05 Staff Report - 16330 Englewood AvenueDATE:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
February 22,2008
MEETING DATE:03/03/08
ITEM NO.5
TO:
FROM:
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
GREG LARSON,TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT:CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE F AMILY
RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE ON
PROPERTY ZONED R-l:20.APN 532-05-025.ARCHITECTURE &SITE
APPLICATION S-07-182:16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE.PROPERTY
OWNER/APPLICANT:C.PATRICK MUNNERLYN.APPELLANTS:GIL
PEREZ,NED FINKLE,KELLY COFFEY &YVETTE BONNET
RECOMMENDATION:
1.Open and hold the public hearing.
2.Close the public hearing.
3.Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the appeal and approve Architecture &
Site application S-07 -182 (motion required).
4.Refer to the Town Attorney for the preparation of the appropriate resolution (no motion
required).
If the Town Council determines that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or
modified relative to either or both appeals:
1.The Council needs to find one or more of the following:
(1)Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part ofthe Planning Commission;
or
(2)The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that
was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission;or
PREP ARED BY:Lortz,Director of Community Development
Reviewed by:OS:SAssistant Town Manager _Town Attorney __Clerk Finance
__Community Development Revised:2/22/08 10:06 AM
Refonnatted:5/30/02
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR 16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE;FILE #S-07-182.
March 3,2008
(3)An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address,but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
2.If the predominant reason for modifying or reversing the decision of the Planning
Commission is new information as defined in Subsection (2)above,it is the Town's policy
that the application be returned to the Commission for review in light ofthe new information
unless the new information has a minimal effect on the application.
3.Ifthe appeal is approved,use the findings and considerations for review of Architecture and
Site applications (Attachment 1),and modify the conditions in Attachment 2 as appropriate.
4.Refer to the Town Attorney for preparation of the appropriate resolution(s).
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the east side of Englewood Avenue,south of Shannon Road.
Existing development on the site includes three separate structures,a main residence,guest cottage,
and detached garage.These structures have no architectural or historical significance,are in poor
condition,and were approved for demolition under the Architecture and Site (A&S)application.
On October 2,2007,the Development Review Committee (DRC)considered the A&S application
for demolition of the single family residence and construction of a new residence on the property.
Based on a concern raised by neighbors in attendance,the DRC continued the application to
determine if a requested shift of the house on the lot would mitigate the neighbor's concern without
impacting the abutting neighbors.At the October 9,2007 DRC meeting the option of modifying the
gable roofto a hip roof was discussed and accepted by all neighbors and the applicant.The DRC
approved the proposed project with added conditions (see Exhibit C of Attachment 8).
On October 19,2007,the DRC decision was appealed by a neighbor on Shannon Road who was not
present at the DRC meetings (see Exhibit F of Attachment 8).
On December 12,2007 the Planning Commission considered the appeal.After receiving public
testimony and discussing the matter,the Commission continued the public hearing to January 9,
2008.The Commission requested that the applicant and neighbors work together to try and reach an
agreement on appropriate landscape screening to alleviate the neighbors'privacy concerns.
On January 9,2008 the Commission denied the appeal and approved a landscape screening plan in
addition to upholding the decision ofthe DRC and approving the project.The appellant and several
other neighbors appealed the Commission's decision on January 22,2008 (see Attachment 3).
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR 16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE;FILE #S-07-182.
March 3,2008
PROJECT SUMMARY:
The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing single family home and to construct a
4,652 square foot two story single family residence and an 898 square foot three-car garage.The
allowable floor area is 4,677 square feet for the house and 1,114 square feet for the garage.General
project information is provided on the project data sheet (see Exhibit I of Attachment 8).
The maximum height of the proposed residence is just over 29 feet.Exterior materials will consist
of hardie plank lap siding,battered masonry wainscot with brick soldier course cap,clad wood
windows and doors,hardie shingle staggered edge siding and composition shingle roofing.Story
poles have been in place since early September.The story poles have been modified to reflect the
roof line changes that were made through discussions with neighbors on Englewood Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
Architecture &Site
Staff and the Town's Consulting Architect reviewed the plans and visited the site in addition to
evaluating the project using the Town's draft Residential Development Standards.The Consulting
Architect's report is Exhibit G of Attachment 8.
The house was found to be well designed with good overall forms and massing.The Consulting
Architect had two recommendations for changes as follows:
•Revise the site layout to locate the garage to the rear of the house.
Staffagreed with this option in order to increase the house presence on the street that was largely
dominated by the garage.One house in the immediate area has a three car side loaded garage,
however most ofthe homes on Englewood Avenue (between Shannon Road and Topping Way)have
two-car garages that are not predominant or are located behind the house.The applicant agreed to
revise the plans and moved the garage behind the house as a detached structure.
Re-examine the column and beam sizes at the entry to ensure that they are compatible with
the traditional architectural style selected.
The applicant agreed and has incorporated this change into the construction plans.
Demolition of Existing Residence
A structural report was submitted for the existing residence.The reviewing engineer listed the items
that needed to be addressed and corrected in order to bring the current home in compliance with
current codes.These deficiencies include the following:
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR 16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE;FILE #S-07-182.
March 3,2008
Replace the electrical panel and wiring with a grounded system
Replace all dissimilar plumbing connections in the main residence
•Replace the entire plumbing system in the guest cottage
Replace the gas supply line for the guest cottage
Install a new garage wall to create a proper firewall between the house and garage
Replace the sliding glass door and floor to ceiling windows with tempered safety glass
Complete a full seismic analysis ofthe existing foundation and wall system and implement to
bring the existing structure up to current seismic code
In addition to the above deficiencies,the applicant could not remodel the existing house and achieve
the proposed design without resulting in a technical demolition.Findings for the demolition of the
existing residence are included in Attachment 1.
Landscape Screening
A number of options and possible solutions were offered by the applicant to address the neighbors
privacy concerns including planting trees on the appellant's property and planting trees on the
Cassacia property,the parcel between the applicant's and the Perez and Finkle properties.The area
along the north property line along the length of the house has a limited planting area that cannot
accommodate large trees.The adjacent neighbor to the north (Cassacia)has a high hedge along part
of the property line and the applicant suggested filling in the gap in the hedge and to plant trees
elsewhere in the rear yard where there is adequate space.
The Town does not have a view protection ordinance or any regulations on how much ofa house can
be seen from neighboring properties.Landscape screening is appropriate to soften and screen the
new residence,but it is not standard practice to plant landscaping that is dense enough to completely
hide new development.Two neighbors have stated that they do not want large trees that will quickly
outgrow the planting area as that would block views of the mountains.The adjacent neighbors to the
north would like to retain sunlight into their rear yard and prefer not to have large trees planted close
to the common property line.
The following is a chronology of events that occurred following the DRC approval ofthe project and
prior to the first Planning Commission hearing:
October 17,2007
October 19,2007
October 22,2007
Applicant heard from neighbor,Gil Perez,regarding the concern about
privacy and loss of view.
Applicant met with neighbors and offered to plant four 24-inch trees.Mr.&
Mrs.Perez were not comfortable with the solution and filed an appeal ofthe
DRC decision.
Applicant met with Mr.Perez to discuss options and erected story poles in
proposed tree locations.
PAGES
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR 16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE;FILE #S-07-182.
March 3,2008
October 28,2007 Applicant met with Mr.Perez and Mr.Finkle to view story poles and discuss
options.
November 9,2007 Staff met with the applicant,Gil Perez and Ned Finkle to discuss screening
and privacy options.
November 10,2007 Based on the November 9 discussion,the tree story poles were moved to new
locations.Neighbors were not satisfied with the solution.
Prior to the December 12,2007 Planning Commission meeting the applicant made the following
proposals to the appellant and adjacent neighbor on Shannon Road:
Plant four new trees in the rear yard to screen the new residence.
•Plant landscaping on the Perez property
•Plant landscaping on the Casaccia property (the Cacaccia's have consented)
Fill-in the gap in the hedge along the north property line and plant trees in the rear yard.
Hire an independent landscape architect to evaluate and provide recommendations on
appropriate screening.
Following the December 12 meeting,the applicant and neighbors met on the project site.Based on
their discussion the applicant developed a revised screening plan (see sheets L2 and L3 of
Attachment 10).The intent of the plan is to screen the rear of the house to provide the desired
privacy for the Perez &Finkle residences while preserving the views from the Casaccia property.
The applicant's letter to the Commission provides a detailed explanation ofthe December 16,2007
meeting and the steps that have been taken in an effort to resolve the concerns of the Shannon Road
neighbors (Perez and Finkle)while not impacting the adjacent neighbors (see Exhibit T of
Attachment 5).
House Size
One of the options cited by the appellant is that the house be redesigned.This was not discussed
when the applicant and neighbors met and was not raised at the December 12,2007 Planning
Commission meeting.Until the time the appellant's letter was submitted,the focus and stated goal
have been to preserve privacy in the rear yards of the two homes on Shannon Road and to develop an
appropriate landscape plan to soften and screen the new residence while preserving as much of
neighbors'views as possible.
The size of the proposed residence and garage are within the size and FAR range for the immediate
neighborhood.There are currently eight two story homes on Englewood A venue between Shannon
Road and Topping Way.Four of these homes are larger than 4,000 square feet.
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR 16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE;FILE #S-07-182.
