Attachment 03LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Mary Badame, Chair
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Kendra Burch
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
Kathryn Janoff
Tom O’Donnell
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
ATTACHMENT 3
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BADAME: Item 4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane,
Architecture and Site Application S-16-044, requesting
approval to construct a new single-family residence on
vacant property zoned HR-2½, APN 527-09-006.
May I have a show of hands from Commissioners who
have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from
Commissioners? Seeing none, Mr. Khan, I understand you’re
providing us with the Staff Report this evening?
AZHAR KHAN: Good evening, Commissioners. Again,
my name is Azhar Khan, Assistant Planner for the Town.
The item before you tonight is an Architecture
and Site Application for the construction of a 5,653 square
foot home with a 745 square foot attached garage on a
vacant parcel. The home also has a 2,505 square foot
cellar.
A previous application for a single-family home
was approved by the Planning Commission in 2013, but was
not constructed. The Town’s consulting architect reviewed
the plans and commented that the home is in similar size
and height to the previously approved application and the
home is well designed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The application includes a request for a
deviation from the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines to allow fill greater than the 3’ and is
supported by Staff because it will allow the former
driveway and some of the property in the rear of the
proposed home to be restored to a more natural topography.
Staff recommends approval of the application
based on its compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan and
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with revised
conditions as included in Exhibit 12.
This concludes Staff’s presentation, and we’re
happy to answer any questions the Commissioners may have.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just add, I know there was
a question earlier about the Desk Item. Given that this is
a private road, these are standard conditions that
typically get put on projects that there is a pre-imposed
construction survey, so that any damage they do during
construction, they have to bring it back up to the previous
level so that they don’t do damage and then leave that
damage there, so that’s why those conditions were added.
They were unfortunately erroneously left out formerly, and
so that’s why those were added.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Oh, thank you, Mr. Paulson.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. Question for
Staff. My understanding is that the residence is 5,998
square feet and that there is a 5,000 square foot standard
there, is that correct?
AZHAR KHAN: Per the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines, it’s 5,000 square feet or more
require Planning Commission review. The 5,000 square feet
that you see includes 345 square feet of the garage, so
4,000 square feet of the garage is exempt, so that’s
included in the total square footage, which totals out to
5,998 square feet.
JOEL PAULSON: There is a 6,000 square foot cap,
depending on lot size, so they are 2 square feet under that
at 5,998 square feet from an FAR perspective, but the house
itself is 5,653 square feet. Then you add the 345 square
feet of the garage is where you get to the 5,998. The
maximum square footage for a lot of this size is 6,000
square feet for the house and 400 square feet for a garage,
so they do meet that requirement.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, and the 5,000 is just
that it must come to Planning Commission.
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: It’s not an exception if it
goes over 5,000?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Notwithstanding what happened
in 2013, I’m looking at the application from a de novo
point of view, if Town Counsel could comment? We’re back at
square one.
JOEL PAULSON: This is a de novo hearing. You’re
free to make any comments absent the previous decision that
was made by the previous Planning Commission.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Can I conclude that 2013 is
irrelevant?
JOEL PAULSON: You can make that conclusion if
you think that’s appropriate.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen followed by
Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: You mentioned about the
geotechnical report, and since this is a different
application there are two things in it that I thought were
really relevant to geotechnical. One is that they’re going
to put this large cellar in there, and then the other one
is this whole idea of the cut and fill. So the timing of
the geotechnical survey included all the new revisions to
the application, because in looking at the consulting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
architect report he kind of went back and forth between
when he visited before and now, so the geotechnical survey
was done considering the current application and everything
that’s in it?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct, that it was looked
at. The consulting architect’s going back and forth is that
he just reviewed one a couple years ago, and so he was
comparing the current proposal to that proposal and then
discussing its similarities. That Applicant as well is
here, and they will be able to provide additional comments
on geotech or any other questions the Commission may have.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Do you know if they have
their geotechnical people here?
JOEL PAULSON: I do not know that; you’d have to
ask the Applicant.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Then the second question I
had is about the trees. The previous application, when it
was approved they didn’t go through with it, but they went
ahead and removed the trees, and there were 12 of them I
understand. So my question is if we end up going forward
with this, I looked in the terms and conditions and it
talked about any trees that might be removed, and I didn’t
know that they would have to be replacement trees. I did
not know if that included them having to take care of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12 that were already removed, because I think that’s
important.
AZHAR KHAN: Correct. A Tree Removal Permit was
obtained for removal of 12 trees. I was notified that 10 of
those trees were removed, and it was accommodated into the
arborist’s report as well, and so when moving forward
during building permit stages, yeah, the Applicant will be
required to replace trees in relation to the Town’s
coordinates.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So you’re saying the terms
and conditions do incorporate the reference to the
arborist’s recommendations?
AZHAR KHAN: Correct, as part of the Conditions
of Approval it does state that the trees shall be replaced
in accordance with the Town Code.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I wanted to ask for a little
bit more clarification as far as the variance they are
requesting on the cut and fill. Just to be clear on really
why, because really out of this, this is the only variance
they’ve asked for. In reading the geotechnical report it
does say that the total grading volume will be over 2,000
cubic yards of cut and 1,200 cubic yards of fill. I assume
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we’re backfilling with soils that are the cut is going to
be the fill and the rest is off-haul, but did you find in
reviewing it that there was no other way around this, that
this is really a necessarily variance?
AZHAR KHAN: They are requesting a deviation to
the standards in increasing the fill height above maximum,
which is allowed 3’. It is 4-5’ in height, and as the
Applicant’s project description states, some of the
excavation from the cellar will be placed where the fill
restoration area is to be placed, and that is to replace
the former driveway.
JOEL PAULSON: So Staff didn’t do any other
looking at other options. This was also part of the
previous approval as well, to restore this area, and so
Staff did not look at other options to doing this. Are
there other options? There are always other options.
Whether that could get to the 3’ or not, that would be a
question that you could ask the architect or Applicant;
they may be able to give you some input on that, and may
also require additional retaining walls.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The Staff Report identifies
Exhibit 9 as letters of support. In all fairness, I don’t
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
see anything supportive about Exhibit 9. Four people have
their names typed out that the saw the designs and reviewed
the designs, but I don’t see why we would necessarily
identify this as a letter of support.
