Loading...
9 - 16161 Short RoadMEETING DATE: 10/17/11 ITEM NO. CA COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: October 10, 2011 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-11-001. PROPERTY LOCATION: 16161 SHORT ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN AND ELVIE SCOTT. APPLICANT: CHRIS SPALDING. APPELLANTS: ROBERT AND LOIS MALLISON, DAVID CLARKE, AND DEBRA FETTERS. CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING DEMOLITION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:20. APN 523-09-029. RECOMMENDATION: After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that: 1. The Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve architecture and site application S-11-001 (motion required). 2. Adopt resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve an architecture and site application on property zoned R-1:20 (Attachment 10) (motion required). ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, the Council may: • Determine that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified and find one or more of the following: PREPARED BY: 6.' Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development Reviewed by:91°73\J Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance N:\DEV\TC REPORTS \2011\16161 Short-appeal,doc Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 10/10/11 8:49 AM PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 16161 SHORT ROAD/ S-11-001. October 17, 2011 a. Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or b. The new information that was submitted to the Council during the appeal process was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or c. 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; or • Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction (motion required); or • Grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission with specific direction (motion required). BACKGROUND: On June 22, 2011, the Planning Commission considered a request to demolish a single family residence and construct a new single family residence at 16161 Short Road. Based on letters and verbal testimony from neighbors, the Planning Commission continued the item with direction that the applicant reduce the visual impact of the proposed residence on the neighbors. The applicant revised the plans, and the Planning Conunission reconsidered the application on August 24, 2011. Based on the plan revisions, the Planning Commission voted 5-1 to approve the architecture and site application. The decision was appealed to the Town Council on September 2, 2011 (Attachment 6). DISCUSSION: A. Project Summary The subject property is a 23,935 sq. ft. parcel that is located behind three properties on Short Road. The current lot configuration was created prior to the property's annexation into the Town of Los Gatos in 1979. While the property configuration is not one that would be encouraged by Town Code or the Town's General Plan today, it is a legally created parcel that has retained a single family residence and second unit since the 1940's. The site is accessed by a 15 foot easement over 16171 Short Road. The property contains an 853 sq. ft. residence built in 1945, an 822 sq. ft. detached garage, a 540 sq. ft. detached legal second dwelling unit, and a 760 sq. ft. shed. See attachment 3 (Planning Commission staff report of August 24, 2011) for a thorough description of the proposed project. B. Appeal The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on September 6, 2011 (Attachment 6). The basis for the appeal is summarized as follows: • The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in that the approved residence still blocks views and creates privacy and shadowing concerns for 120 and 116 Mary Way. In addition, the appellant is questioning the setbacks labeled on the approved plans, and the potential impact to the existing Italian cypress trees along the rear of 120 Mary Way. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 16161 SHORT ROAD/ S-11-001. October 17, 2011 C. Staff Comment While the Residential Design Guidelines state that new structures should be designed with respect for the views, privacy and solar access of their neighbors, this does not guarantee that a new house or addition will have no effect at all on the adjacent neighbors. The applicant has modified the plans several times in an attempt to address both privacy and views for the neighbors on Mary Way. The approved plans would maintain the majority of the view corridor for 120 Mary Way and would only potentially block the views of 116 Mary Way along the southeast corner of the property. The proposed first floor will have greater setbacks than the existing single story residence, while the second story will be 20 feet from the side property line, creating the same rear setback as the R-1:8 properties along Mary Way. The questions regarding the labeled setbacks are in regards to labeling the setbacks of the existing residence in comparison to the proposed residence. The proposed residence complies with the required 15 foot side -yard setback for the R-1:20 zoning category. The existing residence has non- conforming setbacks of less than 15 feet. The appellant and property owner at 120 Mary Way currently maintains a row of Italian cypress along the rear of the property. The appellant states that the trees have been failing due to beetle bores, and that the proposed improvements on the subject site will have a negative impact on the continued health of these trees. The proposed foundation will be a minimum of 15 feet from the edge of canopy of the Italian cypress, well outside the root system for this type of tree. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town because this is a single family home. CONCLUSION: It is recornrnended that Town Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Architecture and Site application, and adopt the resolution in Attachment 10. If Town Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific findings as to how the Planning Commission erred must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 11). FISCAL IMPACT: None PAGE 4 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 16161 SHORT ROAD/ S-11-001. October 17, 2011 Attachments: 1. Report to the Planning Commission for June 22, 2011 (Exhibit 11 not included, plans were revised and are included as Exhibit 22 in Attachment 3) 2. Desk Item for Planning Commission meeting of June 22, 2011 3. Report to the Planning Commission for August 24, 2011 4. Desk Item for Planning Commission meeting of August 24, 2011 5. Material submitted by appellant at the August 24, 2011, Planning Commission meeting (one page) 6. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision received September 2, 2011, includes five additional pages of material. 7. Letter from applicant, received September 30, 2011 (three pages) 8. Verbatim minutes from June 22, 2011 Planning Commission (15 pages) 9. Verbatim minutes from August 24, 2011 Planning Commission (17 pages) 10. Resolution denying the appeal (three pages) 11. Resolution granting the appeal (two pages) 12. Letter from Patricia Anderson (one page) received October 11, 2011 Distribution: John and Elvie Scott, 13587 Saraview Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 Robert and Lois Mallison, 120 Mary Way, Los Gatos CA 95032 David Clark and Debra Fetters, 116 Mary Way, Los Gatos CA 95032 Chris Spalding, 801 Camelia Street, Suite E, Berkeley, CA 94710 WRR: MM: ct N:\DEV\TC REPORTS \2011\16161 Short-appeal.doc TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: June 22, 2011 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO.: LOCATION: APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: CONTACT PERSON: Marni F. Moseley, Associate Planner, AICP mmoseley@losgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-11-001 ITEM NO: 4 16161 Short Road (West side of Short Road, accessed from a driveway approximately 350 ft. south of Old Blossom Hill Road) John and Elvie Scott Benjamin Guilardi APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family residence and to construct a new single family residence on property zoned R-1:20. APN 523-09-029. RECOMMENDATION: PROJECT DATA: CEQA: FINDINGS: DEEMED COMPLETE: June 6, 2011 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: December 6, 2011 Soft Approval subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential (0-5d.u./ac.) Zoning Designation: R-1:20 - Single Family Residential Applicable Plans & Standards: Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 23,935 square feet Surrounding Area: North East South West Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning Single Family Low Density Residential R-1 :20 ..... ..... Single Family Low Density Residential Single Family Low Density Residential J R-1:8 Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:8 The project is Categorically Exempt according to Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. ▪ As required by Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town that this project is Categorically Exempt. ▪ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence. ATTACHMENT Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 June 22, 2011 CONSIDERATIONS: ACTION: EXHIBITS: BACKGROUND: • As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. 1. Location Map 2. Findings and Considerations 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. Letter of Justification, May 3, 2011 (five pages) 5. Structural Condition Report (three pages) 6. Consulting Architect report, March 2, 2011 (three pages) 7. Neighborhood Correspondence - Three letters from 116 Mary Way (four pages) and letter of response from project architect, dated March 17, 2011 (one page). - Eight letters from120 Mary Way (13 pages) - One letter from 16207 Short Road, received March 30, 2011 (one page). One letter from 124 Mary Way, received April 5, 2011 (one page) and letter of response from applicants, dated April 15, 2011 (one page). - One letter from 128 Mary Way, received April 11, 2011 (three pages) - One letter from 112 Mary Way, received June 14, 2011 (two pages). 8. Letter from applicant's civil engineer (two pages) 9. Additional information provided by applicant (26 pages) 10. Project Data Sheet (one page) 11. Development Plans, June 14, 2011 (11 sheets) The subject property is a 23,935 sq. ft. parcel that is located behind three properties on Short Road. The current lot configuration was created prior to the property's annexation into the Town of Los Gatos in 1979. While the property configuration is not one that would be encouraged by Town Code or the Town's General Plan today, it is a legally created parcel that has retained a single family residence and second unit since the 1940's. The site is accessed by a 15 foot easement over 16171 Short Road. The property contains an 853 sq. ft. residence built in 1945, an 822 sq. ft. detached garage, a 540 sq. ft. detached legal second dwelling unit, and a 760 sq. ft. shed. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 June 22, 2011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The property, 16161 Short Road, is located 350 feet south of Old Blossom Hill Road, situated behind 16141, 16171, and 16207 Short Road, and is accessed by a driveway easement over 16171 Short Road. The surrounding properties are single family residential (Exhibit 1). B. Architecture & Site Application This application requires Architecture and Site approval to demolish and rebuild a single family residence. While the Development Review Committee (DRC) has the authority to act on this type of application, due to the number of neighbor concerns received, staff believed it was prudent to forward the application to the Planning Commission for consideration. C. Compliance 1. Zoning The zoning permits a single family dwelling use. 2. Setbacks and Height The new residence will conform to all required setbacks. The maximum height of the structure will be 26 feet 4 inches (Exhibit 9). ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site The property consists of a long (nearly 300 feet) but narrow (only 70 feet deep) site. The applicant has provided justification as to why the shape of the lot creates a building envelope that is difficult to provide a single story design (Exhibit 4). Based on the composition of the neighborhood in which six of the ten contiguous properties are two story residences, the applicant's design incorporates the majority (68%) of the residence on the first floor, and 1,123 sq. ft. (32%) on the second floor. The proposed residence includes 3,511 sq. ft. of living area, along with a 781 sq. ft. three car garage, in addition to the existing detached second unit (540 sq. ft.). The maximum FAR for the subject site is .20, the proposed project, including the existing second unit, would create an FAR of .17, which is well within the range for the immediate neighborhood (please see the chart provided under neighborhood compatibility). The proposed residence will be sited in primarily the same location as the existing structures. The new residence will have a slightly larger setback to the properties along Mary Way (13 feet existing, 15 feet proposed), but will extend closer to 16171 Short Road, where the adjacent Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 June 22, 2011 property has an existing 60 foot rear setback in addition to existing dense landscape screening along their rear property line. As is standard for corridor or landlocked properties, the front setback does not always correlate with the location of the street. In this case, the front setback is located in relation to the front door (north side of lot), with the rear and side setbacks determined in relation to the established front setback. The second story addition was proposed in its current location in order to comply with the Town's Residential Design Guidelines regarding placement of a new second story in relation to the adjacent two story residences, particularly those along Mary Way. During the initial design process, the property owners considered incorporating a cellar; but determined that the type of rooms best suited for a cellar design would not be included in the residence, and therefore a cellar was not a viable option for the applicant. The Town's Consulting Architect, Larry Cannon of Cannon Design Group, reviewed the plans (Exhibit 6) and the consultant and Town staff found that the proposed house is well designed with good massing, a distinctive traditional architectural style, and details that are authentic to that style. The consultant had no concerns or recommendations for changes. His report did provide direction regarding potential privacy concerns for the neighbors on Mary Way, and commented that the windows could be reduced in size. The applicant has complied with this direction. Subsequent to filing their application the applicant designed the house to further address potential privacy concerns by reducing the height of the residence by 18 inches as well as raising the sill height of all second floor windows on both the east and west elevations to 5 feet 6 inches above the sub -floor, which will result in a height of at least 5 feet above the finished floor. This reduced window size and increased sill height which will effectively create clearstory windows will remove potential privacy concerns along the walls closest to the neighbors. The applicant is still able to provide the required egress for each second story bedroom with larger windows along the north and south elevations where the setbacks are greater, and the impacts to neighbor privacy will be significantly reduced or illuminated. The proposed residence does not include any second story balconies or outdoor space to further reduce any impact on neighbor privacy as discussed within the Residential Design Guidelines. The existing second unit (addressed as 16131 Short Road, 540 sq. ft.) will remain, and no changes are proposed to the structure. A second story addition to this structure would not be permitted per Town Code (Section 29.40.015), as feared by the neighbor at 112 Mary Way (Exhibit 7). Two separately accessible parking spaces will be provided pursuant to Town Code for the second unit adjacent to the structure outside the required fire turnaround. B. Shadow Study The applicant has provided a shadow study showing the summer and winter solstice shadows at 9 AM, noon, and 3 PM. The applicant has specified that the shadow studies are provided by a Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 June 22, 2011 program that uses navy technology to determine the angle of the sun on any given day for a specific geographic coordinate. The new residence would cast shadows on 120 Mary Way, and 116 Mary Way during the 9 AM winter period. According to the architect's program, the shadow will only impact the adjacent properties for approximately one hour each morning. At no other time will the proposed residence shadow adjacent properties. C. Neighborhood Compatibility Based on Town and County records, the surrounding residences range in size from 1,980 square feet to 4,433 square feet (see Neighborhood Analysis table above). The properties range in size from 7,980 square feet to 39,295 square feet. The applicant is proposing a residence with a living floor area of 3,511 square feet with an additional 540 sq. ft. in an existing second unit on a 23,935 square foot lot. The proposal does not create the largest home in the neighborhood, or the largest FAR. 16161 Short Rd address House SF Garage SF Site SF FAR Max Allowed Garage and House FAR Stories 16015 Short Rd 3,171 551 20,038 0.16 4,603 0.19 2 16121 Short Rd 4,433 720 25,265 0.18 4,747 0.20 2 16141/16151 Short Rd* 3,448 835 21,700 0.16 4,696 0.20 1 l6t61:Short Road,.(E)*ry„„, $„ f= 2, ` 672 , t23,935 , r`,ry - 0 09 ,75 ..... 6, ,;0z12 1 f;6 '61k 1:0CF Pad`(F)*M . ,051= , k.:' 780 MI:'-',- {23;935,. ..,:0 1 i 4,752 ... , $. 0,20 A. ' ,, 2 16171 Short Rd 3,190 676 34,286 0.09 3,967 0.11 1 16207 Short Rd 4,268 1,073 23,958 0.18 4,752 0.22 1 16221 Short Rd 4,308 809 21,000 0.21 4,662 0.24 2 16235 Short Rd 1,980 0 39,295 0.05 2,972 0.05 1 108 Mary Wy 1,981 506 8,056 0.25 2,623 0.31 1 112 Mary Wy 2,403 960 8,058 0.30 2,623 0.42 2 116 Mary Wy 2,231 953 7,980 0.28 2,603 0.40 2 120 Mary Wy 3,395 515 7,992 0.42 2,606 0.49 2 124 Mary Wy 2,256 528 8,073 0.28 2,627 0.34 1 128 Mary Wy 2,480 480 12,915 0.19 3,702 0.23 1 132 Mary Wy 2,201 528 14,096 0.16 3,908 0.19 1 * Includes second unit in sq. ft. Note Does not distinguish cellar area if it exists Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 June 22, 2011 D. Tree Impacts The applicant has placed the residence in its current location and form in order to preserve all the existing trees onsite. Some of the overgrown shrubs along the southern end of the property will be cleared away, but all large screening shrubs and trees will remain. The applicant does intend to plant additional landscaping as well. Please see sheet L-1 of Exhibit 9. Shrubs and trees under 4" in diameter are not usually protected within the Conditions of Approval, if the Commission feels it is necessary, a condition should be added to retain, or maintain a form of landscape screening between specific adjoining residences. E. Drainage Due to the slope of the adjacent lots in combination with the subject site, which is relatively flat (approximately 4% average slope), there have been neighborhood drainage issues. The area slopes down from Short Road as it gradually reaches the properties on Mary Way. The applicant's civil engineer has discussed these issues in the letter provided in Exhibit 8. The applicant is required pursuant to Town Code to ensure that the proposed modifications will not increase the volume or locations in which run off currently occurs. The applicant is proposing to install dry wells with connecting drainage infiltration trenches to capture and infiltrate runoff on - site. They will also install a two foot high berm at the southwest corner to block any surface sheet flow. In order to comply with current C.3 drainage standards, two grassy swales of 240 feet total length and 4 feet width will be constructed parallel to the residence to intercept and detain initial peak runoff and any increased runoff due to new impervious surfaces. With these three systems working in concert, the proposed improvements to the site will improve the neighborhood drainage characteristics. F. CEQA Determination The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town because this is a single family home. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Story poles were erected prior to public notice. Staff has received neighborhood concerns throughout the review process (Exhibit 7). The applicant has had discussions with several neighbors and has tried to work with all of their neighbors during the design of the- project. However, some of the neighbors have been reluctant to allow the applicant or his architect to contact them. Staff has attempted to work with these neighbors to address their concerns and to forward their comments to the applicant. Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 16161 Short Road/S-11-001 June 22, 2011 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The proposed residence is well designed, and will not impact any of the trees onsite or on adjacent properties. The applicant has taken additional steps to reduce privacy concerns regarding the second story, and lowered the height of the residence to reduce the visual impact to the neighbors. The proposed residence is similar in size and height to many of the properties along both Short Road and Mary Way and will not create the largest house or the largest FAR. While a single story residence would be possible, a larger footprint would increase impervious surfaces for the property resulting in an increase to the drainage impacts for the development. In addition, the single story would have to extend further to the southern end of the property reducing the amount of retained yard and green space which may raise concerns with other neighbors both on Short Rd and Mary Way. B. Recommendation: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application and take the following actions: 1. Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 2); and 2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family residence (Exhibit 2); and 3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and 4. Determine that the project is in compliance with the Single and Two Family Residential Design Guidelines; and 5. Approve the Architecture & Site Application S-11-001 subject to the attached conditions (Exhibit 3) and the development plans (Exhibit 11). c-/c Prepaid by: Approved Marni F. Moseley, AICP .endie L. ' . oney Associate Planner Director of Community Development G G c WRR:MM:cgt cc: John and Elvie Scott, 13587 Saraview Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2011\16161 Short.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank 16161 Short Road EXHIBIT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: June 22, 2011 16161 Short Road Architecture and Site Application S-11-001 Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family residence and to construct a new single family residence on property zoned R-1:20. APN 523-09-029. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: John and Elvie Scott FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town. Required findings for demolition: 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 structure no historic significance. 3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it exists; and 4. There is no economic utility to the structure; it is unsafe for occupancy. Required Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines: The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes. 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. EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — June 22, 2011 16161 Short Road Architecture and Site Application S-11-001 Requesting approval to demolish an existing single family residence and to construct a new single family residence on property zoned R-1:20. APN 523-09-029. PROPERTY OWNERJAPPLICANT: John and Elvie Scott TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL. The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 3. STORY POLES. The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 4. 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. 5. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS. The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report, dated March 2, 2011, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or will be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. 6. 