March 3,2008
The following is a summary of the neighboring homes:
•House sizes range from 1,410 to 4,619 square feet
•Garage sizes range from 390 to 1,396 square feet
•Lot sizes range from 10,890 to 32,280 square feet
•FAR's range from .07 to .26 (excluding garage)
•Seven neighboring homes are two-story
•Eleven neighboring homes are one-story
Although there is a mix of styles and sizes in the neighborhood,staff and the Consulting Architect
concluded that the proposed design is compatible,particularly after the garage was relocated behind
the house.As previously mentioned,the applicant originally proposed to locate the house further
from the street,however,staff and the Consulting Architect felt the garage in front was too dominant
and was not consistent with the neighborhood.Only one other horne has a three car garage located at
the front of the property.Moving the garage reduced the bulk and mass of the house from the street
and prevented it from becoming a dominant element of the design and the streetscape.The
Consulting Architect commented that the design of the house in terms of its architectural and design
details is very well executed.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE ACTION:
On October 2,2007,the DRC considered the A&S application for demolition of the single family
residence and construction of a new residence on the property.The DRC accepted public testimony
from neighbors Joe and Suzie Wall who expressed concern that the house would block their view.
The application was continued to the next DRC meeting to determine ifthe modification to the front
setback would mitigate the Walls'concern while not impacting the adjacent neighbors.At the
October 9,2007 DRC,neighbors Steve Casaccia and Kelly Coffey stated they did not want the house
shifted back on the lot.Joe and Suzi Wall reiterated their concerns from the previous meeting.The
option of modifying the gable roof to a hip roof was discussed and was accepted by the neighbors
and the applicant.The DRC approved the proposed project with additional conditions (see
Attachment 2).Subsequent to the second DRC meeting and the approval ofthe A & S application,a
neighbor on Shannon Road,Gil Perez,reviewed the plans and expressed a concern about the need
for landscaping to screen the house and protect the privacy ofneighbors.The applicant met with the
Mr.&Mrs.Perez and another neighbor,Ned Finkle,to discuss landscape options.Staff also met
with Mr.Perez,Mr.Finkle and the applicant and was unable to facilitate an agreement.On October
19,2007 Gil &Tamar Perez filed an appeal ofthe DRC's decision.The reasons given for the appeal
were that the new horne will compromise their views and privacy.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission considered the appeal on December 12,20067 and January 9,2008.The
Commission determined that the applicant had followed its direction and that an appropriate
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR 16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE;FILE #S-07-182.
March 3,2008
landscape screening plan had been developed.The Commission voted 4-2 to deny the appeal,
uphold the decision of the Development Review Committee,and approve a landscape screening
plan.Verbatim minutes were prepared for both meetings (see Attachments 4 and 6).
APPEAL:
Four neighbors appealed the Planning Commission's decision,Gil Perez,Ned Finkle,Yvette Bonnet
and Kelly Coffey.Mr.Coffey was present at the DRC hearing where the project was approved and
did not raise any concerns at that time.Ms.Bonnet or Mr.Coffey did not testifY at the Planning
Commission meetings,did not submit written comments prior to the filing of the appeal of the
Commission's decision,and have had no verbal communication with staff.Staff and the applicant
have had numerous discussions and communications with the other two appellants and until shortly
before the January 9,2008 Commission meeting,the focus and goal of the discussions were to
develop an adequate landscape screening plan to address privacy concerns while not eliminating
neighbors'views.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision
approving Architecture and Site application S-07 -182 inclusive of demolition of the existing single
family residence,construction of a new residence and the landscape screening plan.
FISCAL IMP ACT:None
Attachments:
1.Required Findings &Considerations (one page)
2.Recommended Conditions of Approval (six pages)
3.Appeal statement (one page with five page attachment),received January 22,2008
4.January 9,2008 Planning Commission Minutes (21 pages)
5.January 9,2008 Report to Planning Commission with Exhibits 0 through U
6.December 12,2007 Planning Commission Minutes (41 pages)
7.December 12,2007 Planning Commission Desk Item with Exhibit L through N
8.December 12,2007 Report to Planning Commission with Exhibits A though K
9.Applicant's letter (four pages with three page attachment),received February 22,2008
10.Email correspondence from Heather Johnstone (one page),received February 26,2008
11.Development plans (12 sheets),received September 26,2007 and Landscape screening
plan (two sheets)received December 21,2008
PAGE 8
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:APPEAL FOR 16330 ENGLEWOOD AVENUE;FILE #S-07-182.
March 3,2008
Distribution:
Patrick Munnerlyn,228 Bella Vista Ave.,Los Gatos,CA 95030
Gregg Kawahara Architect,5822 Dresslar Circle,Livennore,CA 94550
Gil &Tamar Perez,16590 Shannon Road,Los Gatos,CA 95032
Ned Finkle,16608 Shannon Road,Los Gatos,CA 95032
Kelly Coffey,16344 Englewood Avenue,Los Gatos,CA 95032
Yvette Bonnet,16301 Englewood Avenue,Los Gatos,CA 95032
BNL:SD
N:\DEV\SUZANNE\COUNCIL\REPORTS\FWD.TO TC\APPEALS\ENGLEWOOD16330.DOC
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE -OCTOBER 9,2007
PLANNING COMMISSION -JANUARY 9,2008
TOWN COUNCIL -MARCH 3,2008
REQUIRED FINDINGS &CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
16330 Englewood Avenue
Architecture and Site Application S-07-182
Requesting approval to demolish a single family residence and to construct a new residence on
property zoned R-1 :20.APN 532-05-025
PROPERTY OWNER:C.Patrick Munnerlyn
FINDINGS:
Required finding for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Sections 15303 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
Required finding for the demolition of a single family residence:
As required by Section 29.10.09030(e)of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family
residence:
1.The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house will be replaced.
2.The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance and is in poor condition.
3.The property owners do not desire to maintain the structure as it exists and the proposed
architectural design cannot be accomplished without demolition of the existing house.
4.The economic utility of the structure is such that the existing house is not viable to remodel.
Required Compliance with Residential Development Standards:
The project is in compliance with the Residential Development Standards for single-family homes
not in hillside residential zones.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Required considerations in review of 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.
N::DEV\FJNDlNGS\ENGLEWOOD 16330.DOC
Attachment 1
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE -OCTOBER 9,2007
PLANNING COMMISSION -JANUARY 9,2008
TOWN COUNCIL -MARCH 3,2008
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
16330 Englewood Ave
Architecture and Site Application S-07 -182
Requesting approval to demolish a single family residence and to construct a new residence on
property zoned R-1 :20.APN 532-05-025
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT:C.Patrick Munnerlyn
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 and in substantial compliance with the plans
approved on October 9,2007 and noted as received by the Town on June 18,2007.Any
changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community
Development Director or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the
change(s).
2.EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL:The Architecture and Site application (S-07 -182)will
expire two years from the date of the approval pursuant to Section 29.20.335 of the Town
Code,unless the approval is used prior to expiration.
3.ROOF MODIFICATION.The highest ridge of the house shall be modified from a gable
to a hip roof.Revised plans shall be reviewed and approved prior to acceptance of plans
for building plan check.
4.STORY POLES.The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture &Site application.
5.RECYCLING.All wood,metal,glass and aluminum materials generated from the
demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which will recycle the materials.
Receipts from the company(s)accepting these materials,noting type and weight of
material,shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Towns demolition inspection.
6.OUTDOOR LIGHTING.Exterior house and landscape 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 first approved by the Planning
Division.The outdoor lighting plan can be reviewed during building plan check.Any
changes to the lighting plan shall be approved by the Planning Division prior to
installation.
7.TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for trees to be
removed,prior to the issuance of the demolition permit.
8.REPLACEMENT TREES.Replacement trees shall be planted for trees being removed.
The number and size of new trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table
in the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance.Required trees shall be planted prior to final
inspection.
9.TREE STAKING.All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
Attachment 2
10.GENERAL.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.
11.TREE PRESERVATION.All recommendations of the Town's Consulting Arborist shall
be followed throughout all phases of construction.Refer to the report prepared by Arbor
Resources dated September 21,2007 for details.Tree protection specifications shall be
printed on the construction plans.
12.TREE FENCING.Protective tree fencing 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.Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter
steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart.
Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans.
Building Division
13.PERMITS REQUIRED:A building permit shall be required for the construction of the
pool and cabana.Separate permits are required for electrical,mechanical,and plumbing
work as necessary.
14.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
on the cover sheet of the construction plans.A compliance memorandum shall be
prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions
of Approval will be addressed.
15.SIZE OF PLANS:Four sets of construction plans,maximum size 24"x 36."
16..DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS:Obtain a Building Department Demolition
Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management Application from the Building
Department Service Counter.Once the demolition form has been completed,all
signatures obtained,and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been
disconnected,return the completed from to the Building Department Service Counter
with the J#Certificate,PG&E verification,and three (3)sets of site plans to include all
existing structures,existing utility service lines such as water,sewer,and PG&E.No
demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
17.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.ALTERNATE:design the foundation for an
allowable soils 1,000 psf design pressure (Uniform Building Code Volume 2 -Section
1805).
18.SHORING.Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations that
exceed four (4)feet in depth or remove later support from any existing building,adjacent
property or the public right-of-way.Shoring plans shall be prepared by a California
licensed engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations.