JOEL PAULSON: Apologize for the semantics. We’ll
work on that.
CHAIR BADAME: I have a question for Staff, and
that is Exhibit 5, the project data. Under the maximum
height it says 30’ maximum, which I believe in the hillside
area is 25’. The proposed project has 23’1” in height, and
I’d like to confirm if that is the height of the crow’s
nest and that the bulk of the home is 18’, if we have any
concerns that this is a visible home, if it has to be
within the 18’ and it’s the crow’s nest that’s got the
height that’s exceeding the 18’. Can you clarify that for
us?
AZHAR KHAN: Sure. The total height is 23’1” and
that is measured from proposed grade to the crow’s nest,
which would be the height of the total building. The other
areas of the home would be roughly 14’ in height and 17’ in
height.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
JOEL PAULSON: Just to clarify the 30’. The
Zoning Code actually allows 30’, so the Zoning Code permits
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30’ in the hillside area, however, our Hillside Guidelines
only allow 25’, so technically you could apply for a house
that’s 27’ and not require a variance with capital V, it
just is an exception to the guidelines, and so the code
actually allows 30’. Obviously we don’t see people ask very
often for an exception to the height, because that is a
major exception, but technically the zoning maximum height
for the HR zone is 30’.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, but when I look at the
Hillside Development Standards I see it as a standard and
not necessarily a guideline, so when I read the standards
it says shall.
JOEL PAULSON: It does say shall, but there’s
also an allowance for an exception to the height. So if the
Zoning Code said 25’, the guidelines said shall and it was
25’, then they’d actually have to apply for a variance. The
odds on making the findings for a variance, which are very
specific for something relating to height, probably would
be very challenging.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Paulson. Any
further questions? Seeing none, I will now call the
Applicant and his team to the podium, and you have ten
minutes to address to the Commission. Mr. Kohlsaat.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Could we turn this on? Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for making
the long trek; I know that traffic was brutal.
I want to thank the Staff, especially Azhar Khan
for working so diligently with us to make sure that we were
on our toes. We had several back and forth exchanges on
specific things.
Before I start my formal presentation, I want to
make a couple clarifications, or nit-picks, or whatever.
In the Staff Report under the Geotechnical Review
the geologist states that we have a total grading of 2,145
cubic yards. Our understanding of the rule is that
excavation is not grading. I’m going to define excavation
as cutting for a basement and for a swimming pool. That is
covered under the building permits, not under a grading
permit, so we have 1,280 cubic yards of grading, so that’s
about half of the number that you’re seeing, so I just want
to make that point on the record.
I also want to apologize for something that a
concerned citizen had pointed out in my Letter of
Justification, that I’d stated in June that we were not
going to remove any trees that weren’t already applied for
and permitted from the previous application. Well, in
several iterations following we ended up asking to remove
six trees, and those were Trees 5-10, and they’re down by
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the old road, and part of it is because of all the grading
that we had to do to make that happen the trees were not
going to survive.
Let me just start with I know that you guys are
all aware that there was a home approved in 2013. It was a
very traditional, Spanish style home; 24’ was the height
limit that it had. It had a big circular driveway. It had
really more of a large impact on the property than our
property. I’ve got an exhibit here on the screen. It’s a
little bit messy, but two things I want to point out right
away, and then I’ll get back onto our home. The previous
application had this big, large circular driveway that was
built over the cliff with 7’ high retaining walls. The
other thing was the swimming pool was built out here, and a
big lawn area was put out in there, and you can see the
width of the house was quite a bit wider in girth than our
home. Our home is the dark outline.
We’ve taken a different approach to this design,
starting with the architecture; it’s more contemporary,
more modern with flat roofs for the most part to lower the
mass, lower the height, and still get our volume of 10’,
11-12’. We do have the majority of the home at 18’; it does
step down. When I say the majority, that’s the center
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
portion, the living areas from the family room to the
living room.
Really, we want to capture views in 360° looking
north, south, east, and west. It’s quite a fantastic site.
It’s probably one of the best sites I’ve ever worked on in
my career, so I feel very fortunate to be designing on this
property.
I mentioned that our driveway sticks to the flat
area. The whole house we actually shifted over into the
flatter portion of the property instead of building on the
edges; that’s all part of the guidelines as well.
All the grading complies with the Hillside
Standards, and we talked just a little bit about that old
road that we want to restore into original terrain. Before
it was subdivided that was the driveway up to the Angel
house at the top of the hill, and when it was subdivided
the previous applicants worked with Staff and they said we
need to get rid of this road, and so that was part of the
understanding, that that road would basically just return
to normal, because there’s a whole new driveway built up to
both of our homes, so that has required—I don't know the
technical language—extra grading that we needed in the form
of the height of the fill over the 3’.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Both our homes are in similar size, and they’re
both compatible with all the neighbors, and since the 2013
home was built the Highlands had built Lots 18 and 19, and
in the Staff Report it said that they’re about 6,400-6,500
square feet total. They’re advertising those at 7,300-7,700
square feet. I don’t have any data on that, except for what
they’re putting in their ads, and typically they
underestimate that.
My client, Steve Massei, has met with all the
neighbors; he talked specifically to all of them. He didn’t
take fantastic notes, but he has met with all of them, and
I would assume that if any of them had complaints they
would have written a letter or showed up tonight.
There is the letter about the visibility. I want
to apologize, number one, for an act of God. We had a
pretty heavy-duty storm this weekend and it blew down the
majority of the story poles. Hopefully you guys got up
there before the storms hit this weekend. If you waited
till today you got to see the house of cards.
But when we put the story poles up we went down
to the only viewing platform that we could find that was
anywhere close to being visible. We could see portions of
the Hollywood Video dome from angles on the property, and
that’s usually the first key. If I can see that dome, then
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
okay, we gotta work at it. You could barely see it. So we
went down to the viewing platform. We checked all four of
the parking lots: the Starbucks parking lot, the new one
where Philz Coffee is, went to all four parking lots, so
pretty good area, not just standing at the stoplight, and
we couldn’t see anything. That’s with our naked eye; we
could not see anything. Now, I don't know if the storm blew
down more trees or whatever, but we went out there today
and used binoculars and we could see the upper portion of
the house.
