. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed five (5) feet in depth, or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations. 29. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation Page 180 c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations 30. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e., directly printed, onto a plan sheet. 31. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inch-wide doors on the accessible floor level. c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36-inch-wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 32. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.40.020. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 33. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies. 34. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface High Fire Area and must comply with Section R337 of the 2022 California Residential Code, Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. a. Provide defensible space/fire break landscaping plan prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. b. Prior to final inspection, provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 35. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 36. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal. The specification sheet is available online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 37. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: Page 181 a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 38. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Owner’s representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner’s expense. 39. PAYMENT OPTIONS: a. All payments regarding fees and deposits can be mailed to: Town of Los Gatos PPW – Attn: Engineering Dept 41 Miles Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Or hand deliver/drop off payment in engineering lock box Checks made out to “Town of Los Gatos” and should mention address and application number on memo/note line. 40. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer. 41. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website. 42. CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY: Prior to initial occupancy and any subsequent change in use or occupancy of any non-residential condominium space, the buyer or the new or existing occupant shall apply to the Community Development Department and obtain approval for Page 182 use determination and building permit and obtain inspection approval for any necessary work to establish the use and/or occupancy consistent with that intended. 43. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all elements encroaching into the Town’s right-of-way. 44. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without inspection. 45. FENCES: Any fencing proposed within two hundred (200) feet of an intersection shall comply with Town Code Section §23.10.080. Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences that encroach into the neighbor’s property will need to be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Waiver of this condition will require signed and notarized letters from all affected neighbors 46. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 47. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the commencement of plan check review. 48. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 49. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of permits or recordation of maps. 50. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans. Page 183 51. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer. 52. GRADING PERMIT DETERMINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS: All grading work taking place with this application and related applications/projects within a two-year time period are considered eligible for the grading permit process and will be counted toward the quantities used in determining grading permit requirements. In the event that, during the production of construction drawings and/or during construction of the plans approved with this application by the Town of Los Gatos, it is determined that a grading permit would be required as described in Chapter 12, Article II (Grading Permit) of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, an Architecture and Site Application would need to be submitted by the Owner for review and approval by the Development Review Committee prior to applying for a grading permit. 53. GRADING: Any grading work, cut/fill, earthwork or combination thereof (completed or proposed on submitted plans) on the parcel over the upcoming two-year period are combined with regards to grading permit thresholds. This also applies to adjacent parcels with identical owners, applicants and or developers. 54. ILLEGAL GRADING: Per the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, applications for work unlawfully completed shall be charged double the current fee. As a result, the required grading permit fees associated with an application for grading will be charged accordingly. 55. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. For sites greater than four (4) acres in area: a. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.). b. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to fifteen (15) miles per hour. c. Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. Page 184 d. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. e. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 56. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 57. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town’s storm drains. 58. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. 59. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Owner’s representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner’s expense 60. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 61. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All improvements and construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 62. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 63. DELAYED/DEFERRED REPORTS AND REVIEWS: TLGPPW strongly recommend that reports requiring a peer review be submitted and completed prior to committee approval/building permit stage. Note that these reviews may require a design change by the applicant and/or additional studies. Applicants who chose to defer assume risk that required changes may send project back to planning stage. Page 185 64. WATER METER: Water meters currently in public right-of-way shall be relocated within the property in question, within 30” of the property line / the public right-of-way line. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 65. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT: Sanitary sewer cleanouts currently in public right-of-way shall be relocated within the property in question, within one (1) foot of the property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard Drawing 3, or at a location specified by the Town. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 66. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer, setup a pre-construction meeting with Eric Christianson, Senior Public Works Inspector echristianson@losgatosca.gov (408) 354-6824 to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction. 67. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right-of- way will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by the Town. 68. PRIVATE UTILITIES: Private utilities in town right of way is prohibited and should be located on parcel which it serves, unless otherwise allowed via easement. 69. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: Prior to the issuance of a grading/building permit the Owner shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The amount based on the current resolution is $10,421.76. The fee shall be paid before issuance of any grading or building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time, using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses 70. GRADING PERMIT REQUIRED: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). All grading work taking place with this application and related applications /projects within a two year time period are considered eligible for the grading permit process and will be counted toward the quantities used in determining grading permit requirements. After the preceding Architecture and Site Application has been approved by the respective deciding body and the appeal period has passed, the grading permit application with grading plans and associated required materials shall be submitted via email to the PPW engineer assigned to the A&S review. Plan check fees (determined after initial submittal) shall be sent to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Page 186 Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner’s soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 71. GRADING ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS: Upon receipt of a grading permit, any and all grading activities and operations shall not commence until after/occur during the rainy season, as defined by Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, Sec. 12.10.020, (October 15-April 15). 72. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: All grading activities and operations shall be in compliance with Section III of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All development shall be in compliance with Section II of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 73. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Harwood Court shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall install a Town standard residential driveway approach. The new driveway approach(es) shall be constructed per Town Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 74. GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Owner’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the Owner’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before a certificate of occupancy is granted. 75. GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the project’s design-level geotechnical/geological investigation as prepared by the Owner’s engineer(s), and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town’s consultant and costs shall be borne by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer. 76. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department will not sign off on a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Final Certificate of Occupancy until all required improvements within the Town’s right-of-way have been completed and approved by the Town. 77. UTILITIES: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other Page 187 communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 78. ON-SITE/OFF-SITE PARKING: Parking spaces shall be paved with a compacted base not less than four (4) inches thick, surfaced with asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete pavement or other surfacing (e.g.: permeable paving materials, interlocking pavers and ribbon strip driveways) approved by the Town Engineer. Mike Vroman, Senior Traffic Engineer MVroman@losgatosca.gov (408) 399-5777. 79. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the Owner and/or Applicant or their representative shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Owner and/or Applicant to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris. 80. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used. A Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line, within one (1) foot of the property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard Drawing 3, or at a location specified by the Town. 81. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 82. UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES: It is unlawful to discharge any wastewater, or cause hazardous domestic waste materials to be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge, into storm drains, gutters, creeks or the San Francisco Bay. Unlawful discharges to storm drains include, but are not limited to: discharges from toilets, sinks, industrial processes, cooling systems, boilers, fabric cleaning, equipment cleaning or vehicle cleaning. 83. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if Page 188 grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 84. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)- recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:  All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or otherwise kept dust-free.  All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal from site.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.  As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in areas away from the adjacent residential homes.  All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as deemed appropriate by Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-out control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt-track-out onto adjacent public roads.  All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour.  All driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.  Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334-ODOR (6367).  All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.  Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established. Page 189 85. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate “NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay” NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 86. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 87. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet A1) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. 88. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: (Letter received) The minimum require fireflow for this project is 875 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3] 89. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTs: (As Noted on Sheet A1) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water- based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 90. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: (As Noted on Sheet A1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical Page 190 letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 91. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: (As Noted on Sheet A1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 92. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]. Page 191 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 192 September 18, 2024 Planning Department Community Development Department, Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: The Residence, Formerly 119 Harwood Court Project Description/ Letter of Justiﬁcation To Whom it May Concern: On behalf of I am pleased to present this new project to the Town of Los Gatos. The proposed project is the remodel and addition of an existing garage and accessory structure which will become a new single family residence as part of an SB-9 lot split. The Town considers this a Technical Demo. This letter accompanies the submitted building plans and additional exhibits for the above referenced project, and contains descriptions of the property, the neighborhood, and how it complies with the Residential Development Standards. EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION This hillside neighborhood has many large two story homes, several of which are mediterranean or Tudor in style. Many of the homes are not entirely visible from the street. The property sits at the juncture of Harwood Court and Harwood Road. The original main property being divided is located on Harwood Court with street frontage both at the top and bottom of this property. The newly created lot is the lower half of 119 Harwood Court. It is steeply sloped uphill from front to back and enjoys direct frontage on Harwood Court. The current structure on site consists of a garage on the lower level that is mostly submerged into the hillside. Above it, sits an accessory structure that is partially buried as well. The style of the structure is Mediterranean and matches the style of the home on the upper portion of the lot. A dense hedge of oleander and Oak trees mostly obscure the view of the building from the street. There are several oak trees on the site, only one of which is proposed to be removed. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DESCRIPTION The existing structure on site will not be completely demolished. We propose a major addition (approx. 