19.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,the building pad elevation,on-site retaining wall
locations and elevations are prepared according to approved plans.Horizontal and
vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil
engineer for the following items:
a.Building pad elevation
b.Finish floor elevation
c.Foundation comer locations
20.RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.The residence shall be
designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution
1994-61 :
a.Wooded 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.
b.All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor.
c.Primary entrance shall a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5'level landing,no
more than I-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-
inch clearance.
d.Door buzzer,bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
21.TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE:California Title 24 Energy Compliance forms CF-
lR,MF-IR,and WS-5R must be blue-lined on the plans.
22.BACKWATER VALVE:The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025.Please provide
information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the
installation.The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District
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.
23.TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS.New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA
Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905.Tree limbs shall be cut within
10-feet of chimneys.
24.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:When a special inspection is required by UBC Section 1701,
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,signed by all requested
parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans.Special Inspection forms are
available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov.
25.NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS:The Town standard Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as
the second page.The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service
Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print.
26.APPROVALS REQUIRED:The project requires the following departments and
agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a.Community Development -Planning Division:Suzanne Davis at 354-6875
b.Engineering/Parks &Public Works Department:Fletcher Parsons at 395-3460
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
building permit issuance.
f.Bay Area Air Quality Management District:(415)771-6000
TO THE SA TFISF ATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS
Engineering Division
27.PAD CERTIFICATION.A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating
that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall
be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the
structure.The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation
placement.
28.DESIGN CHANGES.The Applicant's registered Engineer shall notify the Town
Engineer,in writing,at least 72 hours in advance of all differences between the proposed
work and the design indicated on the plans.Any proposed changes shall be subject to the
approval of the Town before altered work is started.Any approved changes shall be
incorporated into the final"as-built"drawings.
29..GENERAL.All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted
Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications.All work shall conform
to the applicable Town ordinances.The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear
of all job related dirt and 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 a special permit is issued.The developer'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 Town
performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
30.ENCROACHMENT PERMIT.All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit.All work over $5,000 will require construction
security.
31.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS.The developer or his 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 rejection of work that went on without inspection.
32.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 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 will 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 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 25 MPH.All
trucks hauling soil,sand,or other loose debris shall be covered.
33.CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING.No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (l0,000)pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from
the Town Engineer (§15.40.070).
34.SITE DRAINAGE.Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks.No through
curb drains will be allowed.
35.NPDES.On-site drainage systems shall include a filtration device such as a bio-swale or
permeable pavement.
36.SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.It is the responsibility of contractor
and home owner 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.
37.UTILITIES.The developer shall install all utility services,including telephone,electric
power and all other communications lines underground,as required by Town Code
§27.50.015(b).All new utility services shall be placed underground.Underground
conduit shall be provided for cable television service.
38.RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.The developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed
because of developer'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.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.Developer shall request a walk-through with the
Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions.
39.FENCING.Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall comply with
Town Code Section §23.10.080.
40.AS-BUILT PLANS.An AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built"plans shall be
provided to the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.The AutoCAD file
shall include only the following information and shall conform to the layer naming
convention:a)Building Outline,Layer:BLDG-OUTLINE;b)Driveway,Layer:
DRIVEWAY;c)Retaining Wall,Layer:RETAINING WALL;d)Swimming Pool,
Layer:SWIMMING-POOL;e)Tennis Court,Layer:TENNIS-COURT;f)Property Line,
Layer:PROPERTY-LINE;g)Contours,Layer:NEWCONTOUR.All as-built digital
files must be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network and
shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher.
41.SANITARY SEWER LATERAL.Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley
Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused.Install a sanitary sewer lateral clean-out at the property line.
42.CONSTRUCTION NOISE.Between the hours of 8:00 a.m.to 8:00 p.m.,weekdays and
9:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.weekends and holidays,construction,alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed.No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85)dBA at twenty-five (25)feet.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.
43.GOOD HOUSEKEEPING.Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction.Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be
allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division.
44.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.).Prior to the issuance of a building permit,the developer shall work with the Town
Building and Engineering Department Engineering 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
developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of
construction and hauling activities,or providing additional traffic control.Cover all
trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose debris or require all trucks to maintain at least
two feet of freeboard.
45.UTILITY SETBACKS.House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient
distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation.The
Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of the utility,
input from the project soils engineer,and the type of foundation.
46.UTILITY EASEMENTS.Deed restrictions shall be placed on lots containing utility
easements.The deed restrictions shall specify that no trees,fences,or hardscape are
allowed within the easement boundaries,and that maintenance access must be provided.
The Town will prepare the deed language and the Applicant's surveyor shall prepare the
legal description and plat.The Applicant shall pay any recordation costs.
47.PERMIT ISSUANCE:Permits for each phase;reclamation,landscape,and grading,shall
be issued simultaneously.
48.COVERED TRUCKS:All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be
covered.
49.PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR.The applicant shall fund a full time public works
inspector for the duration of the demolition and grading operations.The applicant will be
charged on a time and materials basis.A deposit for the full amount,to be estimated by
the Town based on the Contractor's approved schedule,shall be paid prior to issuance of
the demolition permit.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
50.REQUIRED FIRE FLOW.Required fire flow is 2,000 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure.
51.REQUIRED ACCESS TO WATER SUPPLY (HYDRANTS).Provide an onsite fire
hydrant or an approved fire sprinkler system,hydraulically designed per National Fire
Protection Association (NFP A)Standard #13D and local ordinances.The fire sprinkler
system supply valving shall be installed per Fire Department Standard Detail and
Specifications W-l/SP-6.
52.PREMISE IDENTIFICATION.Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings
so they are clearly visible and legible from Englewood Avenue.Numbers shall be a
minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background.
N::DEV:CONDITNS\2007\Englewood 16330.doc
FILING FEES
~..$286.00 Residential
$1,149.00 per Commercial,Multi-
family or Tentative Map Appeal
Town of Los Gatos ~~~~W[
Office of the Town CI 5 .a..~
110 E.Main St.,Los Gatos "1.-''''''50~N 22 2008
~'~.CO a:4=lti'17l
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMIS IONDEeHSIONTOS
CLERK DEPARTMENT
I,the undersigned,do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as follows:(pLEASE TYPE OR PRINT Nf<\TLY)_
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION:JaY'\.9t1.,I lOO1-~~I:::r:i1
PROJECT /APPLICATION NO:lfo?;bo £O§le..WDDJ Pry.e..--~prJ S'S2 -o C{'-o 2r -Fee
ADDRESS LOCATION:r b 1"?O f=.-i'\.j(.WD"'C'~,q.v£ili.~
Pursuant to the Town Code,the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matters if the
Council finds that one of three (3)reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3)Council members.Therefore,
please specify how one of those reasons exist in the appeal:
I.The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion becaUse _
__________________________________-';OR
2.There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision,which is
_______________________(please attach the new information ifpossible):OR
3.The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Counci1:_
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED.PLEASE AITACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
1.Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes.ir-A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing.
2.Appeal must be filed within ten (10)calendar days ofPlanning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee.
Deadline is 5:00 p.m.on the 10th day following the decision.If the 101h day is a Saturday,Sunday,or Town holiday,then it
may be filed on the workday immediately following the IOU'day,usually ~.
3.The Town Clerk will set the hearing withing 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (Town Ordinance No.
1967)
4.An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code,as applicable,which is different from other appeals.
5.Once filed,the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6.If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information,the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.-.hi.e pet.)-L d'))
PRINT NAME:See f}ffC1vhed Sljht\f SIGNATURE:'---------------
DATE:
PHONE:
ADDRESS:
***OFFICIAL USE ONLY ***
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING:fjrl{l.,JL~~~),3 ~D~CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT:Date:,-----
Pending Planning Department Confirmation
DATE TO SEND PUBLICATION:2,00 \~.':~:\)
N:\DEWORMS\Planning\Planning Commission AppeaLwpd
TO APPLICANT &APPELLANT BY:
DATE OF PUBLICATION:';;'.b '(~F-~
Attachment 3
AJmeal.of Planning Commissioo .DecisioD
•The planning Commission erred or abused its discretion
1.Non conforming with Town standanls-The current proposed structure for
16330 Englewood Ave.does not meet nor conform to the Town ofLos Gatos
Residential Development Standards
a.The planning commission members went 'on the record~multiple times
and on multiple planning commission meetings stating the above
i.See transCript and comments by Chairman and Vice Chairman of
planning committee.
b.Below are excerpts from the Town of Los Gatos Residential Development
Standards
A.General
1 The appetu'tlllce ofthe residence shouM blelld whthe chllTtlCter
ofthe neighborhood 11III1 conform willi theexistmg stTemcape.
4.The project sholdll not·inqmiT -<directly ofby the possible total
effect ofseveral new residences -the use,enjoyment.and value of
neighboringpublic andprivate property.
7.The design ofII prtJJJOSed Rdditio"shall complement the existing
residence.
B.Site Planning
1.Site Design
A project should be designed tofit II site~s nllhll'tll conditions~
rllther fhlln lI1ter the site to IICcOlttllUHitde II stock buildingplan.
Existing topography should be preserved ....The site layout
should tllke into considerlltitJntheproject~s effect ontUljtu:ent
propei1ies and neighborluHHls (e.g.~~privtJcy~setbac~
etc.).