That upper portion is what we’re calling the
crow’s nest. We have a roof deck, and so we have to have a
staircase that goes up to that roof deck, and we’ve decided
to just put a little loft space up there as well, so you
can be inside viewing this; San Francisco, downtown San
Jose, or you can go outside on the deck and enjoy outdoors.
It’s quite a cool feature of the house. This overall width
is 20’ wide that goes up to 23’ tall. The house is almost
140’ wide, so we’re less than 10% of the façade facing the
valley that’s potentially visible with binoculars, and my
understanding is if the house is more than 25% visible,
then you’re limited to 18’ in height by the design
standards, and we are well under that 25% of visibility, so
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we feel that you can approve this thing without any concern
of additional visibility.
I just wanted to finish up saying that we did
several iterations. Staff, including Engineering, had the
fine tooth comb on it, and there’s not a retaining wall
higher than 3’, there’s not a cut deeper than 4’. This
house meets all the standards, all the guidelines. We’re
replanting more than we’re required to replant.
We’ve looked at the old house, and I want to
point that out, that just for comparison’s sake, I mean we
have something to go by, right? This was approved just
three years ago, a current Planning Commission. You can see
the outline that’s dashed of the old house, the approved
house, and our house. It’s an amazing amount of difference
in overall height that we’ve cut out.
One last picture. I took that today, because we
got this notification yesterday about a concern of
visibility. The circled area is the general vicinity of
where the house is. I contend that these two houses take
your eye…they stick out, they’re amazingly visible, and
everything else blends in. You have to zoom in, again, with
binoculars to see the crow’s nest portion of this house.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Kohlsaat.
Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. With regard to
the fill height exception, what would the impact be on this
project if you did not have that 3’ exception on fill
height?
GARY KOHLSAAT: You mean to fill in the driveway,
the old road?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: My understanding is that
there’s an exception for fill height of 3’, is that
correct?
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll try to clarify. You’re
exceeding the maximum fill height of 3’, and so I believe
what Commissioner Hudes is asking is if you do not exceed
that number, what impacts or differences would that have?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Thank you. Well, for one we
couldn’t effectively restore the land and take away that
cut driveway. It’s got paving on it. You can’t just leave
that paving there; it’s going to wash out. It mostly
affects our landscape area and where we’re putting all of
our drainage. We’re actually putting our retention ponds
down there as well, so it pretty much affects that. It
affects our patios and our outdoor entertainment areas. It
doesn’t affect the house.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I could follow up?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So how does additional
height result in not being able to cover a driveway?
GARY KOHLSAAT: The driveway, if you look at a
cross-section of the existing cut, it’s greater than 4’, so
if we have to fill it up… Oh, there we go. Our civil
engineer is here. Amanda, would you like to step forward
and answer this question? She’s the expert on this. Is that
all right?
CHAIR BADAME: Yeah. I’ll need a card if she’s
going to speak. If she could state her name for the record.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: My name is Amanda Musy-
Verdel; I’m with Hanna-Brunetti, civil engineers.
On sheet 5 of my plans it has several cross-
sections through the area that you’re talking about, the
restoration. It’s probably easier to see on your plans, but
this line here… So this is the grade, as it exists today.
What we would like to do is restore it. The restoration,
what it originally looked like is this dash line, about the
approximate grade of what it looked like before they cut in
the existing driveway, and the line on the top is what we’d
like to restore it to, so you could see it’s just a little
bit more grading that we’re asking for in this section,
this one. We’re not asking for anything more. And these
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sections, it just helps even out the turf area, because of
the slope caused by the cuts, existing driveway. Does that…
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. Yes, that helps,
because just reading sheet 5, I wasn’t able to come to that
conclusion. Thank you for the explanation.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I have another question for
you. So that helps, actually. That makes it much clearer.
So essentially, yeah, you’re asking for more, but it’s
restoring the landscape to its original topography.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Can you explain something on
your drawings that I’ve been wondering about?
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: On sheet 2 you have a hashed
area that says, “Illegal fill area.” What is that? You had
to know that that was going to come up the moment you put
it on the plans.
GARY KOHLSAAT: It’s clearly evident that there
has been some dumping on this property.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Oh.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Yes, and quite a bit.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GARY KOHLSAAT: And there has just been a lot of
activity in the area, and this lot used as a dumping
ground, and so there’s this fill just on top; it’s not
compact, it’s not native, nothing, so our intention is to
cut all that off.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, and off-haul it far
away?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Or use it if we can’t. It’s
really not very good stuff. There’s debris in there, and
garbage, and rubble.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had another question
about the fill. I’m pretty sure that I had my right
orientation, but you know when you look at the drawings and
you go to the property sometimes it doesn’t always look
like this, and especially up there where it’s private
roads. So the place that you’re proposing to fill is
basically what I would call the lower driveway as you’re
driving up Gum Tree Lane, it was on the right hand side,
and then the house would be up from that, and there was a
pretty big drop-off, if I recall, which makes sense for why
you wanted to fill it, but I wondered, so that is the
location where the fill would be, right?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Now, the cellar looked
like it was going to be on the other side of the house from
that cut and fill area.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So that would explain why
you didn’t say that your cellar might be impacted, because
I wondered if you didn’t go with the fill and the cellar
was at that area of the house, then it would be exposed,
and then you have maybe a floor area ratio or sizing issue.
But the cellar is on the other side of the house from that
area?
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I mean it’s underneath,
but…
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Are you talking about
geotechnical issues, or are you talking about…
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m talking about…
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Yeah. We’re going to be
cutting into native soil, if that’s…
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And then I wondered, at
what point was it not like that? Because that driveway
didn’t get built in 2013 when the original…so at some point
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in time somebody put that driveway in and cut the hill.
Maybe Staff knows.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Maybe I can answer both your
questions. One of them is the basement itself is a true
cellar. It doesn’t have any daylighting, it’s not exposed,
and it’s not sticking out down the hill.
It used to be a very large property, and I think
in 2011 it was subdivided. The Hamiltons owned it, and they
subdivided this other half. Sandy Harris and David Fox did
the subdivision, and part of that subdivision, and Joel can
maybe attest to this, is that they designed a new road,
which is our new access driveway, and that was put in
between owners. After Sandy Harris owned it, Bill Lantry
(phonetic) owned it for about a year and was going to
develop on this and built the road in conjunction with the
Highlands for those two homes, and then we discontinued
that road up and one, and so that’s why we enter the
property at the very top instead of down halfway, and so
that way the road really…
Here we go again, talking to someone in the past.