2,300 SF) and remodel to create a new single family residence with a 3 car garage. The existing retaining walls of the structure are in excellence condition and will continue to be utilized. A continuation of the lower and upper ﬂoors are proposed on the eastern side. The addition of the lower ﬂoor will be 12” down from the existing to allow for greater ceiling heights without going up. Most of the existing garage will remain, but some area will be converted into living area. The new home will be 3,367 SF, with 1,933 SF of buried basement area. The proposed home is well below the maximum allowed (3,900SF + 400SF) and well below the average home size of the neighborhood, around 5,150SF. 51 University Avenue, Suite L • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408.395-2555 K O HLSAA T&ASSOCIATES A R C H I T E C T U R E EXHIBIT 4Page 193 THE RESIDENCE, FORMERLY 119 HARWOOD COURT, PAGE of 2 4 The existing roof and second ﬂoor walls will be removed so that the home can take the shape of a new more contemporary style. It will have some single sloped roofs and some ﬂat roofs. A blend of stucco and wood siding is proposed in darker neutral colors, with stone accent walls. The doors and windows will be dark metal framed. The project requires no exceptions to the zoning code and complies with all development standards. LANDSCAPING A preliminary landscape plan is included with the application. The existing driveway and associated retaining walls will remain. To the east of that, the landscaping will buffer the driveway and entry from the private yard area also in the front. Because of the extensive slope, the views and the existing ﬂatter areas of the site, it makes the most sense to have the private yard area in the front. A ﬁn wall also helps create this separation between the covered entry and covered veranda. The existing lower driveway retaining wall will be lengthened and two additional low terracing site walls are proposed to allow for more usable yard area. Several large trees are proposed around the perimeter of the home which will provide both privacy and shade. ADDENDUM: FLATTER TURF AREA The maximum cut and ﬁll quantities are being met. The area that is proposed to be retained and made level is relatively small compared to the size of the site; 1,000sf of 30,000 sf. It is also the ﬂattest portion of the site. About 25,000 sf of the 30,000 sf lot will be left untouched. ADDENDUM: BUILDING OUTSIDE THE LRDA The existing site as shown on sheet 1 (page 5) of the plan set shows the newly created lot and existing topography. We’ve also added the LRDA and dashed lines indicating probably predevelopment contours. Before the existing structure was built, the entire lot had no slopes less than 30% at all. The only LRDA now is what was created for the existing structure and the driveway in front of it. The LRDA is basically an outline of the structure and driveway, that’s it. And it’s entirely artiﬁcial. Since we are trying to keep the existing structure and driveway access, the only remaining LRDA to build in is a driveway that sits in front of and downhill of the home. There is no reasonable way to place an addition that does not extend out of the LRDA. If it were to stay in the LRDA, it would have to be almost completely detached with a small 10’ wide section that would connect from the existing house to the addition. This would make no sense from a functionality stand point. In order to reduce disturbance, the existing structure is being utilized and the addition is placed where the grades have previously been disturbed and are not natural terrain. In order to build any house at a size close to the allowed ﬂoor area, the footprint of the house must expand out of the LRDA. ADDENDUM: SITE WALL LONGER THAN 50’ There is one wall behind the house that is proposed at 67 feet long without a break. This wall is behind the house where no one, not even the owners can see it. This wall does not create recreation area. It is purely functional for two purposes; to hold the hill back off the house so that drainage is better directed, and also for safe access around the house. The guideline was created for aesthetic reasons, but since the wall is not visible, that is not an issue. The wall could have a break in it, but that would be purely to satisfy this rule and would add more grading and disturbance since the jog in the wall would have to turn uphill. 51 University Avenue, Suite L • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408.395-2555Page 194 THE RESIDENCE, FORMERLY 119 HARWOOD COURT, PAGE of 3 4 COMPLIANCE WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The proposed home speciﬁcally addresses the Residential Design Guidelines as follows: SITE/ PLANNING: §The driveway location has been reutilized, which maintains existing trafﬁc patterns. §The existing structure will be remodeled and added onto for minimal sit disturbance. §Short terracing walls are proposed versus taller walls. HARMONY/COMPATIBILITY: §The proposed home utilizes rich darker neutral colors that will blend in with the hillside. §Existing privacy screening at the front will remain. SCALE AND MASS: §Because the home is signiﬁcantly buried on the ﬁrst ﬂoor and some of the second, the home is well below the height limit. §Low sloped roofs diminish the massing of the home. The proposed roof line is no taller than the existing roof line. §The garage frontages are being reduced from one double and one single car garage doors to 2 single car garage doors. EXTERIOR MATERIALS: §High quality materials adorn this home, including the use of smooth-troweled 4-coat stucco, large format stone tiles, cedar wood siding and high-end metal framed windows and doors. ENERGY CONSERVATION: §The house will employ high quality dual glazed, low E wood windows, ultra-high performance insulation packages and high efﬁciency mechanical systems for heating, cooling and domestic hot water. §Strategically placed windows throughout the house will illuminate the interior to reduce the need for artiﬁcial lighting during the daytime. §Cross ventilation is provided to allow natural cooling in order to reduce the need for A/C. PRIVACY: §The two story home does not pose any privacy issues to any adjacent neighbor. The proposed home is well away from any of the neighbors. Proposed larger windows and doors face the front street. LANDSCAPING: §All proposed landscaping shall comply with the Town’s Landscaping Policies as well as the California WELO. §Proposed drought tolerant plants and landscape materials have been chosen to enhance both the architecture and the setting of the property. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DESIGN STANDARDS & GUIDELINES The proposed home speciﬁcally addresses the Hillside Design Standards & Guidelines as follows: II. CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS: §The proposed home preserves views and is not visible from any viewing platform. §The proposed home utilizes an existing structure and driveway on a steep lot, thereby reducing grading. 51 University Avenue, Suite L • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408.395-2555Page 195 THE RESIDENCE, FORMERLY 119 HARWOOD COURT, PAGE of 4 4 §The entire site has no available LRDA. The proposed home uses the existing home with an addition that takes advantage of the existing driveway ﬂat areas. III. SITE PLANNING: §The proposed home will sit at the same approximate ﬂoor levels of the existing structure. §Proposed activity areas are on or near the existing driveway and terraced to allow for short retaining walls. §Existing drainage courses are proposed to remain, while new drainage is below grade. IV. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY: §The proposed home ﬂoor area is well below the maximum allowed. V. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN: §The materials proposed are natural wood and stucco with dark warm tones that will blend into the hillside. §Additional square footage is added away form any adjacent homes. §The home sits nestled into the hillside and does not protrude more than the existing home. §Existing screening trees are to remain. §Roofs are designed to face south where solar photovoltaic panels can be the most efﬁcient. §In order to take advantage of South facing light, a patio and proposed at the upper ﬂoor. VI. SITE ELEMENTS: §No entry gates are proposed. §Existing retaining walls are proposed to remain. §Short retaining walls are proposed with nothing over 4 feet tall. §Terraced retaining walls are proposed rather than single taller walls. §Only the driveway and covered patios are proposed impervious areas. VII. LANDSCAPE DESIGN: §All proposed plantings are California natives and/or drought tolerant. §Landscaping is proposed at all retaining walls to soften their appearance. §Proposed trees and shrubs are located in a natural and irregular pattern to blend with the natural landscape. CONCLUSION This house has been conceived from the beginning to be compatible with both the neighborhood and the site. By utilizing the existing structure, the owner saves on construction costs, but also disturbs less site area and helps maintains the feel of the neighborhood. Sincerely, Gary Kohlsaat Architect C19245 51 University Avenue, Suite L • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408.395-2555Page 196 August 12, 2024 Mr. Suray NathanCommunity Development DepartmentTown of Los Gatos110 E. Main StreetLos Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 119 Harwood Court Dear Suray: I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the neighborhood context. My comments and recommendations on the design are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is located at the intersection of two roads in a low density, large lot hillside neighborhood. Photos of the site and its surrounding neighborhood are shown on the following page. EXHIBIT 5Page 197 119 Harwood Court Design Review Comments August 12, 2024 Page 2 THE SITE View up Harwood Court View up adjacent Harwood Road THE SITE Page 198 119 Harwood Court Design Review Comments August 12, 2024 Page 3 PROPOSED PROJECT Proposed Front Elevation Proposed Rear Elevation Proposed Right Side Elevation Proposed Left Side Elevation Page 199 119 Harwood Court Design Review Comments August 12, 2024 Page 4 ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS The proposed home is well designed and well integrated into its sloping hillside site. It steps back and up away from its two lower fronting street property lines in accordance with town standards and guidelines. I have no recommendations for changes. Suray, please let me know if you have any questions or if there are any issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon Page 200 Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report 119 Harwood Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 Prepared for: Town of Los Gatos September 12, 2024 Prepared By: EXHIBIT 6 Page 201 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Table of Content Summary ...............................................................................................................1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................1 Background ............................................................................................................1 Assignment .............................................................................................................1 Limits of the assignment ........................................................................................1 Purpose and use of the report ................................................................................2 Observations .........................................................................................................2 Tree Inventory .........................................................................................................2 Analysis .................................................................................................................4 Discussion .............................................................................................................5 Condition Rating .....................................................................................................5 Mitigation for Removals ..........................................................................................6 Expected Impacts ...................................................................................................7 Tree Protection .......................................................................................................7 Conclusion ............................................................................................................8 Recommendations ...............................................................................................9 Bibliography ........................................................................................................10 Glossary of Terms ...............................................................................................11 Appendix A: Tree Inventory, Site Plan, and Protection ....................................13 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables ......................................14 Appendix C: Photographs ..................................................................................16 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page 202 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 C1: Oaks in front 255 -258 ...................................................................................16 C2: Tree #259 .......................................................................................................17 C3: Trees #260 and #261 ......................................................................................18 C4: Trees #273 and #274 ......................................................................................19 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines ...........................................................20 D1: Plan Sheet Detail S-X (Type I) ........................................................................20 D2: Plan Sheet Detail S-Y (Type III) ......................................................................21 D3: Section 29.10.1005. - Protection of Trees During Construction ....................22 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Speciﬁcations .................................................22 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions .....................................23 Prohibited Activities ..............................................................................................23 Monitoring ............................................................................................................24 Root Pruning .........................................................................................................24 Boring or Tunneling ...............................................................................................24 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations .................................................................24 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ....................................................................25 E1: English ............................................................................................................25 E2: Spanish ...........................................................................................................26 Qualiﬁcations, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions ...................................27 Certiﬁcation of Performance.............................................................................28 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page 203 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Summary The applicant is requesting approval for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence, and site work requiring a grading permit on property zoned HR-2 1/2. APN 527-56-027. The project is categorically exempt pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Section15303(a): New Construction. The inventory contains twenty trees comprised of six (6) different species. There are five Large Protected trees and none are Exempt or Street Trees. Ten trees are in good condition, nine fair, and one is in poor shape. The two toyon and coast live oak #259 are probably in the worst shape. Four tree will be highly impacted and likely need to be removed and include #259, #260, #261, and #263. Only #263 is indicated for removal on the plans. There is a new sewer and other infrastructure adjacent to the other trees along the side of the property (plan view east). The applicant will be required to replace four protected trees. Tree protection will consist of fence around those to be retained at a specified distance of either eight times their trunk diameter in radius or along existing hard-scapes (driveway or roadway for the trees in front). There were twenty protected trees appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $99,980.00. Introduction Background  The Town of Los Gatos asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to help satisfy planning requirements. Assignment •Provide an arborist’s report including an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health, structure, and form), and suitability for preservation ratings. Affix number tags on the trees for reference on site and on plans. •Provide tree protection specifications, guidelines, and impact ratings for those affected by the project. •Provide appraised values using the Trunk Formula Technique. Limits of the assignment •The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on September 12, 2024. No tree risk assessments were performed. •Tree heights and canopy diameters are estimates. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 1 28 Page 204 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 •The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows (Table 1). Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by the Town of Los Gatos and the property owners as a reference for existing tree conditions to help satisfy planning requirements. Observations Tree Inventory The inventory consists of trees protected by the Town of Los Gatos located on site and those in close proximity on neighboring properties. Sec. 29.10.0960. - Scope of protected trees. All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. (Appendix A and B). Los Gatos Town Ordinance 29.10.0970 Exceptions (1) states the following: “A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (fifty-seven-inch circumference). Table 1: Plans Reviewed Checklist Plan Date Sheet Reviewed Source Existing Site Topographic 01/24 1 Yes Hannah Brunetti Proposed Site Plan 07/06/24 A-3 Yes Kohlsaat & Associates Erosion Control Grading and Drainage 06/10/24 L1.0 Yes David Fox Utility Plan and Hook-up locations Exterior Elevations 07/06/24 A9/A10 Yes Landscape Plan Irrigation Plan T-1 Tree Protection Plan Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 2 28 Page 205 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 The inventory contains twenty (20) trees comprised of six (6) different species. There are five Large Protected trees and none are 1 Exempt or Street Trees (Chart 1). 2 3 Large protected tree means any oak (Quercus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), or Paciﬁc madrone (Arbutus menziesii) which has a 24-inch or 1 greater diameter (75-inch circumference); or any other species of tree with a 48-inch or greater diameter (150-inch circumference). A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (ﬁfty-seven-inch circumference). Species listed in 29.10.0970 subsection (2).2 Street tree means a tree in a public place, or along or within a public street or right-of-way.3 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 3 28 Quantity Page 206 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Analysis Tree appraisal was performed according to the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 10th Edition, 2019 (CLTA) along with Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004. The trees were appraised using the “Cost Approach” and more specifically the “Trunk Formula Technique” (Appendix B). “Trunk Formula Technique” is calculated as follows: Basic Tree Cost = (Unit tree cost x Appraised trunk area), Appraised Value = (Basic tree cost X functional Limitations (percentage) X Condition (percentage) X External Limitations (percentage)). The trunk formula valuations are based on four tree factors; size (trunk cross sectional area), condition, functional limitations, and external limitations. There are two steps to determine the overall value. The first step is to determine the “Basic Tree Cost” based on size and unit tree cost. Unit tree cost is calculated by dividing the nursery wholesale cost of a 24 inch box specimen and its replacement size (cost per square inch trunk caliper) which is determined by the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. The cost of the 24 inch box wholesale specimen was determined through personal communications with BrightView and Normans nurseries in Farmington and Central Wholesale in San Jose for an average of $214.00. The second part is to depreciate the tree’s Basic Cost through an assessment of condition, functional limitations, and external limitations. The condition assessment guidelines and percentages are defined in the “Condition Rating” section of this report. Functional limitations are based on factors associated with the tree’s interaction to its planting site that would affect condition, limit development, or reduce the utility in the future and include genetics, placement, and site conditions for the individual tree. External limitations are outside the property, out of control of the owner and also affect condition, limit development, or reduce the utility in the future (i.e power lines, municipal restrictions, drought adaptations, or species susceptibility to pests). There were twenty protected trees appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $99,980.00. Appraisal worksheets are available upon request. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 4 28 Page 207 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Discussion Condition Rating A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health, structure, and form. The assessment considered all three criteria for a combined condition rating. •100% - Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. •61-80% - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure, function and aesthetics not compromised with good longevity for the site. •41-60 % - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. •21-40% - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. •6-20% - Very Poor = Poor vigor and dying with little foliage in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. •0-5% - Dead/Unstable = Dead or imminently ready to fail. Ten trees are in good condition, nine fair, and one is in poor shape. The two toyon and coast live oak #259 are probably in the worst shape (Chart 2). Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 5 28 Quantity Page 208 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Mitigation for Removals The table below indicates the recommended replacement values (Table 2). The applicant will be required to replace four protected trees. Alternatively it may be possible to create an approved landscape plan or provide an in-lieu payment. The landscape plan does not indicate any replacement trees. 1To measure an asymmetrical canopy of a tree, the widest measurement shall be used to determine canopy size. 2Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund. 3Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single family residential lots under 10,000 square feet that are not subject to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All 15-gallon trees must be planted on-site. Any in-lieu fees for single family residential shall be based on 24” box tree rates as adopted by Town Council. 4Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures, overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly encouraged. Replacement requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Appendix A and Section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions—Hillsides. Table 2: Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard Canopy Size of Removed Tree (1) Replacement Requirement (2)(4) Single Family Residential Replacement Option (3)(4) 10 feet or less Two 24 inch box trees Two 15 gallon trees More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24 inch box trees Three 15 gallon trees More than 25 feet to 40 feet Four 24 inch box trees or two 36 inch box trees Four 15 gallon trees More than 40 feet to 55 feet Six 24 inch box trees; or three 36 inch box trees Not available Greater than 55 feet Ten 24 inch box trees; or ﬁve 36 inch box trees Not available Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 6 28 Page 209 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Expected Impacts Impact level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating: •Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. •Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. •High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Four tree will be highly impacted and likely need to be removed and include #259, #260, #261, and #263. Only #263 is indicated for removal on the plans. There is a new sewer and other infrastructure adjacent to the other trees along the side of the property (plan view east). Tree Protection Typically there are three different tree protection schemes which are called Type I (Appendix D1), Type II and Type III (Appendix D2) trunk protection only. The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. There are two tree protection zones determined which include the “calculated” and “specified”. The “calculated” tree protection zone is determined by a multiplication factor based on species tolerance, tree age/vigor/health, and trunk diameter. The “specified” tree protection zone is adjusted in size and shape to accommodate the existing infrastructure, planned construction, and specific site constraints. This “specified” zone includes tree canopy conformation, visible root orientation, size, condition, maturity, and species tolerances (Gilpin, R, Hauer, R, Matheny, N, and Smiley, E.T. 2023). Tree protection will consist of fence around those to be retained at a specified distance of either eight times their trunk diameter in radius or along existing hard-scapes (driveway or roadway for the trees in front). Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 7 28 Page 210 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Conclusion The inventory contains twenty trees comprised of six (6) different species. There are five Large Protected trees and none are Exempt or Street Trees. Ten trees are in good condition, nine fair, and one is in poor shape. The two toyon and coast live oak #259 are probably in the worst shape. Four tree will be highly impacted and likely need to be removed and include #259, #260, #261, and #263. Only #263 is indicated for removal on the plans. There is a new sewer and other infrastructure adjacent to the other trees along the side of the property (plan view east). The applicant will be required to replace four protected trees. Tree protection will consist of fence around those to be retained at a specified distance of either eight times their trunk diameter in radius or along existing hard-scapes (driveway or roadway for the trees in front). There were twenty protected trees appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $99,980.00. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 8 28 Page 211 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Recommendations 1.Place tree protection fence around the trees to be retained as indicated in Appendix A. 2.All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. 3.Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations for arborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees drip line or designated TPZ/CRZ. 4.Place all the tree protection fence locations and guidelines on the plans including the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Create a separate plan sheet that includes all three protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan.” 5.Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 9 28 Page 212 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Bibliography Gilpin, R, Hauer, R, Matheny, N, and Smiley, E.T. Managing trees during construction, Third edition. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2023. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal 9th Edition. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Print. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal 10th Edition. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2018. Print. ISA. Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. Western Chapter ISA Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture 1998. Smiley, E, Matheny, N, Lilly, S, ISA. Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment: International Society of Arboriculture, 2017. Print Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 10 28 Page 213 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Glossary of Terms calculated tree protection zone: A TPZ calculated using the trunk diameter and a multiplication factor based on species tolerance to construction and tree age. It is often plotted on a plan as a circle or other arbitrary shape and can be used as a guide for establishing the specified TPZ. critical root zone: a conceptual soil area containing the minimal amount of all the essential parts of the root zone needed to sustain tree health and structural integrity. There are no universally accepted methods to calculate the CRZ. basic Tree Cost: The cost of replacement for a perfect specimen of a particular species and cross sectional area prior to location and condition depreciation. cost Approach: An indication of value by adding the land value to the depreciated value of improvements. defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree’s structural strength. diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United States, Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture. drip Line: Imaginary line defined by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. The outer extent of the tree crown. form: Describes a plant’s habit, shape or silhouette defined by its genetics, environment, or management. health: Assessment is based on the overall appearance of the tree, its leaf and twig growth, and the presence and severity of insects or disease mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 11 28 Page 214 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. specified tree protection zone (specified TPZ): a TPZ that is adjusted in size or shape to accommodate the existing infrastructure, planned construction, and aspects of the site, as well as the tree canopy conformation, visible root orientation, size, condition, maturity, and species response to construction. straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs, straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials, and have an average weight of 35 pounds. structure: Evaluation focused on the crown, trunk, trunk flare, above ground roots and the site conditions contributing to conditions and/or defects that may contribute to failure. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is, and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. trunk: Stem of a tree. Trunk Formula Technique: Method to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. Based on developing a representative unit cost for replacement with the same or comparable species of the same size and in the same place, subject to depreciation for various factors. Contrast with replacement cost method. volunteer: A tree, not planted by human hands, that begins to grow on residential or commercial property. Unlike trees that are b drought in and installed on property, volunteer trees usually spring up on their own from seeds placed onto the ground by natural causes or accidental transport by people. Normally, volunteer trees are considered weeds and removed, but many desirable and attractive specimens have gone on to become permanent residents on many public and private grounds. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 12 28 Page 215 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Appendix A: Tree Inventory, Site Plan, and Protection  Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 13 28 X X X X TPZ Fence TPZ Page 216 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables Table 3: Inventory and Assessment Summary Tree Species I.D. #Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Condition Expected Impact Protection Status Rounded Depreciated Value Calculated Protection Radii (ft.) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)255 5 8 Good Low Protected $520.00 3 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)256 17 35 Good Low Protected $6,000.00 11 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)257 15 35 Good Low Protected $4,700.00 10 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)258 8, 7 15 Fair Low Protected $1,690.00 7 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)259 27 35 Fair High Large Protected $10,900.00 18 toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)260 6, 6, 2 15 Fair High Protected $1,920.00 6 toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)261 9, 8 15 Fair High Protected $3,670.00 8 buckeye (Aesculus californica)262 12 25 Good Low Protected $5,100.00 8 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)263 25 25 Good High Large Protected $13,100.00 17 buckeye (Aesculus californica)264 8 15 Fair Low Protected $1,620.00 5 black oak (Quercus kelloggii)265 13, 13 25 Fair Low Large Protected $5,000.00 12 blue oak (Quercus douglasii)266 18 20 Fair Low Protected $4,830.00 12 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 14 28 Page 217 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 black oak (Quercus kelloggii)267 24 35 Good Low Large Protected $6,700.00 16 blue oak (Quercus douglasii)268 24 35 Good Low Large Protected $12,000.00 16 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)269 6, 5 15 Fair Low Protected $910.00 5 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)270 18 15 Fair Low Protected $4,830.00 12 buckeye (Aesculus californica)271 11 15 Good Low Protected $4,290.00 7 buckeye (Aesculus californica)272 10 15 Good Low Protected $3,540.00 7 blue oak (Quercus douglasii)273 16 20 Good Low Protected $5,300.00 11 valley oak (Quercus lobata)274 15 20 Fair Low Protected $3,360.00 10 Tree Species I.D. #Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Condition Expected Impact Protection Status Rounded Depreciated Value Calculated Protection Radii (ft.) Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 15 28 Page 218 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Appendix C: Photographs C1: Oaks in front 255 -258  Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 16 28 Page 219 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 C2: Tree #259  Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 17 28 Page 220 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 C3: Trees #260 and #261 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 18 28 Page 221 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 C4: Trees #273 and #274 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 19 28 Page 222 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines D1: Plan Sheet Detail S-X (Type I)  Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 20 28 TREE PROTECTION Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment.4'-0"Maintain existing grade with the tree protection fence unless otherwise indicated on the plans. 2" x 6' steel posts or approved equal. Tree Protection fence: High density polyethylene fencing with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; Color- orange. Steel postsinstalled at 8' o.c. 5" thick layer of mulch. Notes: 1- See specifications for additional treeprotection requirements. 2- If there is no existing irrigation, see specifications for watering requirements. 3- No pruning shall be performed except by approved arborist. 4- No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal. 5- See site preparation plan for any modifications with the Tree Protection area. SECTION VIEW KEEP OUT TREE PROTECTION AREA 8.5" x 11" signlaminated in plastic spacedevery 50' along the fence. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE Tree protection fence: Fencing shall be comprised of six- foot high chain link mounted on eight- foot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground. Minimum 4” thick mulch layer Crown diameter drip line distance equal to the outer most limit of foliage.Notes: •All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualiﬁed arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be speciﬁed in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. •All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. Notes: The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) may vary in radius from the trunk and may or may not be established at the drip line distance. See arborist’s report and plan sheet for speciﬁcations of TPZ radii.6’-0”Modiﬁed by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2019 Page 223 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 D2: Plan Sheet Detail S-Y (Type III)  Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 21 28EVCHARGINGONLYEVCHARGINGONLYNOPARKINGNOPARKINGCLEAN AIRVAN POOLE.V.CLEAN AIRVAN POOLE.V.CLEAN AIRVAN POOLE.V.327 328 329329327328E1E1E1E5E5AE5CC ?W ?W ?WPLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANS GUSHEE STREET PLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANSPLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANSPARKING AND BUILDING BYTEALL MESSER ARCHITECTSEE LIBRARY PLANSPLANTING PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATESSEE LIBRARY PLANSLIBRARY LANDSCAPE PLAN BYJONI JANECKI & ASSOCIATES L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.L.O.W.BULL CREEK FLOWLINEFUTURELIBRARY XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X X X KIRBY STREETXXXSEE L2.0 MATERIALS PLAN FOR DISCOVERY PARKIMPROVEMENTSSEE L2.0 MATERIALS PLAN FOR DISCOVERY PARKIMPROVEMENTS (E) CHAINLINK FENCE AND GATETO REMAIN APPROXIMATE LIMIT OF WORK (L.O.W.)LEGEND (E) TREE TO BE PROTECTED(E) TREE TO REMAINNOTE:1.SEE C3.0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN FOR TREEPROTECTION IN EXISTING RIPARIAN AREA.2.TREE SURVEY PROVIDED BY IFLAND SURVEY, 10/09/18.3.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL TREES WHICH ARELOCATED WITHIN 10' OF EQUIPMENT MOVEMENT.1L1.0(E) FENCE TO BE REMOVEDARBORIST NOTES:1.ALL TREE MAINTENANCE AND CARE SHALL BEPERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED ARBORIST WITH AC-61/D-49 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS LICENSE. TREEMAINTENANCE AND CARE SHALL BE SPECIFIED INWRITING ACCORDING TO AMERICAN NATIONALSTANDARD FOR TREE CARE OPERATIONS: TREE, SHRUBAND OTHER WOODY PLANT MANAGEMENT: STANDARDPRACTICES PARTS 1 THROUGH 10 AND ADHERE TO ANSIZ133.1 SAFETY STANDARDS AND LOCAL REGULATIONS.ALL MAINTENANCE IS TO BE PERFORMED ACCORDING TO ISA BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. 2.TREE PRUNING - IF TREE PRUNING FOR OVERHEAD CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED OR NECESSARY PRUNING SPECIFICATIONS SHALL BE IN WRITING PRIOR TO ANY CUTTING. CUTTING SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED TREE CARE PROFESSIONAL OR SUPERVISED BY THE PROJECT ARBORIST. NO LIMBS GREATER THAN FOUR INCHES (4”) IN DIAMETER SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT APPROVAL. 3.ROOT MANAGEMENT - PRIOR TO REMOVING ROOTS GREATER THAN TWO INCHES (2”) IN DIAMETER EACH TREE SHALL BE EVALUATED BY THE PROJECT ARBORIST TO HELP DETERMINE ITS LIKELIHOOD OF FAILURE AFTER ROOT LOSS. IF ROOTS OVER TWO INCHES IN DIAMETER ARE ENCOUNTERED THEY SHOULD BE PRUNED BY HAND WITH LOPPERS, HANDSAW, RECIPROCATING SAW, OR CHAIN SAW RATHER THAN LEFT CRUSHED OR TORN. ROOTS SHOULD BE CUT BEYOND SINKER ROOTS OR OUTSIDE ROOT BRANCH JUNCTIONS AND BE SUPERVISED BY THE PROJECT ARBORIST. WHEN COMPLETED, EXPOSED ROOTS SHOULD BE KEPT MOIST WITH BURLAP OR BACKFILLED WITHIN ONE HOUR. NO ROOTS SHALL BE CUT WITHIN SIX TIMES THE TRUNK DIAMETER DISTANCE IN FEET ON ONE SIDE WITHOUT ARBORIST APPROVAL. 4.TRUNK PROTECTION - PREVENTING MECHANICAL DAMAGE TO THE MAIN STEMS FROM EQUIPMENT OR HAND TOOLS CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED BY WRAPPING THE MAIN STEM WITH STRAW WATTLE. 5.SITE OCCUPANCY - HAVE A QUALIFIED ARBORIST PERFORM A LEVEL 2: BASIC TREE RISK ASSESSMENT AS DESCRIBED IN BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: TREE RISK ASSESSMENT: INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURE, 2017 TO HELP IDENTIFY ANY NEW RISK FACTORS AFTER CONSTRUCTION UPON NEW SITE OCCUPANCY. DEMOLITION AND TREE PROTECTION PLAN L1.0 1"= 20' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTBASE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREPROJECT TEAMPROJECT NAME & ADDRESSFELTON LIBRARYDISCOVERY PARKGUSHEE STREETFELTON, CA, 95018REVISION#Date Description STAMP SHEET TITLE Scale: Date: Drawn by: Checked by: Project No.: PHASE BID SET No. 5579 Ren. 9/30/2020LICENSED A R C HI TECTST ATEOF CAL I F O R NIAAL ENDACSP 1802 PA / AS NM 04/19/2019 CIVIL ENGINEERMME CIVIL + STRUCTURAL ENGINEERINGSAN FRANCISCO / PORTLANDwww.baselandscape.comIRRIGATION DESIGNRMA IRRIGATIONCLIENTSANTA CRUZ COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PARKS,OPEN SPACE, AND CULTURAL SERVICES 0 feet40 1" = 20' 20 60 80 NORTHSECTION TREE TRUNK 12" Ø STRAWFILLED BURLAPWATTLES TREE PROTECTION WITHOUT FENCE 3/8" = 1'-0"4'-0"ROOT PROTECTIONZONE. SEE SPECS FORREQUIREMENTS 1 SCHEDULE TREES TO BE PROTECTED: 20 TREES TO BE REMOVED: 0 04-19-20191 Planning Review Comments1 SECTION VIEW TRUNK PROTECTION WITH WATTLES-Y 6’-0” Excavation Trenches: 1. When any roots are cut or torn during construction, it is critical that you sharply cut all the ends of any exposed roots immediately. Failure to do so will leave crushed and torn roots. This leads to decay and inhibits growth of new roots. 