Residential Development Standards -Section D:Building Design
A.Harmony/Compatibility
The proposedproject must have II hll111Wnious and compo:tible
relationship with the s,,"ounding neighborhood.The factors which
contribute to the relationship include,but are not limited to,the
following:
1.An appropriate design theme;
2.An "Pproprillte sense ofscllle;
B.Scale and Mass
1.Second Story Additions and Two-Story Dwellings
The Town has identified a trend towards the development oftwo-
story houses and second-story additions in the Los Gatos
residential community.One ofthe unique traits ofLos Gatos is the
variety ofhouse sizes,shapes,and designs especially in the R-l
and R-l:Dzones.
While there are many creative second-story designs,the Town is
concerned that property owners and developers are restricting
their design alternatives to only second story.A continUiltion of
this trend couldjeoptUdize the chfUlICter ofollr neighborhoods.
To maintain a proportionate distribution ofsingle-story and two-
story housing stocle in Los Gatos,property owners and designers
are encouraged to strongly consider single-story designs as viable
development alternatives.Ifa secllnd-sJory design is chosen,the
applicJmts shllll be required to explain why a single-story design
does not work.
2.Demolitions,Replacement Strudures,and Significant Remodels
Significant remodeling ofhomes that will change the chlUllder of
the neighborhood,reslllt in a dnunaticlllly IIltered streetsCIlpe,or
bear no rejlection on the original home will req,,;,e extra scrutiny of
design.
When a house is demolished pursuant to Section 29.10.020 ofthe
Town Code,the replacement structure snail be judgedfor
compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood based upon the
following criteria:
a.Predominant architectural style ofthe street/neighborhood
b.Lot size
c.Size ofhomes on the street on which the sllbjedproperty is
Iocllted
d.Neighborlwod in transition
e.Intp11d on site chlll'llderistics and sllrro"nding homes,i.e.,
privacy,shadowing e.lfect and existing vegetl1tion
2.The New Proposed Structure
a.The proposed new structure is over 5,500 sq ft
i.Only 25 sq ft shy of the maximum allowable for the lot
b.This house will be the largest building in the entire neighborhood,and a
very significant increase in size from existing structure (over 300%)
3.Neighbors opinion and opposition
a.See below -10 adjacent &close proximity neighbors object the new
structure
b.Neighbors'opposition grew over time since no one was aware ofthe
ability to petition a redesign of the structure.The understanding by all was
that the new structure meets the town requirements and only minor and
cosmetics changes can be demanded.
4.Decision by the planning commission to deny the appeal was made on the basis of
a.Commissioners did not want to 'punish'the developer/contractor/owner of
property
b.The initial appeal was a landscaping/screening appeal.Some
commissioners were not willing to discuss the redesign aspects because
they thought the matter can and should be settled via screening
5.Planning committee overlooked the significant negative effect the new proposed
structure will have on 10 neighborS~By not 'punishing'the
builder/constructor/owner they are 'punishing'allt 0 other neighbors.
a.An estimate ofreduction in value to adjacent and near by properties ranges
from ten oftbousandsto over $100,000.Creating an undesirable and
highly unwelcomed structure to the neighborhood.
b.This new structure also created a undesirable situation in which friendly
neighbors are at odds with each other
6.A petition with 20 signatures was collected and presented to the planning
commission,reiterating the need to reexamine the new s1ructure based on the
town of Los Gatos residential development standards
Callfor Action
We caD on the town council of Los Gatos to:
o Reverse the decision by the pJanning commission
to reject our appeal regarding 16330 Englewood
Ave.
o Request the developer/contractor/owner to
redesign the structure to meet the residential
development standards by significantly reducing
the scale and mass of the 2Dd story of the new
structure.
Signature Page
1.Name:Gil Perez
Date:Jan 22,2007
Phone:4o~-35{,-2'~2-6-,)
Yoi -bSb -lr7~C)
2.Name:Ned Finkle
Date:Jan 22,2007
Phone:7Dft';J!r&7 -i3'Dt
3.Name:Kelly Coffey
Date:Jan 22,2007
Phone:-------
4.Name:Yvette Bonnet
Date:Jan 22,2007
Phone:~06 ~5"5""-(033"
Signature:_~/_>,_.!__l~'~_/1_'~
Address:16590 Shannon road
Signature:~.:;if-
Address:16608 Shannon road
/
Address:16344 Englewood Ave .
Signature:~~o"o_._-.:...--=--
Address:1630 I Englewood Ave
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
A P PEA RAN C E S:
Joanne Talesfore,Chair
John Bourgeois
Michael Kane
Phil Micciche
Tom O'Donnell
Steve Rice
Marico Sayoc
PRO C E E DIN G S:
CHAIR TALESFORE:Our first item is a continued
item from December 12,2007.It's 16330 Englewood Avenue.
10
11
12
Assistant Director of
Community Development:
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by:
Randy Tsuda
Orry Korb
Vicki L.Blandin
(510)337-1558
Architecture and Site Application S-07-182.Appellant is
Gil and Tamar Perez,and this is an appeal of the
Development Review Committee approval of a request to
10
demolish an existing single-family residence and to
11
construct a new residence on property zoned R-l:20.APN
12
number is 532-05-025.And Commissioners,as you remember,
13
14
15
13
14
15
the motion at that time was to direct the applicant to work
with the neighbors to reach an agreement on the screening
16 16 of that house.With that we have a short presentation from
17 17 I Suzanne Davis.Thank you.
>-f'"1'
f'"1'
~
I
f'"1'
.j::-o
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SUZANNE DAVIS:At the previous meeting the
Planning Commission considered the appeal of the DRC
decision to approve the demolition of the residence on the
site currently,the existing garage and the existing
guesthouse,and to construct a new residence.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
2
The issue is provision of landscape screening for On a side note,the story poles out there were
two residences running on Shannon Road.They are two lots
over from the applicant's property.
revised,because we did at the DRC level require a change to
the roofline to lower it and open up the views in response
to some concerns from some neighbors on Englewood,so the
The Commission continued the matter to this
agenda to allow the applicant and neighbors additional time
applicant went ahead and changed the poles.The ones you saw
in December were higher.
to try to reach an agreement on appropriate landscaping to That concludes the Staff Report,and I'd be happy
address the privacy concerns of the two neighbors on to answer any questions you might have.
Shannon and the view preservation concern of an adjacent CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioners,do you have any
neighbor on Englewood.The commission asked that the
24 Igoals of everyone involved,they have not agreed to the
25 Icurrent plan as a final resolution.
SUZANNE DAVIS:Yes.
So he thinks this is the
Thank you,Ms.Davis,for
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:
in our plans and it says,'I believe this is the optimal
believe this is referring to the proposed solution we have
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Okay,thank you.
doesn't think...I'm confused.
SUZANNE DAVIS:That's as close as we've got to.
plan?
We don't have an I accept the plan.I haven't had anyone
optimal solution,but he hasn't explicitly accepted the
questions?Commissioner Bourgeois.
say,'I accept the plan."
that report.I just wanted to clarify,because I'm looking
at an email from the appellant dated the first of January.I
assuming they cannot be changed."So you're saying he still
solution taking all constraints into consideration and
18
23
14
21
24
25
15
19
22
16
12
20
17
10
13
11
The applicant and neighbors met on December 16'"
The intent is to screen the rear of the house to
Casaccia property,which is the adjacent lot.While the
to the Commission report.
provide the desired privacy for the Perez and Finkle
residences and to preserve the views of the hills from the
appellants have indicated that the screening plan appears to
be the best option given the different perspectives and
of any meetings.
and they looked at the project site from the different
applicant report back on what was discussed and the outcome
applicant developed a revised landscape-screening plan;it
is hanging on the wall back there,and it is also attached
neighboring properties.Based on that discussion the
22
21
17
10
18
11
14
12
19
15
20
23
16
13
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
4
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.Commissioner
Micciche.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I just wanted to advise
the Commission,I was absent at the last meeting,and I did
from our perspective we didn't think we were in a rush to go
to the Town.
It did take us a while,as we are traveling
business people and we do have other things besides going
5
7
10
11
12
review the video.Thought I was watching the Twilight Zone,
but I was able to review what was done at the meeting and
I'm prepared to make a decision on it this evening.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.And Commissioners,as
well,when you do speak tonight would you let us know that
you did visit the site so that we know that.Thank you,and
thank you,Commissioner Micciche.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I did visit the site.
CHAIR TALESFORE:You did visit the site.Thank
out to the town hall first thing in the morning,so it did
take us a couple of weeks after that to get to the town
hall,and we were quite surprised when we got to the town
hall to hear that the process was pretty much done,that
this permit has been given the approval and pretty much our
only venue is to appeal it,and not to say the least is we
10
only have ten days to do so,because within ten days it's a
11
done deal.So that's just the beginning of our learning
12
experience since we were not that into figuring out the
13
14
15
you.Do we have any other questions?None.All right,with
that we will call the appellant up.That would be Mr.Perez.
Did you fill out a card?You did.Thank you.
13
14
15
Planning Commission and residential.
The last thing from my perspective was the
discussion that happened in the Commission on the last
16 GIL PEREZ:Good evening.Gil Perez,16590 Shannon 16 meeting,which was another learning experience from our
17
18
19
Road.Let me start first of all by thanking the Commission
for allowing me to speak.