When I talked to Suzanne Avila about this, she was very
familiar with this whole project. She thought she could
have sworn this was a Condition of Approval of the
subdivision. So we went back and we read all the reports
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and everything and we couldn’t find that, unfortunately,
but she swore up and down that that was talked about in the
Planning Commission as part of the subdivision, that there
was actually a condition to remove that driveway, the road,
and restore it, because they were planning a whole new
driveway, and you don’t want two roads on the property.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Right, and I imagine if
you had used that lower driveway you would have had maybe a
slope issue or something, but that helps to understand the
history though, because there were all these references to
this is always the way it was intended, and then they don’t
know where you can find that. So it was part of the
history, not written down, but it also makes sense from a
landscaping and hillside protection perspective.
GARY KOHLSAAT: We think it does, yes.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I had a similar reaction to the
illegal dumping; I didn’t know exactly what you were doing,
but you didn’t do it. Is it your intention to clean that
out and restore it?
GARY KOHLSAAT: That gets off-hauled; it’s crud,
it’s no good. We have to take it all off; it’s several
hundred yards.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, that’s great. Thank you.
Ms. Vila?
CHAIR BADAME: She was a former planner who is no
longer with us?
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m asking the civil engineer’s
name; I didn’t get it.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: It’s Musy-Verdel, but you
could me Amanda.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Amanda. Let’s go to sheet 5,
where you were before, and for a common frame of reference
I’ve just numbered them 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, as in columns. On
diagram #1, and this question goes to 3, 4, and 5 as well,
you show the dotted line of existing ground, and I’m
assuming that that means what it might have looked like
before the cut. On 1, 4, 5, and 6 what you’re proposing
exceeds the original slope of the ground, and the word turf
is used on 4, 5, and 6. What does that mean? You’re
creating a standing place?
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: The final grade will have
turf on it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Does that mean grass?
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Grass, yeah. Sorry, it’s
artificial turf.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: It would probably look like
grass to me, so that’s okay. You’re raising the slope to
put in grass, or artificial grass.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Is that why you need the
retaining walls on 4, 5, and 6? I don't know why you’d need
a retaining wall there if you restored it to its existing
grade.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: We’re asking to restore it,
and then on 4, 5, and 6 we’re asking for the 3’ of fill
that we would have gotten if that road wasn’t cut in.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I wish I were following you,
because now I’m not going to say I’m too bright. But it
shows the existing dotted line, and you’re adding more dirt
on that and putting in a retaining wall.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m not sure why.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: We’re adding 3’ of fill in
that area.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Because?
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: Because we want to have a
lawn, a flat area for turf.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE: So we’re putting in retaining
walls for civilian purposes, so you can make it look like a
grassy knoll, so to speak?
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: It’s not supporting the
structure, if that’s what you’re asking.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I just don’t know why you’re
going above the dotted line and putting in a retaining wall
that otherwise might not be necessary to preserve the
original slope.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: To get more usable space for
the house.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay. To figure 2, the house
and the patio, are they extended outward from the natural
slope? In the top corner where it says House, and there’s a
little stick-out called Patio, and the house then continues
back to the slope, are those being extended out over the
slope? That’s what figure 2 seems to suggest.
AMANDA MUSY-VERDEL: It’s this patio right here.
Yeah, that patio.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions for the
Applicant? Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Just a follow up from
Commissioner Kane. My understanding of that question he
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just asked, if we went on sheet A-8 on the left elevation,
the little patio there to the left, that is the little
piece that sort of juts out, it’s kind of covered.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Okay, I’m going to sheet A-8, the
left elevation.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah. It appears that there
is a little patio or something if I look on the left hand
of that elevation.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: That was my understanding
when I actually looked at the same thing earlier today that
Commissioner Kane is referencing. That’s the little piece
that kind of juts out. It’s just a little covered patio or
something, right?
GARY KOHLSAAT: It’s less than 3’ off the ground?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah.
GARY KOHLSAAT: But the one that Commissioner
Kane had pointed out is the one on the other side of the
house, as Amanda points out.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions for the
Applicant? Seeing none, thank you, Mr. Kohlsaat.
I will now invite comments from members of the
public. Lee Quintana.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue, and I
apologize for getting my letter in late. It’s been an
unusual week, to say the least.
I’ve listed several things in my letter, but
primarily I’m going to comment on the grading and the fill
restoration, the landscaping, and the trees.
What I have put up on the screen is this is the
house, the footprint of the house and the garage. This is
the driveway. This outer line here is all the landscaping,
and this the turf. This is patio and swimming pool. So, you
see that there’s a lot of land that is taken up besides the
house.
What I’m trying to show you is that as far as the
grading goes it would appear that if you were following the
natural contours of the land you would have something
similar to this. You wouldn’t have squared off ends, and
you would have your landscaping and your patio and your
turf closer to the house. I think the Hillside Guidelines
say the turf should be within 30’ of the house and all the
landscaping within that, and the majority of it should be
native planting. I don’t believe that’s the case here.
So, my question was, and I think it was answered,
that first of all, if the turf was closer to the house, if
there was less patio, I would love to know the figure of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all that together, because I think it’s probably bigger
than the house itself, even if you exclude the driveway.
I’m going to skip, because I’m running out of
time already, to the question of the trees. Well, I’m going
to back up, on the question of grading.
The original project did not have a cellar. They
say in this project that the cellar fill is being for the
restoration area, so they don’t have to take as much off-
haul. There was a lot less off-haul before there was a
cellar, so the question is should the cellar be smaller so
you don’t have to have as much off-haul? Should the area of
the landscaping be smaller to be more consistent with the
goals and objectives of…
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Quintana. Any
questions for Ms. Quintana? Seeing none, thank you very
much. Our next speaker is Marita Quint.
MARINTA QUINT: Hi, my name is Marita Quint; I
live at 15775 Gum Tree Lane, which is the very end of Gum
Tree Lane.