2. Pile soil on the side of the trench opposite the tree. If this is not possible, place the soil on a plastic tarp, plywood or a thick bed of mulch. 3. Do not compact the backfill on the trench more than its original firmness. 4. Water the backfill to allow the roots to begin healing. Trenching near a tree can kill as much as 40%-50% of the tree’s roots. If the tree you are working around is in a confined space and your equipment will be coming close, it is important for you to protect the trunk. Wrap the tree trunk in old tires or place 2” x 4” studs around the tree and rope or band them together. ROOT PRUNING DETAIL PLEASE KEEP THIS SHEET FOR REFERENCE 2” x 4” or 2” x 2” Dimensional Lumber Sturdy Strap (steel, nylon, or synthetic rope) 2” x 4” ’or 2” x 2” - 6 to 8 Feet Tall Dimensional Lumber Spaced 3” Apart Sturdy Strap (steel, nylon, or synthetic rope) Bridge With 4” - 6” Deep Course Woody Debris or 4” x 4” Dimensional Lumber and 3/4” Plywood or Steel Road Plate. Note: See Local Ordinance Requirements and Arborist’s Report for Additional Protection Speciﬁcations and Guidelines. Trunk Protection Vertical Timber Detail 6’ MIN.Page 224 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 D3: Section 29.10.1005. - Protection of Trees During Construction Tree Protection Zones and Fence Speciﬁcations 1.Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2.Area type to be fenced: Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3.Duration of Type I, II, III fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4.Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning —Tree Protection Zone—This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025.” Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E).  Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 22 28 Page 225 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 1.Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2.Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. 3.Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. 4.Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5.Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. 6.Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 7.The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Prohibited Activities The following are prohibited activities within the TPZ: •Grade changes (e.g. soil cuts, fills); •Trenches; •Root cuts; •Pedestrian and equipment traffic that could compact the soil or physically damage roots; •Parking vehicles or equipment; •Burning of brush and woody debris; •Storing soil, construction materials, petroleum products, water, or building refuse; and, •Disposing of wash water, fuel or other potentially damaging liquids. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 23 28 Page 226 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Root Pruning Roots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneling Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone. Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified in writing according to the most recent ANSI A-300A Standards and Limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices while adhering to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 24 28 Page 227 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: English  Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 25 28 Warning Tree Protection Zone This Fence Shall Not Be Removed And Is Subject To Penalty According To Town Code 29.10.1025 Page 228 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 E2: Spanish Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 26 28 Cuidado Zona De Arbol Pretejido Esta valla no podrán ser sacados Y está sujeta a sanción en función de Código Ciudad del 29.101025 Page 229 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Qualiﬁcations, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 27 28 Page 230 119 Harwood Court Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report September 12, 2024 Certiﬁcation of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B Copyright © Copyright 2024, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com Page of 28 28 Page 231 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 232 Town of Los Gatos September 23, 2024 Planning Division 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: The Residence, Formerly 119 Harwood Court, Architecture & Site App.: S-24-040, Arborist Comments Attn: Suray Nathan Below is our response to arborist comments and recommendations. As described in the Expected Impacts and Conclusion sections, the arborist has identified 4 trees that are highly impacted and likely need to be removed. Of these 4 trees, we’d like to remove only two trees, 263 and 261. We’d like to keep trees 260 and 259. We would like to provide a change to the plan to help ensure their survival, we have moved the proposed route for the sanitary sewer line to 13 feet and 11 feet, respectively, away from these trees. The path and stairs near tree 260 are gravel with wood railroad ties and on grade, no footings. These should not impact this tree. The steps near tree 259 are on or above grade within 7’ of the trunk. We would like to propose hand digging for any work under the drip line to best preserve the roots system in this area. Further, we are will to provide tree replacement for this tree in case it does not survive. We will do everything suggested by the arborist in order to keep this tree. 1. Tree protection fencing is now shown on the site plan and tree protection plan. Addition tree protection is now shown at trees 259 and 260. 2. A qualified arborist will perform any tree maintenance and care. 3. Appendix D will be referred to. 4. Tree protection fencing is now shown on the site plan, and grading plan. A tree protection plan, sheet T-1 has been added. 5. A copy of the arborist report has been provided to all parties. If you have any questions regarding the revisions made, please give me a call. Sincerely, Jaclyn Greenmyer 51 University Ave., Suite L Los Gatos, CA 95030 Tel: (408) 395-2555 EXHIBIT 7Page 233 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 234 EXHIBIT 8 Page 235 We have already had an email of support from Fred Falterstack which was very nice. We knocked on every available door, however, no neighbors were available in person at the time. We have chatted with the Hennessys about the project and they have no objections either. Donal & Maire Conroy Los Gatos CA 95032 United States Hi Neighbor, My name is Maire Conroy. My Husband, Donal and I have lived at for the last 10 years. We love our home and our neighborhood however, feel our house is too large for us now. We have decided to downsize by remodeling the guesthouse at the bottom of our property, which we plan to be our long term home. Our new home is a very simple, low profile modern design which we truly believe will be a lovely addition to the neighborhood while blending seamlessly into the hillside. If you have any questions or concerns we would be more than happy to meet with you in person. Please feel free to text me anytime at . Best wishes, Maire & Donal Page 236 EXHIBIT 9 Page 237 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 REVISIONS DATE: SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555S H E E TA NEW RESIDENCE:THE RESIDENCE(FORMERLY 119 HARWOOD COURT, LOS GATOS, CA)AS SHOWN A-9 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 07/08/24 09/25/24A. 12/09/24B. 01/16/25C. BA-12 CA-13 DA-13 DA-13 1'-0"2'-53/4"1'-0"14'-6"3'-0" 1'-0"2'-0"3'-0"RECTANGULAR METAL GUTTER RECTANGULAR METAL GUTTER RECTANGULAR METAL GUTTER RECTANGULAR METAL GUTTER PARAPET CURB W/ METAL CAP PARAPET CURB W/ METAL CAP PARAPET CURB W/ METAL CAP EXISTING HALF WALL W/ NEW RAILING ABOVE PVC MEMBRANE ROOFING PVC MEMBRANE ROOFING PVC MEMBRANE ROOFING STONE VENEER CLADDED FIN WALL W/ METAL CAP FIXED SKYLIGHTS LOW SLOPE ROOF LOW SLOPE ROOF LOW SLOPE ROOF LOW SLOPE ROOF LOW SLOPE ROOF 1/12 1/12 1/12 1/12 TILED BALCONY AA-12 PVC MEMBRANE ROOFING SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED ROOF PLAN * SKYLIGHTS SHALL HAVE A FLAT PROFILE AND AND SHALL BE SELECTED TO REDUCE GLARE AT NIGHT. Page 264 Page 265 Page 266 Page 267 Page 268