Let me start first of all by answering John's
17
18
19
perspective to hear that within the Commission themselves
you felt,or there was a couple of commissioners that felt
that the crux of the issue here is that this building was
20 I comment,and I first of all would like to just stress that 20 Inot intended,or should have not been permitted to go ahead,
21
22
23
24
25
this whole process has been very much a learning experience
for me and my wife.It started off when we saw the story
poles come up,and from our perspective it was just the
beginning of the process.We were not aware of the fact that
for multiple months already there has been discussions,so
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
5
21
22
23
24
25
and really what it created was to put neighbors at odds and
created really a situation that we have to figure out now
how do we figure out the best way to address this situation.
And as I said,I do believe that this is the
optimal solution,taking into account the constraints that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
6
we cannot redesign the house,because that was our the scope of the building,of the new residential,whether
understanding when we came in.The first time we ever it fits into the neighborhood or not.
thought that that was even a possibility was when it came up And the second thing,which I think is really
here at the Commission and it was post our discussion.important,is the importance of one neighbor compared to the
In addition it was a given from our perspective other.You know,where do you draw the line?Is the fact
that we're not going to be able to touch the adjacent that the burden for a new house should be shared equality
neighbor's property,because again,it was a compromise or among neighbors,or should it hit just one neighbor?And you
an agreement between Lisa and Patrick,the owner,and know,that's the second thing from my perspective is that in
throughout the process it was a given to us that that is not the current design the burden and really everything
10
11
So we were brought into this situation,given a
a situation that we could change.
The last thing,just to summarize everything,is
that we went around and talked and we've got eight immediate
residents that are agreed.
way to move forward.
falls ...there is an implied reduction in my property,which is
only to my property,and I don't think that that's a right
13
14
10
12
11
we put some kind of mechanism to mitigate some of the
privacy,of the views,et cetera.
very short time,and were given these are the constraints
and the only thing that you could do is now figure out how
13
14
12
15 So that's at least from our perspective,and I do
15 (Timer sounds.)
16 think that if we can do anything else,that's the optimal,16 CHAIR TALESFORE:Would you please finish your
17 and that's a much better solution than where we were before.17 sentence?
18 lAnd we did meet in good faith to try to address and to try 18 GIL PEREZ:We signed a petition and we had eight
19 Ito come up,and we did come up with a new solution that was 19 limmediate residents that agreed that this house does not
20 Inot on the table before.20 I comply with the Los Gatos Residential Design Standards and
21 I The second thing which I do want to say and with
22 ,that I'll finish,is that the difficulty here is a judgment
21 Ifeel that it should be reviewed.
23
24
call,and there is a judgment call here that needs to be
made,and the judgment call needs to be done on the size and
22
23
24
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.Do we have
questions of the appellant?Commissioner Bourgeois followed
by Commissioner Micciche.
25 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
7
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
8
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Thank you,Mr.Perez.I PATRICK MUNNERLYN:I wanted to refresh the
think I understand your posicion now and I want to restate
it and make sure that I understand your position.Your
memories of the Planning Commission members.At the last
Planning Commission meeting Mrs.Perez was up here and she
position is that you would prefer a redesign,but if that's said,"We are so close to a solution,we just need a little
not an option,then you think that solution is the best.more time to come to a solution.I know if we meet one more
GIL PEREZ:That's exactly what I wrote in the time with Patrick we can resolve this together,"and here we
email.are a month later without a solution.
COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:Okay,now I understand It's not that I didn't try.I met with all the
it.Thank you.affected neighbors.I met with Mr.and Mrs.perez,Mr.
11
10
you speaking of a redesign of the entire house or part of
CHAIR TALESFORE:And when you say a redesign,are
provides the screening that Mr.Perez and Mr.Finkle
to a solution that he calls the optimal solution.It
at all the constraints that we had to deal with,we looked
at the opportunities that we had to deal with,and we came
Finkle,and Mrs.Casaccia.We met on my property,we looked
10
11
13
12
GIL PEREZ:From my perspective that's a judgment
it?
call.I don't think that the house should be completely...13
12
14 CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you,that's fine.All
14 requested while maintaining the views from Mrs.Casaccia's
15 right,any other questions?None.Okay,fine.Thank you very
15 yard.
18 Ihe has yet to agree to any of it,and now after everything
16
17
18
much.I have a speaker card on this item.We'll have you
back up,Mr.Perez.Ned Finkle.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Oh,I'm sorry,the applicant.Is
16
17
This is now the seventh proposal that I've put on
the table for Mr.Perez over the course of three months,and
19 Ithe applicant here?
22 IYou.Okay,Mr.Munnerlyn.
PATRICK MUNNERLYN:Yes.
CHAIR TALESFORE:I didn't have the card.Thank
concerns were,and I don't have time to read them but maybe
you asked the appellants at the last meeting what their
you can ask me to read them after this.
23
21 lfit in with the neighborhood,where I have quotes here that
22
20 Ithis point.He is raising a concern that the house doesn't
24
19 Ihe's raising a new concern that he has never raised up until
Patrick Munnerlyn,228 BellaPATRICKMUNNERLYN:
Vista Avenue.
23
21
20
24
CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.
25 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
9
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
10
In the course of the month when I was working in
good faith to come up with a landscape screening solution,
Mr.Perez was working on a petition full of
misrepresentations,statistics,apples to oranges
comparison;he was comparing R-l:20 lots to R-l:8 lots,and
going around the neighborhood getting people to sign this
7 Ipetition,people that were two miles away from the lots.
He spent a lot of his energy and time trying to
torpedo this.This is not what you told him to do.You told
project to other projects that he has reviewed on that
street,and he said that the comparison was the same.
So basically in closing I would like the
commissioners to deny his appeal,accept the optimal
solution that we came to on the 16 th that I'm willing to do,
and just resolve this matter for me.It's been three months
since he appealed this process.
I guess I've got a minute here.He said he didn't
realize that once the story poles were up that this was
16 Itheir concerns,and his direct quote from the Internet was,
15 Ithe commissioners asked Mr.Perez's attorney to summarize
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
him to work to a solution.He worked to completely throw a
screwball in this.Staff had never heard this before.I had
never heard this before until this second.This just shows
to me that he had no intention of resolving this with me
over the past month or over the past two previous months.
He keeps saying that he's bearing the brunt of me
developing it,but I bought the property,I followed the
design guidelines.It'S been a process.It's not like I'm
asking for anything out of the ordinary.I've only gotten
positive comments from City Staff.The concerns that they
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
going to be a done deal.Well they were up for 28 days
before he made it down to the City.He had plenty of time
to voice his concern early on.
That's it.Oh,I'll tell you the concerns.One of
'The concern is getting sufficiently high screening to
prevent the viewing from the applicant's residence and
screening,shrubbery,trees that will mature soon enough so
they don't have to wait five or ten years for it to grow to
21 Ihave given me,I've addressed.The concerns my adjacent
22 Ineighbors have told me about,I've addressed.I think that
21
22
be a sufficient height.Those are really the two concerns."
commissioner O'Donnell asked Mrs.perez were an
23 II have followed the design guidelines to the tee.The
24
25
consulting architect reviewed my project.He's also
reviewed other projects on this street and he compared my
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
11
23
24
25
adequate planting or screening put in,that is your
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
12
problem?And Mr.Perez responded,"That is my only
problem."
In Mr.Finkle's remarks he stated,"The simple
issue from my perspective is an attempt to get some privacy
and some screening from this new property."This has always
been a landscape screening issue up until five minutes ago
when he says now my house is not compatible with the
neighborhood.
counter.We wanted to do a two-story house.Had there been
two-story houses built in the neighborhood?The answer was
yes,there has been a couple approved recently.What can we
do in terms of the size of the house and floor to area
ration?We were given some information.A recently approved
project very close by that included in the architect and
consultant's report of them getting fairly close to the
allowable area,and as you know,that's what we proposed.
He spent the extra month revising his complaint.We also did some research,are there any encumbrances on
10
11
That's how I feel.Thank you very much.
10
11
the property?There is no view easements encumbered on this
12 CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.Commissioners,do we 12 property as well.
13 Ihave any questions of the applicant?None.Okay,thank you
14 Ivery much,Mr.Munnerlyn.
13 I As we submitted our application and went to the
14 IDRC,the Staff,and also the Town's consultant,had the
15
16 I Kawahara.
CHAIR TALESFORE:My next speaker is Greg 15 lopportunity to review the project for appropriateness in
16 I the neighborhood.The only comment we got was from the Town
17 GREG KAWAHARA:I'm Greg Kawahara;I'm the 17 consultant,Larry Cannon,about the location of the garage.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
architect for Patrick Munnerlyn.My address is 5822 Dresser
Circle in Livermore.I'm here to address some of the
appellant's issues about the appropriateness of the
project.
When we first started this project,when Patrick
was in escrow on the property,we did our due diligence,we
did our research.We came down to the City Planning
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
13
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
To help blend it in with the neighborhood he suggested that
we move the garage to the back of the lot,which we have.
In summary,I think from Staff's previous review
and the consultant's previous review and we are appropriate
for the neighborhood.Thank you.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Do we have any questions of the
speaker?Commissioner Micciche.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
14
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:At what point in the
application before it goes to the DRC are the neighbors
notified of an application going through?
SUZANNE DAVIS:Notices go out about two weeks
before...The poles have to be up before...
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Before the DRC meeting?