In 1975 my family was a grantor of easement for
the Angel property, and it’s the parcel of land that
Davidon has built on and this property will be built on,
and around 2004 or 2005 the neighbors got together and
completely repaved the road at their expense. Many of you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
visited the site and you saw the bad condition of the road,
and we contend that that is left over from Davidon, which
leaves a very low bar for them to fulfill in terms of
accepting what the current condition of the road is, if
that makes any sense. We question whether the roads have
been accepted by Public Works post-construction of the
Davidon construction, because we’ve seen no move from
Davidon to make any improvements to the road post-
construction.
That is a really huge and impactful thing for us
to discuss, because the road is not safe. There are
potholes where machinery has passed through, a culvert has
been replaced with failing equipment, the grate has been
soldered onto the top of the culvert so we can’t remove it
and dig out that section that’s completely pooled, and this
is all from the Davidon project. I’m sure they would like
to have a very nice road to use for their home. We would
like to have a nice road to use for our homes at the top of
the hill, but we’ve been left with this mess from the
Davidon construction.
We’ve made several complaints during the time
that Davidon was constructing. I voiced my concerns to the
compliance officer. He came up and looked at the potholes,
he looked at the culvert site, he looked at the portions of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the road that have been trenched for San Jose Water, he
also agreed that it had been damaged, and we’ve still seen
no move for any repaving or improvements to the road post
construction from Davidon.
So do you happen to know if the roads have been
accepted by Public Works post construction?
CHAIR BADAME: Any questions for Ms. Quint. Vice
Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The road, the driveway that
you’re referring to, is the one that they are proposing to
tear up and restore?
MARITA QUINT: No, this is the road leading up to
the development where Davidon… This is the Gum Tree Lane
private road that leads up to the development that all of
us use for access to our homes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m sorry, I missed your point,
because I thought you were talking about the one that they
want to fill and fix.
MARITA QUINT: No, no, no. This is the portion of
the road that all of the neighbors use for access to get to
the different homes that are up there.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m just going to ask
the Town Attorney. My understanding is that has never been
accepted by the Town, is that correct?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That’s correct.
JOEL PAULSON: And I would just offer as well,
there is a condition in the Planned Development back from
2005 that required bonds to be put up, and prior to
occupancy of all the units… There actually still is a
Davidon home that has not been finaled off Gum Tree which
goes to this, and there are a number of them that are
accessed off Shady Lane, and that condition applies to
Shady Lane, Drysdale, Gum Tree, all the way down, and so
those things will be done and the bonds will not be
released until those are accepted, should they be accepted
by the Town, so that will done. The bar will then be,
depending on the timing of construction if this project
gets approved, they may either have additional impact
before Davidon is done, or they may impact it after, or
they may be completely done before Davidon is anywhere near
done with all of their lots; they still have five lots that
have no entitlements currently.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This is really kind of
unrelated, but I would just say that those of us, I guess
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
all of us, who drove up and looked at the lot had to ford a
stream across there, which is clearly unsafe.
JOEL PAULSON: I would assume that’s where the
grate is that you’re speaking of; I’m not sure.
MARITA QUINT: That’s where the culvert was
replaced, yes.
JOEL PAULSON: And we can work with Parks and
Public Works staff, talk to them and find out what’s going
on there. We also will be having conversations with Davidon
on a number of issues before the month is out, and so this
is another item that we can add to that list.
MARITA QUINT: Thank you, that’s very reassuring.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions? Seeing
none, thank you. All right, the Applicant is invited back
for five minutes to add any further comments regarding the
application.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible).
CHAIR BADAME: Oh, I’m sorry. Dr. Weissman, did
you say you completed a card for us? We’ll find it
somewhere. It’s not here; it’s hiding.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We’ll take your word.
DAVID WEISSMAN: Dave Weissman, Francis Oaks.
I’m not here to comment on the proposed house,
but to express my disappointment in the whole A&S process,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
as outlined in my letter to you submitted two days ago;
that’s Desk Item 13. It has now been 11 months since the
Town Council sent the revised Visibility Methodology for
Hillsides Homes back to Staff. Eleven months with no action
after three Planning Commission meetings totaling eight
hours, and one meeting which was dedicated exclusively to
this issue. It was on the Town Council agenda twice.
Yes, I appreciate that the North 40 is an 800-
pound gorilla in the room, but this excuse is wearing thin.
I haven’t seen any developments being delayed for 11 months
while Staff was involved in the North 40, and this excuse
also doesn’t work out, because Lee Quintana and I submitted
a possible draft methodology over one year ago.
Consequently, the amount of Staff time required will be
minimal.
Last month, before this body, several community
members expressed their concerns about visibility issues
relating to the Shannon Road Sahadi rezoning and
subdivision proposal. Tonight we have another hillside
proposal with visibility issues. I feel that I must
challenge this A&S on the same grounds as I challenged the
Shannon Road and prior Highland projects, lest I face
criticism that I am being biased against any one developer,
but the Staff really expect the public and applicants to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have to repeat this back and forth appeals process that
took place in 2015 for the three Highlands lots every time
a hillside project comes before you. Staff creates more
work for everyone every day we don’t have a new visibility
methodology.
As our Planning Commission, I encourage you
tonight to clearly state that you will not consider another
hillside A&S application until the hillside visibility
methodology is finalized. Otherwise what is the point? Your
efforts may be a total waste of time. I am offended by the
amount of your time that Staff has wasted. Tell Staff to
take the two-page draft Lee Quintana and I proposed and
work with us to update that draft to incorporate the
discussions and decisions from all of the five prior
Planning Commission and Town Council hearings. That same
process worked well when the Town revised the Tree
Protection Ordinance in 2015, and we should use that model
now. What are we afraid of, success?
CHAIR BADAME: Questions? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. With regard to
this specific project, are there visibility issues that you
believe exist with this proposal?
DAVID WEISSMAN: I’m not sure, but I’ll give you
a couple of examples. Tonight we’re told that six trees are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to be removed. The consulting arborist had three
trees. The Staff Report mentioned four trees without
specifying which ones. The architect’s letter said that no
tree would be removed. The Planning Commission and the Town
Council, while not finalizing their document, did come to
agreement on certain issues, and those were that trees that
were to be removed would not be counted as screening. That
has not been done. In fact, the trees that are going to be
removed seem to be a moving target. Second of all, trees in
poor and poor/fair condition were not supposed to be
counted as screening. That hasn’t been done.