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 driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Refer to the report prepared by Arbor Resources dated March 12, 2010 for details. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans. 7. 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. 8. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless 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. 9. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third EXHIBIT 3 party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval. Building Division 10. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the demolition of the existing single family residence and the construction of the new single family residence. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary. 11. 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. 12. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36". 13. 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 form 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. 14. 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. 15. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils report, and that the building pad elevation and on -site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining Walls 16. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994- 61 a. Wood backing (2" x 8 minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls at water closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34-inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall be a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no more than 1/2-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18- inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 17. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue -lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet. 18. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 19. 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 Chimney. 20. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly. 21. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area and must comply with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code. 22. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed Architect or Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. 23. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Architect or Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 24. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled -out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building 25. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) 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 for a fee or online at www.losgatosca. gov/building. 26. PLANS: The construction plans shall be prepared under the direct supervision of the licensed architect or engineer. (Business and Professionals Code Section 5538) 27. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development — Planning Division: Marni Moseley (408) 354-6802 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Trang TuNguyen (408) 354-5236 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 peiiuit issuance. f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000 28. ADVISORY COMMENTS: This new single family residence must be designed and built in compliance with the. 2010 California Residential Code and the Mandatory Measures of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code. TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 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. DRAINAGE: No cross lot drainage will be permitted without satisfactory storm water acceptance facilities. All drainage shall be directed to the street or other acceptable drainage facility approved by the Town Engineer. 32. PRIVATE • EASEMENTS. Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany any proposed private easement. Access driveway shall be within the recorded access easement. New private access easement shall be recorded prior to issuance of building permit or realigned access driveway shall be completed prior to issuance of building permit. 33. 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. 34. FENCES: Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences encroached into the neighbors will need to be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines. 35. 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. 36. PLAN CHECK FEES. Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 37. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map. 38. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING. Prior to issuance of any permit or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall: a. Along with the project applicant, attend a pre -construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters; b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval, and will make certain that all project sub -contractors have read and understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction. 39. RETAINING WALLS. A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. 40. SOILS REPORT. One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the grading permit application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in confotiiiance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 41. SOILS REVIEW. Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. The applicant's soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 42. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION. During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design -level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing should be documented in an "as -built" letter/report prepared by the applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 43. 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. 44. EROSION CONTROL. Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects disturbing more than one acre. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County NPDES MRP Permit. 45. 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. 46. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN. The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations. 47. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN. The project sponsor will be required to work with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department to develop a traffic control plan for incorporation into the construction bid documents (specifications), and this plan will include, but not be limited to, the following measures: a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one-way traffic flow. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation. c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one-way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation. 48. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) 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). 49. NPDES. The applicant shall ensure that the grading and other construction activities meet the provisions specified in the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit Order R2-2009-0074, and NPDES No. CAS612008 Section C3, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer: On -site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and/or right of way. Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed without prior approval from the Town Engineer. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. 50. 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. 51. UTILITIES The developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code §27.50.015(b). A11 new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities, 52. GRADING PERMIT. A grading permit is required for site grading and drainage. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 53. 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. 54. DRIVEWAY APPROACH. The developer shall install 1 Town standard residential driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. 55. FENCING. Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall comply with Town Code Section §23.10.080. 56. 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 confoiiii 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. 57. 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. 58. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE. Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative (Sec. 6.50.025). The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve, as defined section 103(e) of the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by section 6.50.010 of the Town Code and maintain such device in a functional operating condition. Evidence of West Valley Sanitation District's decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit. 59. 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. 60. 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. 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. 61. 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. 62. 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. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 63. EMERGENCY GATES/ACCESS GATES. Gate installations shall conform with the Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1; and when open, shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. If provided, locks shall be Fire Department approved, prior to installation. Gates across emergency access roads/driveways shall be equipped with approved access devices. If the gates operate electronically, an approved Knox padlock shall be installed. Gates providing access from a road to a driveway or other roadway shall be installed at least 30 feet from the road being exited. If more than one gate is installed, they must open from a single key or must open from a single key switch if electronically operated and must remain open as long as equipment is detected within the space between each gate. 64. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system is required for the new residence and barn, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work. 65. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION. Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from Wagner Road. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background. N;\DEV\CONDITNS\2011\16161 Short.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank RECEIVED Marni, 1.:,(; )2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS Enclosed please find a short summary of thePc4o a Re9abOnsNtrains and physical limitations we faced for planning and design of 16161 Short road. Plans completed and submitted by Chris Spaulding Architect. Also enclosed are a short summary of neighborhood objections and most frequently discussed issues to date. Limitations leading to a two story instead of a one story design: • Please note the site is 23,935 sf. but narrow and long. Approximately 77 ft wide and 310 ft long on eastern boundary and 280 ft at western boundary. The existing right of way / drive way entry to the site is located approx. 100 ft south of the eastern boundary of the site. Location of this drive way and three magnificent redwood trees that nobody in their right mind would consider removing to make more available space divides the lot to two areas. The northern portion of the site and the southern portion. . The area to the south of the driveway is the only clear area for the location of a new home, which would grace the available property. This is where the existing home and a separate 2 car garages are presently located. Furthermore, the requirement for a fire -apparatus turning area also dictates the area available for a new home. • Given a 15 ft. minimum side yard setback on two sides leaves approx. 47 ft for the total allowable width of new home. Our plans call for 4 bed room home requiring a total 3511 sf plus a 3 car garage of 780 sf equaling to a 4291 total area. A one story design will lead to: 1. 4,291 sq. ft of impervious sq. coverage which results in almost a total loss of a back yard to be used for a pool and family outdoor enjoyment. A floor plan with a narrow and linear flow design that would not be would not acceptable for family enjoyment. 2. The home will also extend into the views of two additional homes located on Mary Way and Short road (a one story home is still pretty tall - a 47' wide house with a standard 4:12 roof slope, floor 12" above the ground and 9'-6" ceilings is 19-6" tall) 3. The one story design will not fall within the standards set in the existing neighborhood. This design will not promote neighborhood values and standards as well its own in such dysfunctional architecture, special flow, shape and manner. • The proposed two storey home does not have a cellar, because the Scott's do not desire a media room, play room, exercise room, wine cellar or other type of space that is typically found in a basement. They do not want their primary bedrooms or living areas to be located underground. A key reason is that they have family members with asthmatic issues that underground facilities exacerbate. • In addition, two story homes are the most prevalent and consistent with the present neighborhood conditions. Within 19 neighborhood properties 53% own two story homes. 80% of homes located in the R-20 zone are 2 story residences with an average height of 26.1 feet. This includes the neighboring 3 properties located on 116, 120 and 124 Mary Way located the western boundary of the property on R-8000 zone. 3 out of 4 residences bordering the subject are also enjoying 2 story homes. EXHIBIT 4 • The plans submitted have already met all the rules and regulations set forth by Town of Los Gatos all plans have also met the all guidelines including close scrutiny of the Town consulting Architect. Neighborhood objections: 120 May Mary Way, Los Gatos Two letters received from Lois malison. First letter dated 3-6-11 states the following: "Most of the nine bordering properties know it is a landlocked corridor property. It actually has no street frontage. Neighbors' knew for many years it could not be further developed. 16161 and 16131 should not be further developed. The Scott's own a flag lot with NO flagpole." • The above statements are simply not true. The second letter dated March 25, 11 claims the following "the sun shadow of the proposed new 2 story building will hit our home almost dead center. This will cause us to lose our fall and winter solar energy." The letter continues with a claim that "this far exceeds the solar loss allowed by CA State" • Again her claims are not based on facts. There are no such legal rights in CA State and studies done by Chris Spaulding Architect and John Scott submitted to the town show that at the winter Solstice (at 9am) the shadow of the proposed house will shade only the northern 12' of the 15t story of 120 Mary Way. The shadow will completely clear the residence at 120 Mary Way by 9:45 am. There is also a row of Cypress trees along the back property line of 120 Mary Way and a line of Pine trees along the back of 124 Mary Way. Together, these trees cast much more shadow on 120 Mary Way than the proposed residence. The letter also continues with the claim "this is the same land the Town planners in the 1980's insisted be saved as open space for all Los Gatos residents." • This statement is a clear indication that Ms. Mallison wished the subject property to remain as open space for every one's enjoyment. The subject property was been a single family home occupied since 1940's therefore it could not have considered as open space by the Town. The subject property was offered for sale and remained for sale for a period spanning many months. We are certain she could have certainly purchased it and have it remain as open space. She chose not to. 116 Mary Way, Los Gatos One letter dated was received dated March 2, 2011 from David Clark and Debra Fetters stating that the subject second story portion of residence will be completely bloc their access to views of the sky and the Hills. Showing a photograph that that the existing one story residence is already blocking their view. This letter was written prior to erection of Story polls. • A response was written by Chris Spaulding Architect stating the following: o "The proposed residence is indeed a 2-story design, but the portion of the house that will about your property consists of a one-story wing. The ridgeline of this new one-story wing will be located at about the same spot as that of the existing house, although the new ridge will be approximately 3' higher. When the story poles are erected it will hopefully show that your view of the treetops and sky will be protected. Also, to mitigate the perception of mass and bulk, the new structure will have 2/3rd's of its square footage on the first story, and 1/3 upstairs. Further, on the side of the new home facing your property, the 2nd floor walls are stepped back from the 1st floor walls and buffered by one-story rooflines. To protect your privacy, the only 2nd floor windows facing your property are in the proposed master bathroom and will have sills 5'...above the floor," A second letter dated April 16, 2011 Was send to Town claiming essentially the same theme as the first letter this time also including a photograph of the story poles to show the obstruction of the views. • Since their last letter and erection of story poles the Scotts decided to drop the ridge height by 18 inches. It is now essentially the same height at ridge line of the existing one story home. The illustration drawn and made in the photograph is 18 inches higher than proposed new height. e The total lot width of 116 Marry Way is approx. 76 feet. Our existing home already extends 23 feet passed their southern boundary since approx. 60 years ago. The garage of the new home extends only 23 ft longer than the existing home at the same height. This leaves 30 feet of the property width exposure or 40% of the first floor view completely unobstructed. No portion of the second story proposed residence extends into the sharing property line. • The photos are conveniently taken at the first floor close to the fence showing the view to the south. By this method of filling the page with mostly with story poles and not the balance 40% area to the north or the additional view to the north over the existing one story guest house that will not be obstructed. We Have requested Chris Spaulding Architect to illustrate the actual view of new home from 116 Marry Way for the sake of planning commission presentation, 16171 Short Road Los Gatos. John and Raquel Voris wrote a letter to The Town on 3/29/2011 objecting to two story nature of residence. Please note the following background relationship between Voris' s and Scotts leading to their objection. 9 John and Raquel Voris met with John and Elvie Scott shortly after August of 2010 following the Scott's close of escrow of subject property. It was to be a meeting welcoming Scott's to the neighborhood as well as discussing Scott's 15 ft RW easement that lies on Voris's property. The Scott's were interested also to discuss the Voris' s fencing encroaching onto to their easement. At this meeting the Voris `s, while acknowledging the encroachment, were interested in discussing their request for the Scott's to agree to a proposal to move their RW easement to the northern boundary of their property. This would consequently add the strip of land lying to the north of the RW presently useless to Voris's as a portion of their side and back yards. The Voris's stated that they have resented this condition since their purchase of their property. Voris's claimed that they tried to sell the said portion to the Deming's- the owners of the property on the northern side for $180,000. They stated that Deming's refused such purchase as they continue the enjoyment of this strip of land free. Scott's agreed to cooperate with examining such proposal as good neighbors would cooperate. In short, following numerous meetings, phone calls and emails and different proposals and maps and counter proposals, the Scott's and the Voris' s did not reach an agreement. For the Scott's this matter became increasingly difficult since moving the RW to Voris's northern property boundary line would mean constructing a roadway next to a precious oak tree located on the said property line and getting close to another oak tree located at the entry to Scott's property. This matter was also further complicated by the new proposed RW to pass by the Deming's living room which would prove to be a detriment to Deming's privacy as well as not a desirable entry RW for the Scotts. At last the Scott's proposed to keep the driveway exactly where it is as now it was increasing became apparent why it was placed there to begin by the previous owners. Following Scott's request for status queue in March 2011, Voris's yet send another proposal on 3/22/2011 this time proposing another version of RW relocation and now adding a condition for the approval of Scott's new residence (copy enclosed). John and Elvie Scott did not accept the new proposal. The Voris's letter to Town of Los Gatos objecting to two story residence was written and dated 3-27-11, one week following submitting their last proposal to the Scott's in regard to proposed new location of a RW. The letter is enclosed as following: "Dear John, Elvie, and Benjamin, We are proposing a resolution to the easement issue that gives you a 15' easement and flares on both ends. Please see the attached easement map for details. This proposal is contingent upon your providing a dense set of overlapping 20' tall evergreen trees along the full length of our back fence to keep our private backyard, private. Regards, John and Raquel " • Please note the Voris's always knew about Scott's residence two story home being, planned since September of last year. Having viewed the story poles , the Voris' s requested only additional contingency of 20 ft. Tall evergreen trees if the Scott's would also accept the new proposed RW Location. Once their request was not accepted on the RW proposal they changed their opinion about approving Scott's new residence. Unfortunately the Voris's have also decided to mobilize new opposition by their neighbors as well. 16207 Short Road, Los Gatos David and Barbra Mosley letter dated March 30, 2011 was written one day after the Voris's basically repeating the same theme as Voris's objecting to invasion of their privacy and a two story home. • Please note The Mosley's also reside in a two story home of similar height to the proposed subject. Their views of the new residence is limited if any. The second floor windows facing east to their residence will be above eye level. It is also very apparent that the way their home would be affected is if Scott's residence was to be a one story it will stretch into their western views at their rear yard. 128 Mary Way, Los Gatos Mr. and Mrs. Swenberg have no objection on their own behalf. They are and supporting their neighbors at 116 and 120 Mary Way. Steps taken by the applicant to take care of neighbor's privacy and other concerns. 1. Great care and design has made certain of a two story home with approximately 2/3 on the first floor and 1/3 on the second floor. Also stepping the second floor back to minimize impact. 2. The new home design set back on the western side is greater than existing home's side yard setback. 3. Minimized the number of windows facing east and west sides facing the neighbors. All widows will be reduced in height or raised above eye level to insure no views from Scott's residence to neighbor's rear yards. 4. Shadow studies have been studied and repeated to minimize impact on neighboring properties. 5. Great care and design to make certain that the home that adheres to all Town regulations and policies. A planning and design that would be in harmony and an asset the surrounding neighbors and consistent with the rest of neighborhood. The Town's consulting Architects have already reviewed above plans and verified the same as required by Town's requirements. 6. Reduce the height of roof line by an additional 1.5 ft. from last submission. 7. A new landscape plan is being submitted to also include new trees to hedge view of proposed residence. Please let us know of any additional information you may require. Thank you Sincerely Benjamin Guilardi This Page Intentionally Left Blank ir: EER1 ROCA3 ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL DESIGN 88 So. Park Victoria Drive, PMB# 145, Milpitas, CA 95035 Mobile: (408) 821-1335 Fax: (408) 934-1322 e-mail: Roca3(aymail.com January 10, 2011 Mr. Benjamin Guilardi Alain Pinel Realtors bguilard@apr.com Re: Structural Inspection —16161 Short Road, Los Gatos, CA Dear Benjamin: In accordance with your authorization, we have surveyed the condition of the existing single -story structures for the above project address. The object of the survey was to examine the structural components of the existing structural system and determine its serviceability. The following are our findings and recommendations subsequent to our field survey dated January 10, 2011. The subject residence includes (3) three detached single story wood -framed, single family buildings on a flat lot located in the Town of Los Gatos. The structures are custom type homes built in the 1940's (approximately) consisting of Main house, Guest house and detached Garage. The residence has lightweight composition roofing and wood siding exterior finish. The roof has skip sheathing with 2x rafters. The existing floor framing consists of 2x floor joists and 4x girders at Main and Guest houses. The foundation system at Main house consists of continuous footing and concrete isolated footings. However, there were no continuous footing observed around the perimeter of the Guest house and Garage. Most of the structures, excluding the garage are concealed behind plaster walls, ceilings and flooring preventing direct measurement of structural framing or inspection. Our observation included only areas visible at the time of our inspection. Observations of identified problems and questionable construction are as follows: Page 1 EXHIBIT 5 ROCA3 ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL DESIGN 88 So. Park Victoria Drive, PMB# 145, Milpitas, CA 95035 Mobile: (408) 821-1335 Fax: (408) 934-1322 e-mail: Roca3(@,vrnail.com Detached Garage 1. The perimeter walls rest directly on the ground without perimeter footing or any other support system. 2. There were no interior ground slabs. 3. The structural framings have deteriorated severely and sections of the wall and roof have deflected significantly showing distress and possible collapse. The structure is not safe for occupancy. Guest House 1. There were no continuous footings at perimeter of house. Floor framing was supported by isolated pad footing with stacked 2x shims instead of post support. 2. At first floor framing, we observed signs of moisture (efflorescence), dry rot and water intrusion typical throughout. 3. The crawl space access is less than the 18 inches minimum requirement. 4. We observed cracks at interior finish and signs of distress, typical throughout. 5. The front section wall is full of door and window openings which do not provide lateral resistance against earthquake or wind forces. Main House 1. At floor and wall framings, we observed signs of moisture (efflorescence), dry rot and water intrusion typical throughout. 2. At existing foundation, we observed vertical cracks at the rear side of property. 3. Corrosion of steel supports at right side entry platform After completion of the above reference site visit and review of our observations and findings, our recommendation for the subject address are the following. Detached Garage: It is our opinion that the Garage structure's current overall support systems are not serviceable and not safe for occupancy. We recommend that the structure be demolished and construct a new garage engineered to comply with building codes. Page 2 ROCA3 ENGINEERING STRUCTURAL DESIGN 88 So. Park Victoria Drive, PMB# 145, Milpitas, CA 95035 Mobile: (408) 821-1335 Fax: (408) 934-1322 e-mail: Roca3(a,ymail.com Guest House: It is our opinion that the Guest house is not structurally in compliance to building codes and would require engineering and retrofit to make the foundation and walls updated to meet new code requirements. It will be more practical to demolish the Guest house and built a new one designed to meet building code requirements. Main House: It is our opinion that the Main House is in serviceable condition and safe to occupy. We however recommend providing the following fix for the deficiencies noted on our observations. 1. Remove and replace framing with dry rot. 2. Apply pressure injected epoxy or grout at cracked concrete footing. 3. Remove rust and apply corrosion protection paint. The information and opinions contained herein are based upon the limited observation described at the beginning of this report. No warranties are expressed or implied regarding the existence of other unknown conditions not specifically addressed. Our work is in accordance with generally accepted engineering standards and is not intended to be relied upon or transferred to individuals other than the addressee. Should information or conditions become known which differ from the discussion herein, they may alter the opinions and conclusions of the undersigned. We trust the above discussion will be of help in the future use of the subject property. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely yours, Joey G. Roca III, P.E., Roca3 Engineering Page 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN March 2, 2011 Ms. Marni Moseley Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street P.O. Box 949 Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE:16161 Short Road Dear Marni: I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows: Neighborhood Context The site is a flag lot with an access drive from Short Road. It is located between one-story homes fronting on Short Road, and one -and two-story homes fronting on Mary Way to the west. Photos of the site and surrounding neighbor- hood are shown below. TEL: 415.331.3795 FAX: 415.331.3797 EMAIL: cdgplan@pacbell,nel 180 HARBOR DRIVE SUITE 219 SAUSALITO. CA 94965 EXHIBIT 6 16161 Short Road Design Review Comments March 2, 2011 Page 2 Entry drive and house to the left Entry ate at the,site ? Existing house and 144040 the south a�iillllllifu�l`I� illisil�' Other homes facing Short Road Entry drive and house to the right Existing house: on the -Site North portion of the site with existing accessory structure CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE , SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 16161 Short Road Design Review Comments March 2, 2011 Page 3 Issues and Concerns The proposed house is well designed with good massing, a distinctive traditional architectural style, and details that are authentic to that style. I have no concerns about the site plan or building elevations, and do not have any recommenda- tions for changes. The only issue that I did see relative to the Residential Design Guidelines relates to a potential privacy issue regarding the west -facing windows in the Master Bedroom. The guideline states: 3.11.2 Minimize privacy intrusions on adjacent residences • Windows should be placed to minimize views into the living spaces and yard spaces near neighboring homes. • When windows are needed and desired in side building walls, they should be modest in size and not directly opposite win- dows on adjacent homes. • Where possible, second floor windows that might intrude on adjacent property privacy should have sill heights above eye level or have frosted or textured glass to reduce visual exposure. These windows would face the a two-story residence on Mary Way. However, that home is further away from the pro- posed new home than others in the immediate vicinity (see Plot Plan), and the windows are relatively modest in size (see arrows on west elevation below). Proposed Eas Ek vation (entry) Proposed West: Elevation (facing neighbors on Mary Way) I I k. Proposed North Elevation Proposed South Elevation Marni, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry Cannon AICP CANNON DESIGN GROUP 180 HARBOR DRIVE . SUITE 219 . SAUSALITO . CA 94965 This Page Intentionally Left Blank RECEIVED March 2,1011 Town Council/Planning Commission of Los Gatos. ..�42011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION We understand there are plans to build a two story structure (home) directly behind our home. The recently purchased property at 16161 Short Road now has a one story dwelling. It is already fairly close to our back fence. A two story dwelling would almost completely block our any view we have of the sky/hills from our home. I have attached a photograph below. This is taken from our residence, looking back at the existing one story dwelling. You can see our roof overhang in the top portion of the photograph. Should a two story dwelling be build, we would in essence have no view, except a view of the new home itself. We are strongly opposed to the construction of a two story dwelling and should these plans for a two story dwelling continue, we would like to personally meet with the planning commission directly to talk about our concerns. Respectfully, David E Clarke, MD, FCCP Debra A Fetters, MD 116 Mary Way, Los Gatos CA EXHIBIT 7 hoo 4,- prorkA4 , 000101 (,It 11-L, 6{°e'llf-i)nL)13e'cl(Jil L))fjt-s) / April 16, 2011 To the Planning Commission, Town of Los Gatos RE:16161 Short Road Dear Ms. Moseley, S CEWED APR 21 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS BUILDING DIVISION I believe several of my neighbors here on Mary Way have written to you concerning the proposed dwelling construction on 16161 Short Road. I, too, have submitted a letter previously with my concerns (before the installation of site markers). My concerns are these: With such a small set back from our back fence (15 feet), the proposed dwelling blocks all but about a 5 degree view from our back yard. Previously, we had a view of the hills behind us: we don't live in a big mansion with a view of the downtown skyline, but we did have a small view of our beautiful hills, and if the proposed dwelling is constructed as planned our view will essentially be eliminated. With a house so close to our back fence, obstructing our view of the hills, no doubt the value of our house (and thus, the homes around us) will decease. Also, the construction of a dwelling which so significantly alters the view seems to deviated from your own Town code. Lastly, after my last letter, the architect for the proposed dwelling contracted me directly to explain that the construction of the dwelling would not significantly impact us (I don't agree with his email). Thank you for your attention to our concerns, David Clarke, MD, FCCP Debra Fetters, MD May 11,2011 Planning Commission, Town of Los Gatos. RE: 16161 Short Road. Dear Planning Commission; We are writing this letter in response to the letter of Benjamin Guilardi, in which he responded to our concerns about the building project of 16161 Short Road. We would like to highlight some of the responses and the very subjective nature in which our concerns were addressed. RECEIVED MAY 122011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS BUILDING DIVISION In our two letters to the Planning. Commssion, we voiced concerns about the obstruction of our view of the hills and skyline that would be significantly altered by the new construction project. In response to our 4/16/111etter, it is stated that the Scotts have decided to drop the ridge height by 18 inches, which will ESSENTIALLY (my emphasis) be the same as the existing structure. Since the original proposed height was 3 feet higher than the existing structure, I suppose, then, a structure that is build which is 18 inches higher than the existing structure is ESSENTIALLY (again, emphasis mine) the same height. But, it's not the same height, it is higher. We also did not "conveniently" take the photographs close the fence; we took the photographs from where we spend our time- in our breakfast nook and out on the patio where our deck table is. You can come over to our house and see that even if the ridge of the new home is 18 inches lower than what was originally proposed, the new structure will all but completely block our view of the hills- and it's this that we believe is not in keeping with existing town of Los Gatos building policy. We understand this is a narrow lot. We were not the ones who purchased the lot, nor the ones to choose to build a new structure on the lot. I believe that choice was an optional one, made by those who purchased 16161 Short Road. They knew in advance this was a flag lot and that to build a new residence on the lot could be problematic because of the size and shape of the lot. Sincerely, David E Clarke, MD FCCP Debra A Fetters, MD Marni Moseley From: Chris Spaulding <cspaulding.architect@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 1:55 PM To: davidclarkemd@mac.com Cc: Marni Moseley Subject: 16161 Short Road Dear Drs, Clark & Fetters, I was forwarded your letter expressing your concerns about the proposed residence at 16161 Short Road. Fortunately, I expect that the new home will not be as bad as you imagine. The proposed residence is indeed a 2-story design, but the portion of the house that will abut your property consists of a one-story wing. The ridgeline of this new one-story wing will be located at about the same spot as that of the existing house, although the new ridge will be approximately 3' higher, When the story poles are erected it will hopefully show that your view of the treetops and sky will be protected. Also, to mitigate the perception of mass and bulk, the new structure will have 2/3rd's of its square footage on the first story, and 1/3 upstairs. Further, on the side of the new home facing your property, the 2nd floor walls are stepped back from the 1st floor walls and buffered by one-story rooflines. To protect your privacy, the only 2nd floor windows facing your property are in the proposed master bathroom and will have sills 5' above the floor. Please feel free to call or e-mail me if you have any questions. -Chris Chris Spaulding, Architect 801 Camelia Street, Suite E Berkeley, CA 94710 Voice 510-527-5997 Fax 510-527-5999 chris@csarchitect.net i cdt RECEIVED MAR Q 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION C -X;e44., act,1"PIA.."4-) • 4144._e_;_ita-a) 1191 r , A4-- t I3 I ÷-1-tet-t-t aLt,u_Le+L-1 b k ' Jt_tx...t.,L767) ta-k÷t) /01^.4.-&L /4-te d I t, e of , ‘<y)Lc_ te,ot A d_4_4 ;*, (i 41,02,,, ',4•4 t,Y1,14-e- 4-C-t-t-erA4-(1.2 .dLA , ..tt) ,142../E? a te, 74‘4 tbrs- • / v ` • r -u..e-/— Q o 1 Cam---• dAJz. t-4 /616/ >11"-- . Ats-1-15 _A-4) "14,11.. or ob4-1 4t-e- otz-vt-el.44-1 r , I61a1 ...., 7j.)--.4 (,(U,CL4÷19-4 sel±-. 1 .e4-t641, 101,C" /c, ;¢.4,1,etz-4-4-et-L ..,t_a;te-4- • ..).41,..A.„ck. • ,f r'6(3t."&) c.± . (1714 Lois L. Maflison 120 Mary Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Los Gatos Planning Department, Marni Moseley Los Gatos Planning Commission, Marcia Jensen V Chris Spaulding, Architect March 25, 2011 RE: 16161 Short Road To All Concerned: The poles are now installed. 9- RECEIVED APR 5- 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION There is, however, is a major problem. The sun shadow of the proposed new 2 story building will hit our home almost dead center. This will cause us to lose our fall and winter solar energy. We have been using passive solar thermal energy for over 35 years before it even had a name. The rear of our home, facing the western side wall of 16161 Short, has 345 sq. ft. of glass. This glass will be blocked by the proposed 2 story building and we will not have use of the early morning sun. This far exceeds the solar loss allowed by CA State. There will need to be a design change to 16161 Short as 1 said in an earlier letter. A one story house still seems best. We will then get continued use of our passive, solar, thermal energy. In addition, we will lose most of the view of the foothill off of Short Road. This is the same land the Town Planners in the 1980's insisted be saved as open space for all Los Gatos residents. The 5 Angel Court properties had to be clustered at the base of the hill to save this foothill as open space. Well, after 40 years, we would be denied the view of this open space by the 25+ foot tall building. This building would start just 15 feet from our property line because it sits on the flag lot 90 degrees from each of the 9 surrounding properties. There is NO location (for the 2 story) on this lot that is reasonable for any of the neighbors to absorb. Please notify me (356-0594) after the plan changes are complete so that I can review. Please provide the 4 season shadow maps of the proposed building in the file. I only saw one, did I muss the others? Lois Mallison Ja_=,c) kt CC: Town Council Attachments: 16161 site photo Lois L. Malllson 120 Mary Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Los Gatos Planning Department, Marni Moseley Los Gatos Planning Commission, Marcia Jensen Chris Spaulding, Architect April 25, 2011 RE: 120 Mary Way East facing wall To all concerned: RICEi fE APR i:'. 0 TOWN OF LOB, GATO PLANNING DIVISION We are aware that pictures were taken (from 16161 Short Road) of the East facing wall on our home on April 20, 2011 at 12:50 PM. Following are the measurements of the doors and windows on this wall. 4 9' glass siding doors 2 4' H X 6' W windows 1 4' X 4' window 1 3 8" H X 62" W 2 4'HX25"W You can see how great our exposure is to the passive solar thermal energy. Sincerely, `' Lois L. Mallison 120 Mary Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 loma120@gmail.corn j'1;; PETITION Short Road Drainage To: Los Gatos Planning Departmentt/ Los Gatos Engineering Department Date: April 4, 2011 APR `4 cv�I TOWN OF LO;Gib( j:; PLANNING DIVISION j I request corrective action be taken on the drainage problem of 16131 and 16161 Short Road. Runoff water is often a problem on Mary Way. Now with the new construction it is the time to install necessary drains and purnps to remove this water. The drains should go from North to South through the entire property. The Short Road foothill drains for weeks after heavy rains. Currently moss is growing on Mary Way from 112 Mary to the street sewer grate. NAME ADDRESS DATE Qfxto 971,( Q'tto? `. _ -4io(/ 6_7 LjJ n L_ Let.4An^A_e_. c>ft' IcD RECEIVED NAY 6— 20i1 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION_ 47---4-2-. ,A,Ct..--Ira-e-4-4- _ _____ I 1,140 ____________ •L • _ . cf . .,:tizit:9„..„.., z • -44 Q sclo May 12, 2011 Ms. Marni F. Moseley Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos Civic Center 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Dear Ms. Moseley, RECEIVED MAY 10 201 TOPLANNING DIVISION This is in response to some of the correspondence in the file regarding the 16161 Short Road property. In your letter of April 5, 2011 to my wife you stated "(six of the ten contiguous properties are two story)". This is incorrect. Of the 10 properties that abut 16161 Short Road, 3 are two stories, the other 7 are one story. This includes the residences on Mary Way and Short Road. That error should be corrected in the file. Additionally none of the two story structures block the view of the hill to the East of Short Road as the proposed structure will.. A third point is that the 16161 Short Road property already sits 3 to 4 feet above my property thus their elevation is even more detrimental to my privacy. There are planned second story windows. This will invade the privacy of the 4 bedrooms on my second floor, as well as the first floor dining room, kitchen and family room. The orange netting and story poles indicate that 80% of my view of the hill East of Short Road will be blocked. This is not in keeping the Town's guidelines on new home or remodeling constructions. In an undated "short summary of the criteria" Mr. Guilardi states "two story homes are the most prevalent and consistent with the present neighborhood conditions. Again I refer you to the above paragraph, of the 10 properties that abut 16161 only 3 are two story. He further states "The plans submitted have already met all the rules and regulations set forth by Town of Los Gatos...." General Plan, Land Use Policy dated July, 2000 Section L.G.2.2 "To reduce the visual impact that new construction and/or remodeling has on our town and its neighborhoods" would show his statement to be incorrect. The visual impact on my property is tremendous-15 feet from my property line there will be a 20 foot house wall 64 feet wide. It will be like having a freeway sound wall towering over my property. Another concern about the role of the town's staff- 1 hour after my wife made a visit to the town offices to review the plans for 16161 Short Road there was a phone call from Mr. Guilardi. He said that he understood she had some concerns about the mapping plans. Too much of a coincidence in my mind —who notified him that she was there? There was another incident that was most unsettling on April 20th at 12:50 PM while my wife and one of my daughters were in the kitchen having lunch, my daughter spotted a camera's red light poking thru the italian cypress separating my residence from 16161 Short Road. Talk of invading one's privacy! Unless you have experienced this you cannot empathize with how uncomfortable it makes one feel. I would like to request the name of the trust that owns the 16161 Short Road property and who the members of the trust are. I am again requesting that you and members of the Planning Department and the Planning Commission come and stand on my second story deck and see the visual impact this will have on my residence. Although you stated in an email to me that this is not usually done, I am hopeful that rules can be "bent" so that justice can be done. I need not say anything, your eyes will tell the story. I am also hopeful that the Planning Department and the Planning Commission takes into consideration the objections of the 10 property owners surrounding 16161 Short Road in comparison to the 1 property. Apparently emails do not get into the file, so this is being sent by regular mail. So please see that it is entered into the file. Appreciate your efforts. Thank you. G Bob Mallison 120MaryWay RECEIVED MAY172011 Planning Department -Maori TOWN OF LOS GATOS RE: 1616 Short Road file PLANNING DIVISION Mamie, The shadow maps contained in the above file need further study. I did some on site measuring and my picture is quite different. I gave you those numbers last week. Are the maps computer generated? Who made them? Lois Mailisan 5-13-2011 va_k-11:7;34-:=49•" VLos Gatos Planning Department, Marni Moseley RECEIVED Los Gatos Planning Commission, Marcia Jensen JUN 8 - 2011 RE: 16161 Short Road TOWN OF LOS GATOS 5-22-2011 PLANNING DIVISION Marni, The letter from Benjamin Guilardi received by the Town on 5-3-2011 requires a response from me. Pg 1 #3 A one story plan "would not be acceptable for family enjoyment." The 2 story will interfere with 6 adjoining families and that does not create family enjoyment via lack of privacy, lack of view and added noise for those families. The 6 to 1 ratio does not seem reasonable. Ben said the one story "design will not promote neighborhood values:.." Having a 2 story home elevated 3 feet above us gives us the height of 29.4 feet on our property. However tall it is too close to our back yard-15 feet from the property line there will be a 20 foot high and 64 feet wide (house) wall. The observation for us will be like living next to a freeway sound barrier wall. The 16161 2 story will not increase our home value --too much blockage of sun, lost views and lack of privacy. Ben wrote of 19 neighborhood properties-53% are 2 story. Where did he get those numbers? The Planning Commission defined a neighborhood as 300' from anywhere on the property. Did he include both the East and West side of Mary Way? In my letter dated 3-6-2011 1.) "The Scott's own a flag lot with NO flagpole." In the first paragraph I wrote: "It actually has no owned street frontage" and that would be the flagpole portion. The Scotts do not own the flagpole portion. 2.) We did know the land was a landlocked corridor property. In the Town General Plan of 2000 it reads "Discourage corridor lots" (LP 3.8) 16161 is a corridor lot. My letter of 3-25-2011: Regarding the shadow maps, you know I am challenging them. I've done my math and on site visuals. I do not agree with the direction of the shadow. Marni, you said they were computer generated, but generated by whom? Maps at the Town lean N and my visuals lean S. We talked about 10 days ago about my draft drawings. I superimposed my drawings onto 16161 and the shadow is quite different than the shadow maps in the file. We do not seem to get any of the pine tree shadows. Regarding the 10% solar new construction loss in CA. That definitely was my error. I searched tons of CA solar materials in March, just remembering the number. When it came time for me to find the source in April, I searched for weeks until I found it. Source was CA but -wrong county code. I am sorry for the error. Regarding the open space comments in letter 2—The sentence was used out of context. I was talking about the foothill view which we will loose with a 2 story. The 5 Angel Court properties were clustered at the bottom of the foothill as the Town insisted back in the 1980's. The Angel Court houses were built there and the remaining acreage become open space. My point is that we will loose 90% of the foothill view (that the Town wanted saved as open space for all to enjoy). Definitely a misunderstanding about me wanting 16161 property to be open space. The Open space mentioned is the foothill on the east side of Short Rd. The 16161 property could not be open space ---it is not open to anything!! The Voris family is not mobilizing the residents on Short Road and Mary Way. Each individual family letter (s) states its concerns and how the 16161 height and mass impacts it. -Individually we seem to all arrive at the same compromise, that is, a one story building. -- #5 last page —The plan and design is NOT in harmony with the surrounding neighbors and it is certainly not consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. This 16161 property is squeezed in and faces N-S, causing problems. Sincerely, Sel.4.4.)° 91(4 tr—eicA-ev4-- Lois Mallison Cc: Benjamin Guilardi David and Barbara Mosley 16207 Short Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 March 30, 2011 Dear Ms. Moseley, My husband and I just purchased our home less than 1 year ago . We love the location, and especially the property and its privacy. We noticed that our neighbors at 16161 Short Road are rebuilding their house as the story poles have recently been erected. I do believe our decision to purchase this house may have been swayed knowing in advance of this construction. We thoroughly enjoy being outdoors in our backyard and we love the privacy. Our home has a wonderful flow from the inside to the outside throughout , and we believe the height of our neighbors home would not only diminish the privacy, but also the property value of our home. The story boards indicate the height of the new home would not only eliminate our privacy but our neighbors privacy as well. This would be the tallest home on Mary Rd and the tallest home backing up to Short Rd. We would ask that this house be built as a single story. We would also ask that this plan include tall trees in their landscaping to block their view into our yard. Again, our decision to purchase our (costly) home took into consideration all factors and one was definitely the unique privacy this lot has. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, David and Barbara Mosley Los Gatos Planning Department, Marni Moseley Los Gatos Planning Commission, Marcia Jensen Chris Spaulding, Architect April 2, 2011 RE: 16161 Short Road Development Plan To Planning Staff and Commission, RECEIVED APR 5- 2011 TOVVN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Our home at 124 Mary Way, downside from 16161 Short Road, has experienced drainage issues from the 16161 property for many years. Water run-off flows under the fence creating pools of standing water in our yard during heavy rains. The creation of a new and larger structure at 16161 ShortRoad may potentially increase ground water saturation round the proposed residential building and we would like to see some plans included whereby the water is channeled away from the Mary Way properties. While we could build a french drain to deal with the run-off from 16161, the new construction creates an opportunity to correct this long-standing problem. The diverted storm water flow could be drained into the storm drain on the southwest of the property, into the sewer system, or some reasonable solution based on good planning. It may well be that creating a pool and cement pad area behind us will alleviate the run- off, it simply might be wise to create drainage in any event. In addition, there is a tacit assumption that existing 16161 sewage collection and diversion will be adequate for that property. We would like to be informed if new sewage construction is planned and impacts an adjoining property, an aspect of the plans that isn't visible. Our expectation is that the Planning Department, Commission and Architect respond with some assessment or amelioration plan and notify us before construction plans are approved. Sincere) Gregg a 124 Mary Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 er in Dear Mr. and Mrs. Kerlin, April 15,2011 We are in receipt of your letter referencing the development of our newly purchased property ,16161 Short Road[this was forwarded to us by Los Gatos Planning Department].We believe that it is customary to send a response to the Town. They have been very supportive during this process, and as you can see they are copied on this memorandum. We find your comments very constructive and welcome them .We would have answered this earlier, but were going through various design possibilities with our civil engineer ,architect and landscape architect. We now have pretty much come to a preferred design .we think you can be part of the solution. We want to "kill" any drainage problems for ourselves and any neighbors on Mary.As you are aware the elevation drop from Short Road to Mary is quite severe ,about 8 feet,and so gravity ,always working the same way has caused all sorts of water flow and pooling onto our property, and since we have found no mitigation activities from past tenants,it follows they could well flow to your property and others.So when you say this occurs,it is no surprise. We do have three very experienced people working on it. We believe that the optimum solution is to drain into the storm drain,in the southwest corner of the property, exactly as you suggest in your letter. I would like to have our civil engineer, Mr. Harry Babicka of Westfall Engineers of Saratoga visit with you and explain our total drainage plan ,covering all of the water on our property.) believe that we need permission from you regarding a storm drain easement running over your property.We would like to provide the best solution so that any drainage issues falling on you from 16161 Short Road disappear. Harry will attempt to contact you so that he can meet with you and bring you up to speed. Yours sincerely, John and Elvie Scott Marni Moseley RECEIVED APR `, 7 011 From: Linda Swenberg <swenberg@me,com> TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2011 10:13 AM To: Marni Moseley Cc: Lois Mallison; Debra Fetters & David Clarke; Debra Fetters & David Clarke; Raquel & John Voris; Johanes Swenberg Subject: 16161 Short Road comments Dear Ms. Moseley, I am writing about the new home that is being reviewed for construction at 16161 Short Road. I believe that the proposed construction is in violation of the town's Residential Design Guidelines, General Plan, and the intent of the zoning ordinance. Please review the below comments and respond. I live at 128 Mary Way and have a substantial common property line with the subject property. My concerns are primarily for my neighbors: Drs. Fetters and Clarke, living at 116 Mary Way and Mr. and Mrs. Mallison, living at 120 Mary Way. I am very concerned with the process for reviewing the design of this project in respect to the impacts on the neighboring properties at 116 and 120 Mary Way neighbors. There are also impacts to properties along Short Road but I am less familiar with that part of the neighborhood, so I will only be addressing the Mary Way impacts in this letter. A few weeks ago, I went into your office to review the file for 16161 Short Road. I immediately noted that the shading study drawings showed that there would be a significant impact on the Mallison's home and back yard. I asked you about this and you said that although a shading study is required during the permit application process, the town really doesn't do anything with it. At the time, I had not yet personally reviewed the town's design guidelines. I took you at your word and went on my way. My plan was to wait until the story poles were erected and to make a visual assessment of the impact. Since that time, the story poles have been erected and it is very clear to me and many others that the new structure completely robs the Fetters/Clarke residence of the lovely mountain view that they enjoy from their entire backyard. It imposes severe shading on the Mallison residence and yard. I have also acquainted myself with the Los Gatos Residential Design Guidelines, 2020 General Plan, and the town's Resolution 2002-25 "Governing the Design Review Process." First I would like to acknowledge that the architect of the new home did take make an effort to comply with certain parts of the Residential Design Guidelines. (The house as proposed is beautifully designed.) Other parts were entirely disregarded, specifically sections 1.4 and 3.11.1. There are also problems with this project in regards to the General Plan and the town's zoning regulations. -Residential Design Guidelines Section 1.4 includes a statement that "Homes Will be designed with respect for the views, privacy, and solar access of their neighbors" (emphasis added). It appears that the subject property was designed with no respect to the views and privacy of 116 or 120 Mary Way. It completely obstructs any views from 116 Mary Way and partially obstructs the view from 120 Mary Way. It infringes on the privacy of both properties. It blocks almost all solar access for the eastern side of 120 Mary Way. -Residential Design Guidelines Section 3.11.1 Minimize shadow impacts on adjacent properties "Locate structures to minimize blocking sun access to living spaces and actively used outdoor areas on adjacent homes." The entire backyard of 120 Mary Way plus the understory will be dark most of the day as a result of i the new home on the subject property. This will be especially egregious in the winter season when shadows are longer and when the passive solar heating is especially valuable to the Mallison residence. Please refer to the shading study on file at your office to verify this. The town's General Plan also is written to protect the views of neighboring properties: -2020 General Plan, Policy CD-6.4 states New homes shall be sited to maximize privacy, livability, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and adequate solar access and wind conditions. Siting should take advantage of scenic views but should not create significant ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces, public places, or other properties." The siting creates a significant visual impact affecting both 116 and 120 Mary Way. -2020 General Plan Policy CD-16.3 states "New structures or remodels shall be designed to respect views from surrounding properties while allowing all affected properties reasonable access to views." There is no respect shown to the views from 116 Mary Way. Despite the fact that the second floor is set back from the first floor, the views are completely obstructed. The views are also affected from 120 Mary Way. -Los Gatos Code of Ordinances 29.40.380, it is stated that "The R-1 zone provides a means to create the best possible location and development standards for single-family dwellings, assure adequate light, air privacy and open space for each dwelling, minimize traffic and parking congestion, and reduce hazards from encroachment of industry and commercial activity." This is a statement of the intent of the zoning ordinance. Since the proposed house (Zone R1:20) would not assure adequate light or privacy for each dwelling, it is not the best use of the property as zoned. This property's shape presents a huge challenge from a design standpoint. It is non-comforming for current R1:20 zoning. Although quite large, it is very narrow. It is a landlocked parcel with an easement and it is in a Very High Fire Hazard Area so the fire department has constraints and requirements on the owner as well which require an adequate turnaround for a fire truck on the parcel. It is large but extremely shallow, at only —77 feet. Through a creative placement of the "front" door, the owners have claimed that north will be "front" on this property. I understand the need to pivot the house because the current code would only allow for a 20 foot deep house after the front and rear setbacks are subtracted from the property depth. This change results in the new side yard abutting the neighbors' back yards and primary outdoor living spaces. This choice, combined with the decision to build a 2-story home is a huge problem for the project. -Under the Los Gatos Code of ordinances 29.10.265 in reference to non-comforming lots, it is stated that "Any rule of the zone including front, side and rear yard requirements may be modified by the terms of the architecture and site approval so that the building and its use will be compatible with the neighborhood." A modification of the standard setbacks for this project should be considered to make it work in the neighborhood. The town's Design Review Process states that if the Planning Commission finds that there is "compelling evidence, received through public testimony that there is a privacy or other neighborhood impact to warrant plan modification," then they can modify the consulting architect's recommendations. I believe that I have clearly shown compelling evidence. You had it when the shading study was turned in. Now we have further evidence from viewing the obstruction of the story poles. When/if this project comes before the Planning Commission in its current form, there will be public testimony about the privacy and neighborhood impact issues. Please submit this letter with any public testimony you receive if this proceeds to the Commission. Some consideration should be made to the use of the neighboring properties' adjoining spaces as rear yards. Due to the narrow geometry of the lot, it would be best to constrain it to a single -story residence. In my opinion, that is the only way to properly comply with the town's current planning guidelines and standards as well as the General Plan. 2 Respectfully yours, Linda Swenberg (with husband and co-owner Johanes Swenberg) 128 Mary Way 408-358-9555 3 Greg Sheen 112 Mary Way Los Gatos, CA 05032 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Planning Department, Marni Moseley Planning Department, Joel Paulson Planning Commission, Marcia Jensen RE: 16161 Short Road Place letter in file Dear Concerned Los Gatos Residents, June 8, 2011 RECEIVED JUN 4 Z011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION This concerns the Elvie Scott, John Scott, and Benjamin Guilardi who own a landlocked lot at 16161 Short Road behind our family home at 112 Mary Way. The concern of the five neighbors, adjoining the lot, are the Scott/Guiiardi plans to replace an existing single story house and build a two story home that blocks the view of hills and sky for some of them. The Scotts were to meet with the neighbors to resolve the differences. Elvie Scott refused to call me so I called her Monday afternoon on June 6th. She did not want to talk to me because I do not live at 112 May Way but I am the executor of my 88 year old mother's estate who still lives there. I told her my concern was that the single story cottage directly behind our family home since 1962 could also be replaced with a two story structure. This would be an impact to the value of our home as the second story would block the hillside view, the sun from our backyard, and privacy concerns. Elvie said there are no plans to do this. I told her I wanted that in a legal document such as a deed restriction. She said she could not do that. Her response leads me to believe that the Scotts/Guilardi would push this through with their same non- negotiable attitude. Elvie said that all of us with concerns about the property are "evil and jealous" people. I assume we are evil because we are not giving in to their demands. She had said we are jealous because their home will be bigger than ours. She still refused to meet with me and hung up on me. My father, a developer, wanted to buy the same lot in the 1970's. Santa Clara County said that it could not be developed because access was across another homeowner's property and fire trucks could not turn around on the lot. That apparently has changed since the lot was annexed to the Town of Los Gatos in 1978. if the Town of Los Gatos now feels the lot can be developed, it should deed restrict the lot to single story structures. Also, to facilitate any replating for any Scott/Guilardi purchase, from the Short Road homeowner who owns the driveway land, the land for a new driveway. The driveway would be deed restricted to be relocated, improved surfacing, landscaped for privacy, and maintained by the Scotts/Guilardi, The fire truck issue would remain A Santa Clara County Fire District responsibility on how they want to provide fire protection. The homes adjoining the Scott's property have been there for over 50 years. We would appreciate the Town of Los Gatos to assert its ability and to help us maintain our property values and quality of life. Single story structures on the lot are a workable solution. Sincerely, Greg Shean Trustee, 112 Mary Way Cc: Elvie and John Scott Benjamin Guilardi 750 University Avenue Los Gatos, CA 95030 Ps' Ail June 14, 2011(rev 1) Job No. 11-231 Marni Moseley, Associate Planner Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Site Redevelopment Issues Lands of Scott - 16161 Short Road, Los Gatos Architectural and Site Review Application S-11-001 Dear Marni: RECEIVED JUN 14 2011 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION Redevelopment of the subject property has exposed some longstanding deficiencies with certain elements of the site. These are generally code compliance issues due to substandard construction or the age of the property. More specifically: Driveway Easement Encroachment and Pavement Width The existing driveway is approximately 10.5' wide where 12' is required. Given the narrow 15' width of the existing easement, which is further constrained by hedges, it is impractical to construct a 12' driveway without modification of the easement. Negotiations with the adjoining neighbor to realign the easement to accommodate the 12' pavement are nearly complete. There are also minor misalignments of the existing driveway at the beginning and end of the easement. The pavement, which encroaches on neighboring properties, will be removed as depicted on the civil plans. Fortunately the longitudinal slope of the driveway, down from Short Road is a very moderate 2.5%. Property Line Fence Encroachment The subject parcel pre-existed the four adjoining subdivision lots at the westerly property line which front on Mary Way. The common fence between the site and these lots appears to encroach by l' into the Mary Way lots. Discrepancies like this are easily remedied with a precise boundary survey and relocation or reconstruction of the fence in the proper location. This is a very early task within the construction schedule and will be remedied. Overland Sheet Flow Drainage Crossing Property Lines A basic principle of drainage law and design is that an uphill property has a right to continue to drain to a downhill property provided that the character, volume and location of the EXHIBIT 8 Marni Moseley; Associate Planner Town of Los Gatos June 14, 2011(rev 1) Page 2 of 2 runoff is not intensified or concentrated. There is a major 48" diameter storm drainage trunk line at the southwest property corner and the past practice has been to construct a direct connection lateral to this pipe. However, downhill neighbors have expressed concern about significant runoff from the site into their yards as well as the present capacity of the 48" storm trunk. So rather than exacerbate either of these conditions, the applicants have chosen to self -impose a higher standard for storm drainage performance. They will install dry wells with connecting drainage infiltration trenches to capture and infiltrate runoff on -site. They will also install a 2' high berm at the southwest corner to block any surface sheet flow. The last item is really the only measure that is an absolutely required improvement under current C.3 drainage standards. They will install two grassy swales of 240' total length and 4' width constructed parallel to the residence to intercept and detain initial peak runoff and any increased runoff due to new impervious surfaces. With these three systems working in concert, the site will vastly improve the neighborhood drainage characteristics. Low Profile Building Pad The subject residence will not be built up on a new 2' high building pad as is standard practice. Instead, the northwesterly line of the house will be established at the existing ground elevation of 371. This will hold the main floor down to elevation 372 which is consistent with the old structure at the site. Likewise, the garage slab at 371.5 is very close in elevation to the existing grade. While there will be additional crawl space excavation, this is merely a one-time impact of hauling out 200 CY or 20 truckloads. The short term construction impact is a slight nuisance however the long term preservation of privacy is protected by lowering the residence in this fashion. Adequate surface drainage will be provided as discussed above. Sincerely, TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, INC. Terence J. Szewczyk, P.E. Principal Engineer RECEIVED JuN 13 Z011 TOWN OF LOS GA T OS PLANNING DIVISION June 10, 2011 Marni Moseley Town Of Los Gatos RE: 16161 Short Road Los Gatos Dear Marni, Enclosed please find the following Documents for planning commission meeting of 6/22/2011: 1. A short summary of the immediate neighborhood properties surrounding the subject with relevant data on each. Also including a photographic summary of the same. 2. A short summary of the criteria, design constraints and physical limitations leading to the design of the proposed residence. Also included the neighborhood objections received by the town and response to each. 3. 20 sets of reduced and one full size set of architectural and engineering drawings. Please let us know any additional documents and information that you require. Sincerely John Scott. EXHIBIT 9 IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD of 16161 SHORT ROAD 10 CONTIGUOUS PROPERTIES ADDRESS PEAK HEIGHT STORYS LOT SIZE TOTAL SF 2nd FL SF % on 2nd FL PROPOSED RESIDENCE 16161 SHORT 25'6" 2 23,935 4,292 1,372 32% NEIGHBORS 1. 16121 SHORT 27' 2 25,265 5,153 2,265 44% 2. 16221 SHORT 25'6" 2 21,000 5,117 1,989 3. 16207 SHORT* 24' 2 23,958 5,341 not known 4. 16171 SHORT*18' 1 34,286 3866 5. 16151 SHORT 16' 1 21,700 4251 • 3 out of 5 properties neighboring on Short Road are 2 stories =60% • 1 through 5 are at 5 foot elevation higher than subject property. 6. 112 MARY 22' 2 8,058 3363 1,020 30% 7. 116 MARY * 20' 2 7,980 3,184 1,069 33.5% 8. 120 MARY * 24' 2 7,992 3910 1,779 45% 9.124 MARY 16' 1 8,073 2784 10. 128 MARY * 16' 1 12,915 2960 • 3 out of 5 neighboring properties on Mary Way are 2 story homes=60%. • *represents 5 property owners who have written letters objecting to 2 story design on subject. 3 of 5 owners live in 2 story homes=60% • 116, 120 Mary Way both enjoy 2 story homes on higher destiny R1-8000 lots with corresponding bulk of 33.5 to 45% on the second story versus 32% on subject property. BULK OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE ROOF LINE HEIGHT SPACE UNDER ROOF LINE BULK 25'6" 664.6 15% 23'3" 707.6 16 14'0" 2,139.2 50% LIVING SPACE 3,511.4 14'0" GARAGE 780.8 19% TOTAL 4,292.2 100 Considerable effort has been exerted to keep the house bulk low. • 69% of the total sf. is at 14'. • 16% of total sf. is at 23'3" or below. • Only 15% of total sf. is at 25'6" MITIGATION EFFORTS TO SATISFY NIEGBORH.00D CONCERNS Since original submission. 1. PRIVACY CONCERNS (a) BULK OF HOUSE REDUCED, HEIGHT LOWERED BY 1 foot 6inches since (b)SIZE OF WINDOWS REDUCED (c) SILL HEIGHTS INCREASED TO 5 foot 6 inches (d) EAST/WEST VIEWS second floor are designed closets, bedrooms and bathrooms..all high sills (e) ADDITIONNAL LANDSCAPING. and trees to block out the two story view for 3 neighbors 2. VIEW OBSTRUCTION REDUCTION (a) SIGNIFICANT PRUNING OF EXISTING FOLIAGE CARRIED OUT TO ENHANCE VIEWS OF EAST FOOTHILLS (please see photo enclosed —titled view from 116 Mary Way direction to West hills) (b) REDUCTION OF HEIGHT OF GARAGE 3. DRAINAGE EXISTING PROPERTY HAS NO DRAINAGE MITIGATION SYSTEMS. STANDING WATER EXISTS IN MANY PLACES IN THE PROPERTY DURING WINTER RAINS. WATER CURRENTLY DRAINS TO NEIGHBORS PROPERTIES. TOWN HAS RECEIVED LETTERS FROM NIEGHBORS ON THE WESTERN BOUNDRY OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE. SAME. A COMPREHENSIVE DRAINAIGE SYSTEM BASED ON SOIL TESTING BY THE SOILS ENGINEER HAS BEEN DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY TS/CIVIL ENGINEERING, TERENCE SZEWCZYK. PLANS ARE SUBMITED TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS ENGINEERING FOR APPROVAL.