SUZANNE DAVIS:Yes.The poles are put up and
then we send notices out.The poles in this case were up
attendance were all in agreement with that.But the
appellant wasn't involved at that point.He didn't come in
until after we had taken action and approved the project.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:But should he have
received a notice?
SUZANNE DAVIS:No,he was outside the notice
area.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Oh,he was outside the
longer;they were up three or four weeks before we actually notice area.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Okay,that's what I
10
11
12
had a hearing.
We had two DRC hearings in this case,because we
10
11
12
SUZANNE DAVIS:Right.
13 had the first meeting and we had a neighbor come in that 13 wanted to know.
14 Ihad a concern and wanted to have the house shifted on the 14 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.So do you have
15 flot.The applicant was willing to do that,but we requested 15 fa question for the speaker?
16 I that he contact the two adjacent neighbors,because we 16 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:No,I don't now.
17 wanted them to weigh in on that since they would be more 17 CHAIR TALESFORE:All right,thank you very much.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
impacted by the house shifting.
So we continued it and had a second meeting,and
those two neighbors came in and didn't want the house
shifted,so we had a whole other set of conversation on
that,ultimately changed the roofline and went from a gable
to a hip roof to open up the views a little more and bring
that roof pitch down,and the neighbors that were in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
15
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Our next speaker is Ned Finkle.
NED FINKLE:Hi,my name is Ned Finkle.I live at
16608 Shannon Road.I just have a few prepared comments and
then I'd be happy to answer some questions.
Patrick,(inaudible),and Lisa,Gil,and myself
did meet on the 16 th ,as you heard a number of times,viewed
the construction from all yards except for the Casaccia's;
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
16
that was the one notable that we didn't do.The current
situation that is proposed for the landscape adjustments I
think,and I'm in agreement with Gil's statement,is the
what they see in the view impact.Gil's may be more than
mine,because I think it affects him more.
Third,and probably most importantly for me as a
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
best of the ones that we've seen so far,so we make some
progress.
That said,now that we've had a month to work on
the situation I've had a little bit of time to think about
what went on and kind of the process,so I have some
similar arguments that I wanted to put on the table.
First,I think the comments of Vice-chairman Kane
and some of the other commissioners in the last meeting
regarding the mass and scale of the property and the rules
about changing the character of the neighborhood,that
really weighed in with me.As a member of the Town for 35
5
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
long-term resident,was the unhappy state of affairs I
witnessed in some of the meetings and then on the 16 th about
the proposal process to get some resolution,and we were
trading view damage and pain amongst the neighbors in a way
that had been kind of put upon us by the process.I want to
be open.I think the builder has done a lot to mitigate
these kinds of things,he's been working with other people,
so I'm not saying attempts haven't been made,and there is
plenty of that on the record.I have no contention there.
But they led me to sign the petition that
encourages the Council to reflect on the words and the Town
16 Iyears,going to high school here,living here,it kind of 16 Irules for development,which you have probably in your
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
struck me.I was actually happy to hear those arguments,
because I think it means a lot to me as a member of the
Town.
Second,the permanent loss of my market value,
views,privacy,in addition to those lost by my neighbors,
was something I was dwelling on during this time period and
over the Christmas break.I've had some broker friends
estimate roughly a $50,000 to $100,000 devaluation based on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
17
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
packet.I have no issue with Patrick building a large home
for spec or for himself.None.If he builds a quality home
I'd be happy.The bottom line in my opinion is there is too
much mass or scale in the second story of that house for
this area of the neighborhood.It dwarfs the other homes in
the area that have transitioned,to use a term that I think
is in the documents,homes like my own.I did a big major
remodel.The Casaccia's did one,beautiful job.Kellys on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
18
2
the other side of Lisa,all have made major transitions,a
lot of money put into those homes.And that's evident if
NED FINKLE:Yeah.
COMMISSIONER l1ICCICHE:Thank you.
you get out of your car or walk around the site or go
slowly around that area,those homes,the eight,nine,ten
homes in that area,you can see that.The home is large
enough...
(Timer sounds.)
CHAIR TALESFORE:l1r.Finkle,would you please
CHAIR TALESFORE:Any other commissioner with a
question?seeing none,thank you.l1r.Paul Doble.
PAUL DOBLE:I'm Paul Doble:I live here in l10nte
Sereno.I'm the general contractor for this project and
I've put other projects through different cities.
If you drive down that street,probably six to
thought is does the home have a harmonious and compatible
10
11
12
finish your thought?
NED FINKLE:Okay,so I guess my finishing
10
11
12
seven homes have already been done of this caliber.The
person that you have review your own plans for the City,he
said it fits this neighborhood.It's always hard when
13
14
15
16
17
18
relationship with the surrounding neighborhood?Does it
have an appropriate sense of scale?Does it take into
consideration the project's affect on adjacent properties
and neighborhoods for views and privacies and setbacks?It
seems like we ought to consider that before we move ahead,
and that's my closing.
13
14
15
16
17
18
people see newer homes,but if you drive down that street,
that street has that sense.Two doors down there's another
two-story home very similar to what we're doing,and a
couple of doors down from that there's another two-story
home.So to deny us the privilege to do this two-story home
would be discriminating against us.That's all I have to
19 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.Do we have any
19 say if you have any questions.
NED FINKLE:Probably twenty-percent.
24 \I 24
COMMISSIONER l1ICCICHE:Twenty-percent?I
25 25
20
21
22
23
questions?We do.Commissioner l1icciche.
COMMISSIONER l1ICCICHE:How much of your view are
you losing by this?
20
21
22
23
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioners,do you have any
questions of the speaker.Seeing none,thank you very much.
CHAIR TALESFORE:I'm going to call the applicant
back up for three minutes for a rebuttal,and then I'll
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
19
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
20
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
call Mr.Perez up for a three-minute rebuttal as well.So
Mr.Munnerlyn.
PATRICK MUNNERLYN:I guess I don't have a lot to
say.
CHAIR TALESFORE:You don't have to if you don't
want to.
PATRICK MUNNERLYN:I guess in response to Mr.
Finkle's comments earlier,he's never brought that up.He's
never brought up the mass of the building.He didn't bring
it up at the last meeting.I quoted what he said,that it
is simply a privacy and screening issue,and I guess he was
enlightened by it at the last meeting.
But I feel that I've followed the guidelines all
the way through.I've worked closely with City Staff and I
am prepared to build a very nice project,and as I've said
all along,I've done whatever the neighbors have wanted.
I've offered screening for these neighbors.I've made
changes to my project for other neighbors.I feel that I've
done my best and there's basically nothing else I can do.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you very much.And
now Mr.Perez.
GIL PEREZ:First of all I'd like to say that I'm
saddened to see that for persons who are exercising their
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
21
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
civic duty this has become kind of a very personal and
emotional thing,so I'm very saddened by that.But beyond
that,let's move on.I do want to comment on a couple of
things.
First,if you do look at the actual statistics
the house is supposed to be 5,500 square feet,which is
going to be the largest house in the neighborhood,point
blank.That's number one.
Number two is that eight neighbors are opposed to
this building,and as Ned said,we're not opposed to
building big houses,and I don't think the neighbors are
opposed to building large houses.We are opposed to
building something that is outside of the range of the
neighborhood and is going to be overcrowded and
overburdensome,so we are asking this to go back to review
it and to reflect on it,and as this is a judgment call,I
do think that it needs to be reviewed again.
The last thing that I do want to point out,
regarding Patrick's comments that we're bringing this up at
the last moment,this redesign of the house,we felt that
it was inappropriate to bring the redesign directly with
Patrick since it was ...He was questioned several times by
the Commission and in the last meeting actually by the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
22
Chair whether he would consider redesigning and he said
flat out that that's not an option and they're not willing
to do that.we felt that if he would bring the redesign of
the house as a first option right after the commission,we
would not be able to bring up a second option,so we
decided,I decided,to basically move forward with the good
faith,to try to come up to the optimal solution,and we
feel that that could be.We're taking all considerations
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:You live in the second
home around the corner on shannon?
GIL PEREZ:Yeah,not the adjacent but one off.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:One more.So you were
notified?
GIL PEREZ:We were not notified.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:You were outside that
area.When did you notice the story poles?
into account,and then look at what from our perspective
business in New York and I travel a lot,so I think it took
me something like it was on the second weekend after that
10
11
12
would be the optimal solution,and I think that again,the
crux of it is it's very difficult to hide a house,and
10
11
12
GIL PEREZ:It's hard for me to say.I have a
13
14
especially a 35'or a 30'house.I mean everything that
we're putting is really trying to hide the house.So that's
13
14
that I was around in Los Gatos that I went down to the town
hall.It was I think like two weeks after.
15 11ess then a desirable and optimal solution,yet I did use 15 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:It was prior to the DRC
16 I the word 'optima1"in my email and I do think that it's 16 Imeeting?
17 still the optimal,but it's less then a desirable solution 17 GIL PEREZ:I don't know.We came on the day I
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for us or for the neighbors,and you have multiple
neighbors that do agree with us and we did not coerce them
into signing them;they signed it of their own free will
Thanks.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you very much.And
Commissioners,do we have a question for Mr.Perez?I see
two.Commissioner Micciche followed by Commissioner Kane.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think that the ten-day appeal process started,so I think
we came one day after the DRC.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Let me clarify something.
GIL PEREZ:Suzanne,when was it?
SUZANNE DAVIS:He came in and looked at the
plans after the DRC had taken action.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
23
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
24
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:But the story poles were CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Kane,do you want
up how long?to answer that?
SUZANNE DAVIS:They were up about a month before COMMISSIONER KANE:From what I saw from his
we took action,yes.backyard and from his living room couch,it was around 50%
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:So you didn't see them percent.Question of Staff.I don't know if that's the old
for the first month?story poles or the new story poles.
GIL PEREZ:of course we saw them.SUZANNE DAVIS:When you reviewed it last time it
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Oh,you didn't come in was the old story poles and they've since been lowered.
though?
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Okay.And how much of COMMISSIONER KANE:The story poles are lower?I
it was 50%,but it's probably lower now?
Oh,okay.So at that timeCOMMISSIONERMICCICHE:
12
11
10
I didn't come in.GIL PEREZ:
12
11
10
13 Iyour view do you feel you have lost?13 don't know how it affects the view.
14 GIL PEREZ:I would say that on my side,from a 14 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Is that correct?
15 Ibackyard view there is about 40%to 50%?15 GIL PEREZ:It's around 40%to 50%.When the
16 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Is that right?16 I story poles were lowered they were lowered from a high
17 GIL PEREZ:Yes.17 (inaudible)and it does not impact the view from my side,
18 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I was in your driveway 18 it impacts more of the view from the street.
19 today,and I could hardly see the story poles from that
19 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:All right.Okay,thank
20
section.What area of the...
20
you.
backyard,so he would have also a rough estimate of how
23
much I am losing from my backyard.Would you say it was 40%
24
or 50%?
25
21
22
GIL PEREZ:I think Commissioner Kane was in my
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR TALESFORE:And Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE:Mr.Perez,I wanted to
acknowledge what you said about the project's alleged
failure to comply with Residential Development Standards.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
26
First I want to acknowledge that,and second,I wanted to COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I don't know where their
ask you,do you recall any specific provisions that you house is on the lot drawing up here.
could guide me to?Not that you have to,but I was just SUZANNE DAVIS:The two exhibits that have the
wondering,when you went through the document did anything trees show the lots.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Yeah,where is his house?
jump out at you?
SUZANNE DAVIS:The house is here (inaudible).
GIL PEREZ:No,nothing in particular.I mean I
7 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Right,but where is his
don't recall.I will have to review it again to see,but house on the lot?It looked like it was more towards the
nothing that...I think it's the general sense of it rather front.
10
COMMISSIONER KANE:Thank you.
than a specific (inaudible).
14 Iyour house from the point that you see their house first?
It's more towards the front.
RANDY TSUDA:If I may just clarify,measuring to
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Yeah.So it'S at least
SUZANNE DAVIS:
the Perez's rear property line and the distance from the
proposed house to the rear property line is about 145',so
160'then,right?About a half a football field.Okay,thank
you.
13
14
15
10
11
12
How far is the back of
Commissioner Micciche.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:
CHAIR TALESFORE:
GIL PEREZ:I know it's the width of Lisa's lot,
13
11
15
12
16 Ibut I would say something like,I don't know,75 yards.16
at a minimum you add another 20'to the Perez residence.
17 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:According to the map I 17 COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:That's what I just said.
18 have it shows about 160'to 200'.
18 It's about 160'.Okay.That's about a half a football field,
19 GIL PEREZ:A hundred and sixty,yeah.A hundred
19 huh?Yeah,yeah.Okay.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Do you have another question,
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:No thanks.I was just
23 Iwondering if that was correct.
22
21 ICommissioner Micciche?
20
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Is that correct,that
CHAIR TALESFORE:Mr.Tsuda,can you answer that?
drawing?
and sixty feet.
24 '24
21
22
23
20
25 '25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
27
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
28
CHAIR TALESFORE:Do we have any other questions
2 lof the appellant?I don't see any other questions,so thank
you very much.
But at the last planning Commission meeting I was
one of the commissioners that was strongly advocating for a
continuance,and I completely understand and respect Mr.
4
5
So I will turn this over to the Commission for
discussion or a motion,and I think before I do that,Mr.
Korb,I had asked you earlier,I'm wondering if you might
speak to the Commission again?This is,as I understand it,
a de novo hearing,and can you talk to uS about how that
applies to actually any application we hear besides this
Finkle and Mr.Perez's points that with civic participation
not all of us understand the process,and it'S become very
apparent as you watched us at our meeting last month that
there'S still some ambiguity with the process and there's a
lot of judgment call,which is why we're up here.
But at the last meeting I felt that it was a
10
landscaping issue.I listened to the testimony and at the
10
11
12
13
14
one,and define de novo?
ORRY KORB:Well very simply a de novo hearing
means that it's a new hearing before you,all issues are on
the table,the Commission has full authority to consider any
aspect of the application and decide any aspect of the
application.
11
12
13
14
time the appellant was asking for more time and that if
given more time a resolution could have been resolved,and I
took that at face value and I felt that it was in my mind a
better call to have the parties involved to make that
mutually agreeable decision rather than the six of us that
15 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you very much.So
15 were here last time.
16 with that,Commissioners,I will turn and look to you for 16 So that was where we were at the last meeting,and
17
18
19
comments about what we just heard,or a motion.And I don't
see any right now.Are we all thinking?Commissioner Sayoc.
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Mr.Perez,thank you for
17 lagain I have the same reservations as I had at the last
18 Imeeting about the size,the scale,the mass,but I do feel
19 Ithat given the month time extension and given that it's very
20
21
22
23
24
25
joining us at this meeting.Just also for transparency,I
just want to let everyone know that I did visit the site at
the last hearing as well as this,and I did stand in the
driveways of both appellant as well as Mr.Finkle.
Unfortunately I didn't have the opportunity to see it any
further than that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
29
20
21
22
23
24
25
subjective,there were no waivers,there were no appeals,I
mean there were no specific waivers that the applicant had
asked for,I feel that the optimal resolution that has been
put forward as Exhibit v,I like it.It does provide the
screening and it provides the privacy.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
30
You know,we still have the macro-issue of the
size of the house,but given that my biggest issue at the
last meeting was letting the parties involved resolve it on
their own,and it looks like we do have something,I'm
inclined to go with what is presented before us as Exhibit
v,and I would like to hear the rest of my commissioners and
their thoughts on that.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Sayoc,thank you
very much.That was a very well spoken synopsis of what we
tried to accomplish at the last meeting.
10
I was the planning commissioner though that did
11
bring up the fact that I thought that we needed to look and
12
consider more than just the landscape screening for this,
13
and that perhaps a redesign of the roof might certainly
10
11
12
13
solution.And we didn't do that.I would like us maybe to
address that now.We can do that.
You know,trees,as we saw in the last storm come
down for various reasons,or they die.I would hate to think
that the legacy that his house is going to end leaving for
the contractor is a big house and no trees to screen it in
case that should happen again.So I'm thinking that we just
haven't explored this and perhaps the thought wasn't put
fully into the design and construction of this house.So
that's where I'm sitting right now and I don't know if I can
support this solution.I would like us if we possibly can,
and maybe I could ask Mr.Tsuda to comment on it later,if
we could outline...I'd like to approve it with the condition
that we look at reducing some of it.So that's what I would
14
15
resolve,along with screening,some of the issues,and since
we have that privilege to look at the entire project,I
14
15
stand for.
commissioner Rice,I see you with a question,or
16 wanted,and I did at the time,suggest that we look at
17 laSking the applicant to go ahead and redesign at least part
16
17
would you like to comment?
COMMISSIONER RICE:I'd like to make a comment.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the north side of that project,because I felt that
without doing that that the Residential Design Guidelines
were not being met,specifically where it's in consideration
of the project's effect on the adjacent neighbors views and
privacy.I just felt like if we could come up with an
outline of how to reduce that side of the building,whether
it be to hip the roof,or add shed dormers,or move the wall
back some,that we would come up with a more reasonable
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
31
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I'm not in favor of asking the applicant to redesign it.I
do not believe from what I have seen that it is out of
character with the neighborhood.My perception.I'm with
Commissioner Sayoc that I think the reason we're still
discussing this is because of a landscape issue.I want to
hear my fellow commissioners,but I'm prepared to make a
motion to deny the appeal with the adding of the 'optimal"
landscape plan to the conditions of approval.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
32
4
5
7
10
11
12
13
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,I would answer back that
I'd like to hear the rest of the Commission as well before
we do that.And I don't think I said that,a redesign
because it's out of character.I said a redesign,because it
would reduce the impacts that we're here talking about.If
we didn't have a house that was that out of scale in this
particular instance on this particular site,we wouldn't be
talking about screening as we are now;it would not have
been an issue.So with that,Commissioner Micciche.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:Again,I can only go by
what I saw on the video and what I've read here and am
hearing now,but it appears to me,and I didn't see that
clearly,I still don't see it clearly,our Town architect
though had no issue with what you're bringing up,from what
you know the Residential Design Guidelines both sides.It's
very complicated stuff that we do.I don't expect anybody to
know or hold them accountable for something they learned
last month;that's a good thing.