The viewing platforms very clearly are… There are
four specific viewing platforms listed in the Hillside
Standards, and then there’s the fifth one, and that
specifically says platforms as decided by the deciding
body. The architect himself has stated that this property
has incredible views. Well, if it does, then the views that
you’re seeing in the valley, those people can also see back
up to this hillside. You just don’t stand at the corner of
Blossom Hill and Los Gatos Boulevard. That’s one of the
possibilities, but the whole valley was open. That was the
nice thing that Sahadi did last month; he presented viewing
platforms from everywhere in the valley.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
One of the reasons we passed the Hillside
Standards was because we were upset about houses being
built in the county that were visible to the people in Los
Gatos. We wanted to prevent that. If we now only worry
about houses in the hillsides being visible to our town and
not worry about our neighbors, I think that’s pretty
elitist.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: I have a question, but I want to
ask a question of Staff first. So, Mr. Paulson, if you
could just confirm for me that if a home is visible that
it’s limited to 18’ in height.
JOEL PAULSON: Only if more than 25% of it is
visible would we limit it to 18’ in height.
CHAIR BADAME: This particular home for the most
part is 18’ in height, so regardless if it’s a visible home
or not.
Then secondly, the only question would be the
façade of the crow’s nest, which is 138 square feet where
the façade might be 11’ across, it still would put it under
the 25% visibility?
JOEL PAULSON: Significantly under, yes.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Do you have any
comments to that, Dr. Weissman?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DAVID WEISSMAN: Well, we talked about that
during the hearings. In other words, you could propose a
house that’s 5,000 square feet that has a 20% visibility,
which means that 1,000 square feet of that house, the
façade of that, would be visible to the valley. On the
other hand, if I built a house that was 500 square feet
total, and all of that 500 square feet was visible, it
would be a smaller house, it would be less impact on the
land, but the way the code is presently written that house
would not be allowed, because more than 25% of it is
visible. One of the things that we brought up is that makes
no sense, and we didn’t finish that…
This was returned to Staff in February of last
year, 11 months ago, and there’s been nothing done about it
since then, and now here we are, unfairly, I think, to
applicants that are coming forward and Staff is not telling
them to go back and listen to the Planning Commission
hearings, the Town Council hearings, and take those
decisions into account.
You approve this tonight, I will tell you now I
will appeal it to the Town Council, not because I’m against
the project. I have nothing to say about the house, it’s
because we need to force this issue to be decided. We need
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to fix this methodology. We had all those hearings in 2015
and 2016, and we’ve gotten nothing for it.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I agree with you on the macro-
issue of resolving what the policy shall be, but what I
have in front of me is a specific application. Are you
saying in response to the other Commissioner that you’re
not aware that there’s a visibility issue here?
DAVID WEISSMAN: I’m sorry, that I…
VICE CHAIR KANE: That you are not aware that
there is a visibility issue here?
DAVID WEISSMAN: I don't know, because the
analysis hasn’t been done. We haven’t seen the project
with… The Applicant has taken one picture, he’s shown us
one picture from the corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and
Blossom Hill; it has very little visibility from there. But
you and the Town Council all decided that we’re not limited
to just those four specific viewing platforms; we need to
move around the Town and see where the best visibilities
are. Davidon did that for the Highlands, Sahadi did that
for his project proposal back in December. We’ve got six
trees that we’re now saying are going to be removed. Who
knows?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If I understand you
correctly, the best thing we can do for you is to approve
this project so you can appeal it; that’s kind of what
you’re saying.
DAVID WEISSMAN: No, I’d like you not to. Well,
you could do that; you could do that. And then we’ll go
through another nine months of…
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Since we don’t write the
rules…
DAVID WEISSMAN: I understand.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: …there’s not a heck of a
lot we can do for you. The only entity that can is the
Council. So if we, for example, were to deny this and they
were to appeal it, same result. If, on the other hand, we
think because we don’t have any evidence of visibility, and
that may itself be because of this limitation, I’m not
really quarreling with you, but I’m just trying to think…
DAVID WEISSMAN: No, no, your point is well
taken.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you.
DAVID WEISSMAN: I’m not going to get mad at you
if you approve it. I’m just telling you what I’m going to
do. I have to. We’ve got to force the issue.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Further questions? Seeing none,
thank you, Dr. Weissman. The Applicant, Mr. Kohlsaat, is
invited back to the podium for five minutes to address the
Commission regarding any further concerns with this
application that may have been brought up.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Thank you. You may start the
clock.
I don’t want to be the poster child for this new
visibility standard thing that has been talked about. There
are several things that get talked about in town every day,
from cellars to trees to heights to color to everything,
and it’s a moving target. We are only going by what we have
at our hands, the ordinance and the Hillside Standards and
Design Guidelines, so that’s what we’re basing our design
on.
Again, I just want to make it clear that this
house is not over 18’, except for that one section that is
less than 10% of the façade, so we comply with the
guidelines, and I know you know that.
I wanted to just talk a little bit more about the
landscaping. We wanted to put a full, complete plan in
place for this application. We want to just put the house
in here and a buyer, or whomever moves into this house, if
Steve moves into this house, not have to come back and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
apply for landscaping. But let’s assume that we didn’t.
Let’s assume that we just didn’t have any landscaping at
all, just minimal patios and that’s it, and left it to the
future owner of this.
The assumption would be that they’re going to
base their fills on the restored hillside, so that old road
that we are restoring back to natural grade is what we’re
now using as our benchmark to measure our 3’ of maximum
fill. I just want to clarify that, if I may.
That landscaping happens to be farther out than
30’ from the house. Our landscape architect, David Fox,
worked on several of the Highlands projects after the fact
of the initial approvals, and the main complaint that he
gets time and time again is that there are no outside
areas, there are no landscaped areas for the kids to play,
there’s no place to run around. So we saw this as a great
opportunity to really separate this house from all those
other homes and provide a real suitable landscaped areas
for play, and so that’s why we pushed it out a little bit.
All the terrace and paving is permeable pavers,
and I want to make a point, because I know that we went
over this quite a bit with Staff: There’s no rule that says
you can’t have landscaping beyond 30’ of your house. The
rule is if it’s beyond 30’ it can’t be grass, it has to be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
artificial turf or other types of plants. You can’t have
grass beyond 30’ of your house, so that’s why we switched
from grass to artificial turf. That was one of the
iterations we had to make.
But what I think you’re seeing is an overall
project that is well thought out, it complies with all the
standards. Visibility, the materials, and architecture have
been well received by the Town’s architect and Staff, and
our neighbors are in support.
We also are in support of forcing Davidon to fix
the road before we wreck it. No, before we do our damage,
so we have a level playing field, so we encourage the Town
to pursue those endeavors. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Mr. Kohlsaat, it’s probably in
front of my noise, but I didn’t see a discussion or debate
about LRDA. Is that because the knoll is LRDA?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Staff agrees with that?
JOEL PAULSON: So LRDA is on sheet 2. You can see
where that is.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So the project is compatible
with the LRDA?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, the house and the pool are
within the LRDA.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had two questions about
the landscaping and the hardscape. First of all, the patio.
Do you have any reaction to the suggestion of Ms. Quintana
to have a curved patio rather than the patio squared off,
curved and pulled in closer to the structure?
GARY KOHLSAAT: This house is very geometric,
it’s got 45° angles. Yes, the property is soft and it’s
rounded. If you saw our original landscape plan, we had
curved retaining walls. Number one, they cost quite a bit
more money to build, but number two, they exceeded the
length allowed by the Hillside Standards and Guidelines;
they went more than 50’ without a breakup, and so we looked
and looked and looked, and we’re doing these funky offsets,
and nothing made sense. The only thing we were doing is
trying to do a technicality to keep from being 50’ long
without some kind of a break. So to have a long, graceful
curve was actually our preferred design, but it goes
against the standards, so that’s why we came up with this
design; it’s more of an architectural look which works with
the house more than it does with the land.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes, did you have
another question?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Another question. I saw the
diagram indicating hardscape. It looks like a lot of
hardscape, but it also is a very large lot. Maybe I have
missed it, but do you know roughly what percentage of the
lot is hardscape?
GARY KOHLSAAT: I could look that up, if you’ll
give me a minute.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I don’t need it this
instant, but maybe before we finish. I don’t want to hold
things up.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: While he’s doing that, let me
return to the LRDA question. I was trying to make a
positive point, and you referred me to sheet 2. Mr. Kahn,
I’m apologizing in advance, but I don’t see an LRDA
discussion or notation on here. What am I missing?
AZHAR KHAN: If you look at the legend, the last
item is a 30% slope line. If you follow that line across,
that would determine the LRDA.
VICE CHAIR KANE: If only I knew the code.
JOEL PAULSON: It’s not graphically illustrated
in some different colors, so it can be difficult. It’s the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
symbology of that 30% slope line on the right hand side.
You see where the legend is?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes.
JOEL PAULSON: You’ll see there are a number of
areas in there that delineate those lines that are over 30%
slope.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The curve on the right side
coming across to the dotted lines on the left side, what’s
in the middle of that is the LRDA, essentially?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, correct, generally.
VICE CHAIR KANE: That’s what I said earlier.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, generally. You are correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The LRDA is normally an
important issue, and in this one it seems to be moot, and
that’s because the whole thing is an LRDA.
JOEL PAULSON: Well, the LRDA is always an
important issue. This one, in fact, is not entirely LRDA,
but where the house is proposed, it is within the LRDA.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
GARY KOHLSAAT: I have an answer for Commissioner
Hudes. The house is 7% of the property, and the impervious
is 10%.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Burch.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I have a couple of questions
moving from those to more of architecture and a couple of
questions about the house itself. You didn’t bring us a
materials board?
GARY KOHLSAAT: We did.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: There is one? Where?
AZHAR KHAN: I’m sorry; I have it in my cubicle.
I can go get it right now.
GARY KOHLSAAT: All that time we spent.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, that’s not a good place
for it.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Well, I just wanted to make
sure, because it’s been a topic that’s come up before, that
the standing seam roof obviously is extremely low
reflectivity. Since I can’t see the sample and touch it.
GARY KOHLSAAT: This darker color is very low
reflectivity. We’re also on a very low slope, and so it’s
not very…it’s probably at the slope of the viewing from
Netflix, or something like that.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I have one other question
concerning the lighting in the crow’s nest and the patio.
In the Conditions of Approval there is an item that
addresses outdoor lighting. Would you be opposed if I
tightened that up a little bit more and said that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lighting on the patio and the crow’s nest needs to be on
some type of timer that sweeps at 10:00 o'clock or
something, so if somebody falls asleep downstairs there’s
not like this beacon of light shining up there if that’s
the only visible part of the house?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Well, exterior lighting is
governed by the building code that you have to have some
kind of a timer or photovoltaic sensor, or something like
that.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: When you get on a patio that
kind of gets enclosed in the crow’s nest, you get in that
fuzzy gray area of does it fall under that or not? So would
you be opposed to me just tightening it up and saying that
includes that crow’s nest so that will be on the
(inaudible)?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Just so you know, the outdoor
patio is not going to have any lights that are above the
railing height. They’ll all be wall lights inside.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: No, understood, but what we
talked about with the visibility, when you were showing us
earlier, that is the only thing that would be visible from
down here, so if, for whatever reason, all those lights
were left on, that’s what you would see.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GARY KOHLSAAT: Are you talking about exterior
lighting?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I’m saying I also want the
interior lighting of the crow’s nest to also be on a timer,
so if there are lights in there.
GARY KOHLSAAT: That might be a little bit
difficult, because that’s part of the stairwell and the
entry and all that; it’s all one open space.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Not if you have lights
actually installed in the crow’s nest. If you have a light
fixture on the ceiling or the wall of the crow’s nest…
GARY KOHLSAAT: Which we will, yes.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: …that is the specific
fixtures I would want swept off.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Interesting. What about if we had
the…
COMMISSIONER BURCH: We had another house
recently that had a tower, and we had the same discussion,
because it actually was visible from down right where
you’re talking about, and it was one of those things where
we all kind of went dang it, you could see that thing when
it’s on at night, so it would be specific to just the
crow’s nest, not the whole foyer, because I understand it’s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
an open area, but would you be opposed to me putting
something in there?