The dilemma I have is what we discussed last
meeting,that the house is borderline at best;that it's in
a gray area,that it pushes the envelope,and I wish there
was a way for this to have come to us sooner.
parenthetically I wish there was a way that we
could have predicted the reaction of the Perezes such that
10
they got a timely notice and didn't feel cornered or afeared
11
or helpless and then to act out with appeals and that sort
12
of thing.There is no criticism,this is 20/20 hindsight
13 that somehow we could have figured out that they would have
14
15
16
17
18
I could understand,in fact commented positively on that
statement.And since I tend to put a lot more faith in him
than I do in us non-architects,I have to agree with my two
colleagues here that we ought to be looking at this
landscape issue and not addressing the house anymore.
14
15
16
17
18
been affected and given them a timely notice,but we did do
the right thing,I'm sure we did.This is one where maybe we
could have looked a little harder and seen that this might
be an issue.
My concerns go back to demolition,as I've stated.
19
20
CHAIR TALESFORE:Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE:I feel like this is such a
19 IThe General Plan guidelines discourage us from demolishing,
20 Ibut if we,the replacement house should be similar,and we
21
22
23
24
25
dilemma,or it is for me anyway.People put a lot of time
and effort into this project.I certainly don't hold any
citizen accountable for not knowing the fine print of what
the Planning Commission is supposed to know.It's
encouraging that it was discovered at some point and that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
33
21
22
23
24
25
have argued,myself for three years,on what the word
similar means.But in my Staff Report somebody alleges that
the replacement house is 350%bigger than the house that's
being demolished,and if that's similar,well then I don't
like the niners.Well,whatever it is.I calculated it once
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
34
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as being twice the size,which I quarrel with as similar,
but I just read somebody said 350%.Somebody else has said
it was the biggest house in the neighborhood.
We have guidelines coming up on 2-2-5.If you
stood in the doorway of the subject house,the two houses to
the left,the two houses to the right,the five across the
street.Now three of those are two stories.Six of those are
one story.The three that are two stories are new.Who was
first?How did the first one get built?I have concerns with
my failure,and I'm sworn to protect and to preserve as well
as to enhance,so protect and preserve means I don't know
about that change stuff.Enhance means well we gotta have
some change stuff.So there's a delicate balance between
change and no change,and if we start changing neighborhoods
we're just losing our language that protects our town.The
dilemma is this comes to us in the ninth inning,so I don't
know what to do.I'm trying not to make a speech.
I find the words of the Residential Development
Standards not supportive under the de novo concept of
looking at this from square one.I don't find it supportive,
I don't find the General Pla~supportive.So I'd be inclined
not to approve the optimal solution,because,my opinion,I
cannot in good conscience,my opinion,I cannot in
conscience make the findings as required that this complies
with the Residential Development Standards.So if such a
motion comes forward to approve the optimal,I probably
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
35
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
won't approve it.I hate to say this,but I'd like to see a
redesign.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Thank you.Could I ask you a
question,Commissioner Kane?What would you feel about what
I had said about a partial redesign?Mr.Tsuda,can you help
explain that with me?The north side is the one side of the
house I think that is the side we could work with on that,
am I right?A redesign or...
RANDY TSUDA:I believe that's the side of the
house that I'm hearing you have a concern with is the north
side.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Right.
RANDY TSUDA:And I think at the last meeting you
questioned whether something could be done to the pitch of
the roof,and it's already at a 4/12 pitch,which is really
the minimal pitch that is desirable.The plate heights are
9.5'on the first floor.We looked at lowering the overall
plate height.It's 9.5'on the first floor,roughly 8.5'on
the second floor,so there's really not much height to be
taken out in terms of floor-to-floor height.
There are two windows facing that side,only one
of which is truly in a room that's going to inhabited on any
frequent basis,so the number of windows aren't unusual for
that side of the house,so in order to redesign it you
suggested a belly band to break up the mass going around the
structure and to go beyond that would entail relocating that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
36
northern building wall and modifying the design of the roof But at the same time I think the applicant has
further.
CHAIR TALESFORE:But it could be done wi th...I
done everything that's been asked of them.We have evidence
that our consulting architect thlnks it's okay.Personally,
mean it can be done,but is that...I mean what are we talking I think it's borderline.I think if this had come to us
about?originally I think I would have liked to see maybe some...But
RANDY TSUDA:Anything can be done with time and I'm really on the fence about that.So to me it comes down
7
money.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Right,and that would certainly
help with the scale and the mass,I would think,and the
to this landscaping issue,and I think Commissioner Sayoc
put it very well.I think she stated the position very well
and I would support the motion for upholding the DRC's
11
10
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you.With that,
decision and denying the appeal.
COMMISSIONER RICE:I'll make a motion to deny the
let's go for a motion.Commissioner Rice.
12
RANDY TSUDA:It could help with the scale and
bulk of it.
believes he's worked in good faith to address the
mass.I believe what you heard from the applicant is he
11
10
12
13 Commission's direction provided to him at the last meeting.
13 appeal with regard to Architecture and Site Application S-
14 CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay.All right,Commissioner
14 07-182.We can make the findings that the project is
15 Bourgeois,we haven't heard from you and I see your hand.
15 categorically exempt under Section 15303 of the State
16 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I've been hiding.16 Environmental Guidelines.It meets the finding that the
17 CHAIR TALESFORE:Don't'hide.Step up.17 Town'S housing stock will be maintained,as the house will
18 COMMISSIONER BOURGEOIS:I'll restate my position 18 Ibe replaced.The existing structure has no architectural or
19 from the last meeting,because I really haven't changed 19 historical significance,and it'S in poor condition.The
20 where I stand on this.20 property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as
21
22
23
24
I share the concerns about the design.I'm
concerned that the largest house on the street didn't
automatically get kicked to us in the first place.Those are
issues I have concern with.
21
22
23
24
it exists and economic utility the structure is such that
it's not viable to remodel or expand.I believe it meets the
requirements for compliance with the Residential Development
Standards as implemented both by this Body and by the Town
25 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
37
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
38
5
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Council,and I would apply the conditions as listed in
Exhibit P,including the newly revised landscape plan.
COMMISSIONER MICCICHE:I'll second it.
CHAIR TALESFORE:I have a motion to deny the
appeal.
RANDY TSUDA:One clarification to the conditions
on Exhibit P,Condition #1 relating to the approved drawings
state that the date of the approved drawing is December 21";
it really should be December 20".
COMMISSIONER RICE:Okay.
CHAIR TALESFORE:We'll change that.All right,so
I have a motion to deny the appeal and a second from
commissioner Micciche.Do we have any discussion on that?
Okay,I would say that I consider this project
very difficult.It did come to us in the ninth inning,as
we've heard.It had already been approved.My feeling is
that it tipped on the border of being questionable,because
of the screening matter,and because the screening matter
was so difficult to come up with.My belief is that I love
landscaping but we cannot band-aid projects with screening
of trees.And I appreciate any time an applicant or a
speaker on any project comes to us,whether it's in the
ninth inning or it's in the beginning of the project.The
fact that you came here,that you paid attention at all,
makes me proud that you live in Los Gatos and thank you very
much.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
39
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The neighbors had serious concerns,I thought they
were compelling,and I think they should have been taken
more to heart,and I'm sorry that that wasn't done.To me
this is not in the spirit of the Design Guidelines,so
will not be supporting this motion.Commissioner Kane.
COMMISSIONER KANE:I don't want to be redundant,
I just have extremely strong feelings about this and my
feelings are to the process not the participants.I wish
them all well,but we simply cannot ignore our language.
Avoid demolitions.If allowed,the house should be similar
in size and scale as the original and maintain the
neighborhood character.The Residential Development
Standards talk about preserving and protecting architectural
heritage and streetscapes of the town,and this one is
borderline and provides a lot of change.
There's also a viewshed issue and we haven't even
discussed it.In Issue #8 in our General Plan,protect and
preserve natural sites near or on the mountain,among other
things discourage development on or near the hillsides as
well as development that blocks the views of the hillsides.
Now when you deal with those three provisions alone,not to
mention the general spirit and the passion of the General
Plan and the Residential Guidelines.When we get into gray
areas I think-and I need more guidance from Council and more
education-that we need an alternative to yes/no decisions on
houses that come right to the edge of the largest in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
40
neighborhood,et cetera,so that we can avoid these pitting
neighbors against neighbors on borderline cases.
I would have liked very much to have been involved
and made a contribution to this earlier.If this is going to
fly,fine,but I can't vote for it.
CHAIR TALESFORE:Okay,thank you,Commissioner
Kane.One more.Well is it something we haven't heard?
Commissioner Sayoc.
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:I want to just clarify one
thing.I am taking the appellant's comments to heart,and I
10
must be filed upstairs in the clerk department.There are
2 Ifees for filing an appeal.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
think a lot of us are here,which is why it's been a
difficult decision and why it took two hours at last month's
meeting and it's taking us close to...well it's taking us a
lot of time,so I just didn't want it to just be bypassed
that this is something that we're just voting off the cuff.
CHAIR TALESFORE:I didn't pick up on that.I know
it's been hard for all of us,so thank you.
COMMISSIONER SAYOC:Thank you.
CHAIR TALESFORE:But we do have to make a
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 Idecision,and with that I'm going to call for the motion.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
All in favor,say aye.And all opposed,say nay.Motion is
carried four to two,and the two in denial were Joanne
Talesfore and Michael Kane.Appeal rights.
ORRY KORB:Anyone dissatisfied with the decision
of the planning Commission may appeal the decision to the
Town Council.The appeal must be filed within ten days.It
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
41
20
21
22
23
24
25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/9/2008
Item #1,16330 Englewood Avenue
42