GARY KOHLSAAT: He says it’s fine.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The crow’s nest, we’re calling
it a crow’s nest, but I read somewhere that it had
function; it was a study or a bedroom.
GARY KOHLSAAT: It’s a loft.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Does it have function? I mean
if somebody is in there, light’s go off at 10:00 o'clock,
they have to leave. Is it a study? Is it a functional room
for the house?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Yeah, it could be a homework
place, it could be an office, and it could be an art
studio.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, the 10:00 o’clock thing,
Commissioner Burch, is going to be inconvenient.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Well, no. I think we all
know how lighting control works. You can have something
that sweeps off, and then you hit a button and override it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: She’s saying don’t leave
it on (inaudible).
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I’m just saying if nobody
has been up there and somebody falls asleep downstairs, the
building automatically turns the lights off, so at 1:00
o'clock in the morning there’s not a light shining.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’m doing my homework until
2:00am and it’s okay to have the beacon? I thought you were
making a point about the beacon.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: No, no, I was just making a
point about it being left on for four days in a row while
people are on vacation all night long, that’s all.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Would you be okay if we specified
that it is occupancy sensors?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes, there you go. That’s
perfect.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Okay, terrific.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Perfect.
CHAIR BADAME: Further questions? Seeing none,
thank you, Mr. Kohlsaat.
GARY KOHLSAAT: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: The public testimony portion of
the hearing is now closed. Do Commissioners have questions,
comments, or a motion? Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I’ll start out with a
comment. I, personally, having reviewed the drawings and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the location and everything, and would have no problem
approving this Architecture and Site Application. I think
that the house is well designed and fits in well with the
landscape. I like the flatter roofs so that it sits low,
the profile. I like the stone; I think it will blend in
nicely. Now that I understand the variance and how you’re
actually returning the project to its original grade, I’m
glad of that; that’s great. So I personally have absolutely
no objections to the project at all. Except light, and my
occupancy sensor.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I agree with that, and
we may be ready for a motion. I’m not going to make it,
because I think somebody else should do that, but I agree
with what you just said.
I also, however, agree that it’s a little
difficult to administer this visibility thing until we get
it settled, because the comments that I heard are good
comments, but we don’t have what we can implement, and
ultimately it does have to be adopted or clarified by the
Town Council, so I would like to have a clearer rule.
Whether we should have had it done by now, I’m not going to
comment. I have a lot of confidence in the Staff and I know
that they’ve been busy, so I’m not either defending or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
attacking. But we don’t have it, and now perhaps some folks
will have something to say to the Council, assuming they
appeal it, so thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I listened carefully to the
comments about the visibility and the visibility standards,
and I’m very sympathetic to the need to improve the
standards for hillside development and concerned about the
role of the trees in the visibility, but I guess having
maybe missed the details of the recommendation to Council,
is there anything in that recommendation that would
indicate that it would be retroactive to existing
properties or projects?
JOEL PAULSON: It would not be retroactive.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just had one question,
and then I’d be glad to make a motion. I’m generally in
favor of the project.
The view issue. My understanding of it is if
there was more than 20% exposure the mitigation for that
would be they’d have to reduce the height to 18’, is that
correct? It wouldn’t be that they couldn’t build it?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, that was what I
wanted to make sure that we were clear on, and Chair Badame
had mentioned that, but I wanted to incorporate. That being
the case, then this visibility analysis notwithstanding,
which needs to get resolved, I’m comfortable with the
proposal as it is.
I would like to make a motion that we approve
Architecture and Site Application S-16-044 requesting
approval to construct a new single-family residence on
vacant property zoned HR-2½, APN 527-09-006. I can make the
findings for CEQA that the project is categorically exempt
pursuant to the guidelines for the implementation of the
CEQA Act. I can make the finding that the application is in
compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines with the exception of the 3’ fill depth
exception, which I can make the findings that that is
allowable given the restoration of the hillside. I can find
that the project is in compliance with the Hillside
Specific Plan, and I can make the considerations in
reviewing the Architecture and Site Applications that the
application would be subject to the conditions in Exhibit
3, with the additional condition that was suggested by
Commissioner Burch to have the occupancy sensors for the
lights.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: So we have a motion to approve. Do
we have a second? Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I will second that.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, any further discussion?
Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll not be supporting the
motion. The architect, when I asked about the turf, the
response was something to the effect of you can’t have
hills if you want children running around and so we have to
flatten them out. I go wait a minute, that’s a hill. We’re
building lawns in the hillside using retaining walls, and
that’s just not what it’s about.
You know, there’s a way of justifying the
numbers, and this is a huge house, sustainability,
environmental impact, et cetera. This comes within 2’ of
the standard. Is the standard a standard or a target? It
gets to me, and I don't know if it’s appropriate or not,
but it gets to me that we hit those targets, and we dig a
cellar, and we’ve got a tower. God love them that they can
do it, but it’s a family room, a living room, a dining
room, five bedrooms, five-and-a-half bathrooms, and a
winery. To me it’s not a hillside.
We have numbers that have been met within two
square feet, but yet there’s the letter of the law and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there’s the spirit of the law. I read the Vision Statement
for the Hillside Guidelines, I do all the time, and I’ve
said this before. I read the forward to the Hillside
Guidelines and this project is not compatible with that
spirit. We’ve talked at length this year about look and
feel of Los Gatos and how we take an oath to preserve and
protect, and if I vote for this, I don’t feel like I’m
doing that. And I can stand corrected, because I know the
numbers are good, I just don’t see the spirit of, what is
it, 599.999? I don’t feel that’s right, especially if we’re
building lawns and using retaining walls. The house is
fine. I don’t like the tower. The house is beautiful. The
road improvement is beautiful. I just don’t feel like it’s
in the spirit of the hillsides and I feel that just had to
be said.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further discussion? Seeing
none, I will call the question. All in favor? Passes 6-1,
Vice Chair Kane opposed.
Are there appeal rights of the action of the
Commission on this item, Mr. Paulson?
JOEL PAULSON: There is appeal rights, thank you,
Chair Badame. Anyone who is not satisfied with the decision
of the Planning Commission can appeal that decision to the
Town Council. Forms are available in the Clerk’s Office.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/11/2017
Item #4, 15680 Gum Tree Lane
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
There is a fee for filing the appeal, and the appeal must
be filed within ten days.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank