Attachment 7 - May 25, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim MinutesLOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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:
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Kendra Burch
Charles Erekson
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
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 7
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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: I will be recusing myself from
Item 3 due to the project site being located within 50’ of
my residence. Vice Chair Kane will be presiding over the
remainder of the public hearing. Good night to all.
VICE CHAIR KANE: This item is 341 Bella Vista
Avenue. It is continued from April 13, 2016. It’s
Architecture and Site Application S-12-103. It is also a
request for a Mitigated Negative Declaration on properties
APN 529-23-015 and 529-23-016.
Can we have a show of hands from the
Commissioners who have visited the site? Any disclosures on
those visits? Seeing none. Ms. Moseley, will you be
presenting the Staff Report this evening?
MARNI MOSELEY: I am. Good evening,
Commissioners.
As Vice Chair Kane mentioned, this public hearing
is a continuation from the discussion that occurred on
April 13th earlier this year. The Commission took public
comments and continued the public hearing to allow the
Applicant and Staff to coordinate the attendance of the
professionals in regard to the project to attend this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
evening to address any technical questions or concerns that
the Commission had in regard to the project.
Additionally, at the April 13th meeting the
Commission requested that the neighbors meet with the
Applicant to discuss their concerns and any potential
solutions prior to the continuance meeting date.
Staff proceeded to facilitate that meeting after
the close of the public hearing on the 13th and was told by
the neighbors that they would provide me with a group
contact to facilitate that meeting. I did encourage the
neighbors to at least provide a name and address of those
who were willing to participate so that I could ensure that
everybody that wanted to participate was included in that
meeting. No one did provide that contact information as
agreeing to participate in that meeting.
The primary discussion points by the neighbors
and the Commission from the April 13th meeting were in
regard to slope stability, construction access and
management, tree removals, privacy and massing from the
rear, as well as the incorporation of a cellar and the
overall size of the residence.
Staff would like to clarify a couple of things
that based on neighbors’ comments within the packet there
is still some confusion on.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
prohibit three-story elevations. They do not prohibit
residences that incorporate three stories, so a cellar, for
example, would be considered a story, but it’s not
necessarily an exposed elevation. Most of the examples in
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines actually
show three stories, but they’re stepped and staggered.
Similarly you have a two-story elevation at the rear of
this proposed residence, and then the garage is offset at a
different elevation plane, and so you wouldn’t have a two-
story elevation at any point on this residence. Per the
Town Cellar Policy, the proposed cellar as shown on sheet
A-2.3 of the proposed plans is considered a cellar, no
matter what the use of the space is or how it’s
conditioned.
Additionally, there is still some confusion on
the height and how that’s measured. This site is not
visible from any established viewing platforms, nor does it
project above an established ridgeline. As such, the
maximum permitted height is 25’ at any given point, with a
stepped maximum height of 35’, not the reduction of 18’ and
28’, as some are referencing.
The Applicant has additionally provided some
revisions to the proposed plans for the Commission to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
consider tonight based on the discussion that occurred on
April 13th. The information provided on these revisions is
fairly limited, so if you have any follow up questions I
would suggest that you direct those to the Applicant and
his team this evening.
It is Staff’s analysis that the proposed project
conforms to the requirements of the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines and has provided solutions to
development on a very difficult site. The Applicant has
taken the direction of the Town Council from the previous
applications and incorporated them into the provided plans
before you tonight for consideration.
Staff recommends the Commission adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the application
subject to the attached conditions. If the Commission
wishes to incorporate some or all of the proposed
modifications, that should be reflected in your motion this
evening.
This completes Staff’s report. We are here if you
have any questions. As well, I just would like to clarify,
as mentioned in the Staff Report we do have the Town’s
consulting environmental professional; and the Town’s
consulting arborist, Deborah Ellis, here this evening; as
well as the professional from AMEC Geotechnical, which is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
the Town’s geologic consulting firm; the Applicant’s civil
engineer; and the Applicant’s geotechnical engineer.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Ms. Moseley. Before
I seek questions, let me add that I left out in identifying
the case that this is also Subdivision Application M-12-
008. Thank you.
Questions for Staff? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was wondering if you
could comment, with the reduction in square footage, what
the new floor area ratio was? And I had a follow up
question on that.
MARNI MOSELEY: I can calculate that based on the
numbers that they have given me. I do not have any floor
plans to confirm that number, or you can address that
question to the Applicant when they come up.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And a follow up question I
had on the previous discussion, a lot of the comments from
the residents have talked about the size and bulk and mass,
so my question was about the previous comparison to the
neighborhood. Obviously reducing the square footage is
going to help, but what I wondered was the previous
calculation of FAR in the last Staff Report was based on a
10,000 square foot lot, and in the Hillside Design
Guidelines it says that if the lot is sloped more than 30%
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
that it must be reduced by 60% and then you apply a maximum
based on the size of their lot, maximum of 34.5, which
would be their FAR. What I wondered was why we use the more
traditional numbers with the lot as if it were similar to
the lots in Bella Vista compared to that?
MARNI MOSELEY: Staff’s take on that has always
been because we don’t have the average slopes of the other
lots to do that calculation for, we provide the gross lot
area for each of those adjacent lots and the subject living
floor area that is available within Town records. We do use
that slope reduction to calculate what the maximum
permitted on the subject site would be, but it’s hard to
provide an accurate comparison when we don’t have average
slopes for those other sites to do that reduction with.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Even with their reduction
in square footage the maximum floor area for this property,
if I did the math right, was 1,400 square feet, and even
with the reduction they’re just barely under that.
MARNI MOSELEY: Correct, they are just barely
under the maximum permitted for that site with a slope
reduction.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: All right, good. Thank
you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. At the last
hearing Commissioner Hanssen I think very appropriately
suggested that the Applicant and the speakers have a
meeting, and I think there was sort of a lack of
communications leading up to the previous hearing. What
role did you or other Staff play in facilitating such a
meeting? Did it occur? When did it occur? How was it
attended, et cetera?
MARNI MOSELEY: Staff did attempt to pursue and
help facilitate that meeting with the neighbors after the
last hearing. I went out and spoke with the neighbors that
gathered around the table, and I provided a sign-up sheet
and requested them verbally several times to sign up on
that sheet and at least provide me with some reference as
far as who wanted to participate, so that I could continue
to reach out and facilitate that meeting. I understood that
their feedback was that they wanted to provide a group
Gmail email for me to work through that everybody within
that residential ground would have access to, and I was
never provided with that. But I did encourage them after
that statement that I still would like them to provide me
with their names and at least their physical address so
that I could understand who I was trying to connect with
after that meeting, and I was not provided with any.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
But the Applicant has continued to do that
outreach, and that outreach is discussed within the
attachments that he provided.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Any other questions for Staff?
All right, seeing none, I’ll open the public testimony
portion of the public hearing and allow the Applicant and
his or her team ten minutes to address the Commission. Mr.
Hechtman, will you be representing the Applicant?
BART HECHTMAN: I will, and thank you, Vice Chair
Kane. I will say good evening, I’m Bart Hechtman of
Matteoni O’Laughlin & Hechtman representing Dan and Deborah
Ross. Three-quarters of the Ross family is here to my left.
At the conclusion of the hearing on April 13th the
Commission gave some guidance on additional information
that you thought would be helpful in your deliberation of
the Ross’s application, and at that hearing we made a
presentation about the project and answered questions about
it. That’s all part of the record.
Tonight I’m going to focus my remarks on the
additional information you’ve requested at the hearing,
much of which is addressed in the Ross’s May 17th letter and
its attachments in your Staff packet.
In 2011 the Planning Commission requested
significant reduction in square footage from the 4,521
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
square feet of the two homes then proposed. At the last
hearing Commissioner Hudes asked for a comparison of the
bulk and mass between the prior and current proposals. The
Rosses have had the calculations done with the following
results.
Forty-two percent reduction in square footage of
the home, or 1,883 square feet, compared to the previous
two-home application; forty percent reduction in lineal
feet of rear elevation from 116 feet to 69 lineal feet;
forty-six percent reduction in rear elevation wall mass
square footage from 2,941 to 1,558. Now, these reductions
are before consideration of the new revisions to the plans
that further reduce height, bulk, mass, and square footage
of the home, which I’ll discuss a bit later.
At the last hearing a number of the neighbors
complained that the new house was larger than either of the
two prior houses, so they claimed that the Rosses were
actually increasing the square footage. I believe that’s a
false comparison. If we’re talking about a home that’s
smaller than either of the homes previously proposed, then
we’re back to two houses on two legal and buildable lots.
We think that the direction from the Planning Commission
and the Council in 2011 was clear, that they were looking
for an overall reduction in square footage, not elimination
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
of one house and reduction of the square footage of the
other.
Moving to topographical survey, at the last
hearing one of the neighbors questioned the accuracy of the
topographic survey. We’ve included, and it’s in your
packet, a letter from TS Civil explaining how the contours
were obtained from onsite field work and confirming that
the survey is actually more accurate than the Town’s GIS
mapping. Terry Szewczyk from TS Civil is here to answer any
questions that you have about the topo survey.
Turning to geotechnical, the site is buildable
from a geotechnical perspective. We have the Town’s
independent geotechnical consultant and expert review of 12
previous geotechnical studies prepared for the property
between 1997 and 2014 that say so. Here’s the conclusion
from the Town’s consultant, again, confirming suitability.
Now, the Ross’s geotechnical consultant concluded
that the house would improve the stability of the property
in their April 13th letter, which was provided at the April
13th hearing, but of course you didn’t have time to really
study it at that hearing since it was presented during the
course of the hearing, so that same letter is included as
an attachment to the Ross’s May 17th letter.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
Commissioner Hudes at the last hearing had some
specific questions about geotechnical issues. As best as I
could write them down they were: Will the house improve
slope stability? What aspects of the house design will
improve slope stability? Will there be piers and retaining
walls? Will this house have any effect on the retaining
wall of the downhill neighbor who spoke at the last
hearing? These questions are partially answered in the
April 13th letter, and a representative of Upp is here to
further answer those questions and any others that you have
on that issue.
While we’re on the geotechnical issue I wanted to
stop for just a moment and remind the Commission that its
decision must be based on substantial evidence. The
geotechnical reports are substantial evidence of the
geotechnical condition of the property. Geotechnical fears
of neighbors who are not qualified experts, no matter how
heartfelt, are not evidence that you can rely on in
reaching a decision.
Let’s talk about construction management; that
was an issue. The mandatory Town construction management
plan will be implemented. Those are the same requirements
that apply throughout the Town. The Rosses currently live
on Villa Avenue backing to Oak Hill, and they’ve watched
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
the construction of the home at 52 Oak Hill and the
construction of many others within the last few years. I’m
about to show you some slides of houses that have been
constructed or are being constructed under conditions
similar to the Rosses, on hillsides, narrow streets, and
close proximity to other homes. In the case of the
Villa/Jackson house, this home is immediately adjacent to
the Ross’s current home and 6’ off the common property
line.
These projects all address construction
management and logistics pursuant to a requirement imposed
by the Town. That same requirement is a Condition of
Approval for the Ross’s application. Terry Szewczyk and
your staff can answer additional questions you have about
construction management, including the issue of rerouting
traffic that Commissioner Burch asked at the last hearing.
Commissioner Burch also asked a question about
the geotechnical effects of the construction equipment, and
the Upp representative can answer those questions; but
additionally, we wanted to confirm regarding the excavation
of the piers for the driveway that the Rosses will be
utilizing drill equipment, which is commonly used in Los
Gatos. Now, there will be no pile driving. The drill,
pictured here, is mounted on a truck or mini-excavator, a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
little larger in size than an SUV or box truck. The pier
excavation and placement of rebar for concrete is
anticipated to take one day or less, with concrete poured
in approximately one day or less as well.
We talked about trees at the last meeting. The
proposal conforms to all Town tree requirements.
Commissioner Burch asked about the three trees that will be
removed, and I understand that the Town’s consulting
arborist is here to answer questions about those trees. I
did want to mention that Mr. Thompson, whose tree report
was submitted by one of the neighbors, is not an arborist,
as that neighbor acknowledges, and the health of those two
trees, which is the subject of this report, is not the
issue here. The issue is that those trees are in the way of
the best location for the house and the Town Code allows
such trees to be removed.
We discussed privacy measures at length in the
last hearing and our letter. This slide, which I think we
showed last time, references the privacy measures the
Rosses have taken for the house.
Regarding neighborhood outreach, at the last
meeting we described the Ross’s prior efforts to meet with
the neighbors, and again offered to meet with the neighbors
in a group or a town hall, with Staff or individually, to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
review their plans and discuss concerns. Ms. Moseley has
described Staff’s unsuccessful effort to set up a meeting.
In addition, Mr. Ross hand delivered letters to the
neighbors on April 27th extending the same invitation, and
sent a follow up letter by mail to each of the neighbors on
May 7th, again offering to get together. One neighbor on
Bella Vista called him to ask about the power lines, and
one on Maggi Court met with Dan to review the plans and the
potential revisions to them, which was appreciated.
At the last hearing Vice Chair Kane suggested
that the Rosses look at design changes to make the home
“smaller, less imposing, less intimidating, and less
impactful on privacy.” Since that hearing the Rosses
reviewed the rear elevation and found a way to lower the
north corner from 22.5’ to 15.5’ from top of roof to grade.
They also eliminated the 6’ cantilevered overhang, reducing
the main level square footage by 172’ to 1,106 from 1,278.
It also increases the rear setback on the north corner from
23’ to 29’, and eliminates an additional 120 square feet of
wall mass from the rear of the home. Incidentally, that
gives us the 50% in rear elevation of wall mass reduction
described in that earlier slide. The north wall of the
house, which is the dining room area is reduced from 20’ to
14’. This reduces height, mass, scale, and home square
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
footage relating to the Maggi Court neighbors. The garage
has been moved, and they’ve widened the driveway to allow
for more room for backing out; a mitigation measure
requires that sight lines be maintained.
The remaining slides you’ve seen before regarding
compatibility with the neighborhood and regarding
compliance with all Town requirements.
We appreciate your consideration and ask that you
concur with Staff’s recommendation for approval, adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration, and approve the Ross’s
home. I’m available to answer questions, as are the Rosses
and their consultants. Thank you very much.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you for your
presentation. We’ve received a lot of excellent letters,
well thought out assistance to us in trying to make a
decision, and certainly one of them is the report from Dan
and Deborah Ross; it’s a good job and it’s much
appreciated. Questions for the speaker? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’d like to get a little bit
more detail on what happened since April 13th in terms of
the design of the house. I’m looking at A-1.4, and they’re
not labeled, so I just want to make sure for the record we
know which one is which.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
BART HECHTMAN: Thank you. I was moving a little
too quickly to try to stay within the timeframe, so I
pulled up A-1.4 again.
The two homes on the bottom, those are the homes
from the prior proposal in 2011. The home on the top is the
proposal that was discussed at the April 13th meeting. If
you eyes are much better than mine, you can see that the
square footage in that little white box says 1,558.
In the middle of the diagram, this is the new
modified proposal, and the change is as you’re looking at
it on the left end, that’s really where you’re seeing
primarily where this, again, left edge, you can see it has
a lower profile. If you look at it in relation to the
garage roof you can see in that middle picture quite a gap,
whereas if you raise up… Now, the roof angle has been
reduced of the garage angle, so that is also contributing
to it.
But that’s the area of change, and you can see in
the upper picture what we talked about, the 6’ cantilever,
which you can see sort of a shaded area underneath the
house, which is now absent in the middle picture.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If I could ask a follow up.
What about the floor plans; how have they changed to
correspond to the square footage reduction?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
BART HECHTMAN: I’d mentioned earlier I think it
was a 172 square foot reduction. That basically came off of
the dining room and kitchen areas. Does that answer your
question?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes, it does. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Are we good, Commissioner
Hudes?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, I have questions about
geotechnical as well, so I don't know if we’re going to do
those now.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yeah, we’re going to do those
now. I have a question. If it’s already been answered, I’m
sorry. At the last hearing Commissioner Hudes asked the
question what was the square feet exposure of the house to
the houses below? There was some confusion as to the height
and width and we were promised we’d get that number back. I
don’t think we’ve received that number yet.
BART HECHTMAN: We did, but I went through it
again probably a little too quickly, so let me come back to
it.
At the bottom of our slide the two houses, the
rear elevation wall mass, which is the starting point for
the comparison, was 2,941, and that number you actually see
in the middle of A-1.4. It’s the product of these two,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
which have a box in them that gives you that square
footage. The reduction, using the plan that you looked at
April 13th, is 46%, because the new wall plane is 1,558.
Now, those figures of course assume that this property is
totally denuded of trees so that you would be exposed to
unprotected views, which of course is not the case. We
didn’t feel that there was a truly accurate way of
calculating exactly how much of the tree coverage would be
there, so we’re giving you if there were no trees.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes asked for
the information for comparative purposes, and I really
wasn’t. I wanted to know, because I thought it was a good
question on its face, what is the size of that exposure?
And as proposed at that time, it’s represented in the top
picture.
BART HECHTMAN: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: And you’re suggesting the
possible revision is the second picture. I want to put this
in the form of a question, as always.
We’ve done some discussions and comparisons to a
previous application that I think was denied. It wasn’t
sent back for further work, it wasn’t remanded to the
Planning Commission, and the argumentative aspect of
comparing the current house to two houses that, maybe
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
argumentatively in my mind, don’t exist. I’m not sure the
point of that. If the land is not merged, we’re looking at
a potential two units. If it is merged, we’re looking at
one unit. But I think they would all stand on their face,
not in comparative terms, to imply look, I’ve improved
because the one house is smaller than the other two houses
combined. I’m just wondering if that makes sense mentally,
because the project was denied, and boom, that’s the end of
it?
Commissioner Hudes, did you have a comment?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had a question along those
lines.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, unless the Applicant
wants to answer to what I said so far.
BART HECHTMAN: I’m hesitant to speak to the
intent of your Planning Commission and Council back in
2011. I can only speak for my understanding, and that is
that there is recognition that there are two legal
buildable lots here, and there could be two houses.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes.
BART HECHTMAN: And those two houses are going to
have some wall mass to them. My understanding is that the
Council and Planning Commission were interested in reducing
that overall wall mass, and so here it’s been reduced from
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
2,941 to 1,558, or by another 120 feet, in the new modified
plan. So now we’re down below 1,500 feet where if you break
that back into two, you’re talking about 750 feet twice
across the parcel.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Not necessarily.
BART HECHTMAN: Okay, not necessarily, because we
haven’t designed… The Council and Commission’s charge was
not to come back with two smaller homes, it was to come
back with one home, and what we have demonstrated here, and
I think we have, is that overall the mass that downhill
neighbors are looking at is significantly smaller than the
prior proposal was, and that a new proposal for two homes
on two lots could be.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay. Now, I’m going to go back
to Commissioner Hudes, but before my memory fails me,
you’ve made mention of 52 Oak Hill as a comparative
argument. This is a hillside house.
BART HECHTMAN: Yes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Oak Hill isn’t.
BART HECHTMAN: Does that affect construction
traffic? Because that’s the only time I refer to that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Oh, okay, because it probably
doesn’t affect a number of things, but there are two sets
of rules applying.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
BART HECHTMAN: Mr. Ross, who lives next to it,
tells me that it is on a slope, but the only reason that we
brought that up was to show you, because there were
concerns about traffic construction management, and we
wanted to demonstrate that that’s a common issue here,
whether you’re building on a slope or not, where you have
small local streets. This is something that has to be
contended with; that was the only point.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay, thank you. Commissioner
Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: When I asked the questions
last time I was really looking for some way to quantify the
bulk and mass of the proposal, and there was nothing
provided, so I was interested in it not so much in
comparison to the two homes, but just the absolute size in
some way that I could understand the area of that, and I
think that’s been provided, and I believe that it’s
currently 1,436 square feet of area.
BART HECHTMAN: Are we talking about that rear
massing?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes.
BART HECHTMAN: I think that is the figure that’s
in the little white box in the middle diagram.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
COMMISSIONER HUDES: That seems to be what’s
here. Actually, I attended the hearing in 2011, but I don’t
remember it. When Council rejected the application and said
reduce the size, did they say how much to reduce? Did they
say 10%, 20%, 50%, which is what this is, or more? Did they
say 80%, or did they use any terms that you could
understand that? Did they say somewhat drastically? Was
there any guidance given about how much to reduce that bulk
and mass?
BART HECHTMAN: I wasn’t present either, but Dan
Ross was, and there was no quantification suggested. The
term that he remembers is “significantly,” in terms of what
reduction of square footage they were looking for.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Other questions?
Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I was trying to decide if we
want to jump into the geotechnical now, or if we want to do
public testimony. How would the Vice Chair prefer us to do
that?
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’d rather go to public
testimony and come back.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: That’s fine.
VICE CHAIR KANE: What would we like to do?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I think we should just go
ahead and (inaudible).
VICE CHAIR KANE: Let’s have a geotech report now.
BART HECHTMAN: We haven’t asked the Upp
representative to prepare a report. We wanted him to be
here to answer your questions, and including I can leave
him the four as I wrote them down for Commissioner Hudes,
if you like. Thank you.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Hello, my name is Chris
Hundemer; I’m one of the co-owners of C2Earth
Geotechnology. I’m a certified engineer and geologist. I’ve
been working in the Town of Los Gatos doing consulting for
hillside homes since 1999. Our company has been doing it
since 1983, and we’ve done over 100 hillside homes in Los
Gatos.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Excuse me, sir. Did I get a
speaker card from you?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Sure.
VICE CHAIR KANE: You can fill one out later. I
just didn’t know if I had one in the pile or not.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: I’ll prepare one for you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Give us one later. Thank you.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: I was provided the questions
from the last meeting, and if you want, I can go over
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
answers to those, or if you’d like to ask specific
questions, I’m open to answer those as well.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah, I would like for you
to begin with the questions that we asked during the last
meeting, and then I assume the Commissioners will have
additional questions for you.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Sure. The first question was how
will the house or development improve the overall
stability? There are a few factors that will do that.
The first factor is that there are going to be
retaining walls built as part of the development, and those
retaining walls are going to stabilize the surficial soil,
colluvium, and a portion of the fill that exists that was
placed for the construction of the road above. By
supporting that soil we’re taking the pressure off of soil
downslope and reducing the instability potential for the
soils downslope.
Along with that, those retaining walls have a
back drain system to them. The back drain has a curtain of
gravel with a collection pipe at the bottom, and it
effectively acts to dewater the surficial soils at the back
of the house, which also helps to dewater the soil down
below the house.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
A third portion is the surface drainage. The
house will be provided with roofs and gutters, and those
are going to be collected and discharged in an appropriate
manner, and that reduces the amount of water that will
infiltrate into the surface soil, reduces the weight on the
soil, and increases the stability on the overall site.
One of the questions that came up was what
specific aspects? I’ve touched on the retaining walls. All
of the reinforced concrete retaining walls, any reinforced
concrete foundation or pier, is going to improve the
stability. Where we’re displacing soil, we’re displacing
alluvial gravel that has an inherent strength to it, and
replacing it with a concrete material that is much
stronger.
We talked about the retaining wall back drains
and how they dewater down to a depth of 15’ or so. The back
of the house, the lower cellar floor, the drain will be
about 15’ below the existing site grade there, and that’s
going to help dewater the site.
The proposed siting of the cellar in a below
grade manner on the downhill level actually works better
from a geotechnical perspective. It’s pretty common
practice for homes in hillside construction to be fully
supported by drill piers and grade beams, and the way this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
house is designed, and with the shallow colluvium that’s at
the site, we’ve designed the house to be mostly supported
on a shallow foundation, either spread footings or a mat
slab. The only drilled piers will be to support some
retaining walls where loads are high, or for the bridge
abutment at the entrance to the driveway.
One of the questions that came up was will there
be piers, and just touching on that I estimate that there
is going to be on the order of about ten drilled piers.
These piers are pretty common practice for a hillside
construction. The prior borings were drilled on the site to
depths greater than we anticipate these piers to be and did
not encounter difficulty, and that was with smaller
portable equipment. I don’t envision that heavy, really
large, powerful drill rigs are going to be required to do
this. I imagine that the pier drilling is going to be
completed within a day. After that, the reinforcing steel
gets put in, the Town’s inspector comes out and looks at
the steel, and then concrete is poured within a day or two
after that. One of the representatives from our firm is
usually onsite fulltime while the pier drilling is going
on, and we monitor and make sure that the piers are not
drilled to excessive depths.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
The last question: Will this house have an effect
on the retaining wall downslope? The simple answer to that
is no. Kind of a layman look at it would be to analyze a
1:1 slope underground from where the downhill limits of the
foundation are. The downhill retaining wall is well removed
and well beyond that plane of influence, and they’re two
completely separate structures; they’re not going to even
see effects from each other.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: When we discussed the
sequencing of the project, the retaining wall that’s below
the lowest point of the property, will that be built first
so that as you are doing the work above the hill, tree
removal, that is accounting for the movement and shifting
of the soil below, so it doesn’t affect the retaining wall?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Well, there are a couple of
accommodations, and those are usually construction
sequencing issues that are dealt with with the contractor.
Some contractors like to work from the bottom up, and some
like to work from the top down. Along with those lines
there are OSHA guidelines for how the excavations and the
cut can be performed. For this type of soil the cut is
usually vertical for a certain height, about 4’ or 5’, and
then there’s an inclination above that where there’s a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
series of stair steps. What we will look at is we usually
go out there with the contractor when they’re starting the
initial excavation, and at that time if additional measures
such as inclining it to a less steep angle, are warranted,
we provide that recommendation in the field.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Can I ask just one more
question, and I’ll be done?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: The drawing that we have, C-
2, that was previously submitted to us, I believe only
showed five piers, which was along the driveway. You said
you thought there would be up to ten? Tell me where else in
the house you’re proposing to put those.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: There are going to be piers for
the driveway and the cellar retaining wall will have an
active pressure on the back of that wall, and it’s a
structural engineering issue. If the pressures are too
great and they exceed the capacity of a shallow foundation,
additional piers may be warranted underneath the bottom of
that wall just to carry some of those loads, but that
hasn’t been decided yet.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay. All right, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions? Commissioner
Hanssen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Some of the neighbors in
their letters to us have written about the patio that’s
coming out of the house at the bottom, and there’s a
retaining wall that surrounds it. My question is, is that
retaining wall necessary for the stability of the slope, or
is it there to deal with the patio?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: No, that retaining wall is there
for the patio. Basically, that wall is most likely going to
be designed as a freestanding wall, and it wouldn’t make a
difference if there was soil on the outboard edge of that
wall or not. That wall is going to be supported on the
patio slab, and it’s all integrated and with the loads
transferred back underneath the house.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So if it turned out that
the patio had to go away, that it wouldn’t impact the
stability of the slope to not have that retaining wall
there?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Well, the way I understand the
reason for the patio and for doing that was to recess the
level of the cellar to a certain level, and by recessing
the level of the cellar we’re getting the foundations and
we’re getting the slab elevations to the point where we’re
through the non-supportive soil and we’re at the bearing
soil. If we don’t do that and we get rid of that, then the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
foundations are likely to be shallower, and that’s going to
maybe require additional drilled piers along the downhill
side of the house, which we’re trying to avoid.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have one other question.
One of the neighbors in the first hearing had provided a
letter about a house in San Francisco that had been
certified as geotechnically appropriate sliding down the
hill, and so I just wondered, in terms of helping people
feel comfortable with us, if you could comment on why this
wouldn’t happen versus it happening in San Francisco. Maybe
the soil is different?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Well, the soils are
significantly different. Every site, every lot, has its own
site-specific geotechnical study nowadays, and that didn’t
happen when a lot of the homes in San Francisco were
developed; that’s only happened in the last 20 years or so
where we’ve got site-specific borings, laboratory data,
slope stability analyses.
The State of California began in early 2000 to
release maps that show zones of potential landslides that
could develop during earthquakes, and as part of those
maps, they issue a series of questions, and if you can
answer each question favorably, you’ve satisfied the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
analysis; that’s what we’ve done and that’s what’s included
in our report for this site.
The soils on this site are granular in nature.
They’re sand and gravel. They have a high internal angle of
friction. They have a high friction capacity against the
bottom of footings and slabs. They don’t have excessive
pressure on the back of the retaining walls. They don’t
want to cause foundations to heave and swell like clay
soils will, and they have much more inherent stability than
clay soils that you find elsewhere.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, and thank you for
providing the report. I had a great many concerns about
this issue. I believe the letter was provided just hours
before the hearing last time, and so I appreciate your
being here to substantiate the letter and to explain it.
My understanding is the first two points that you
make on page 2 of the letter relate to the colluvium, which
I believe is about the top 3’ of looser material that’s on
that hillside.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Correct. Colluvium is basically
a soil material that roots have disturbed, organics have
grown in, and over time gravity and rainwater washes those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
soil grains downslope, and they get deposited, and they
accumulate thicker and thicker towards the base of the
slope. Beneath the house footprint it’s about 3’ to 3.5’
thick.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So your assertion is that
the slope will be improved for these reasons. I would be
really interested in understanding how much improved. Is it
slight? Is it substantial? Is it significant? How would you
characterize the stability of the slope after the
construction of the house, as compared to the way it is
now?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: The way it is now, we have a
zone that’s 3’ to 3.5’ thick on most of the slope. It’s
actually thicker up towards the road, because on top of the
colluvium there was fill that was placed to build the road,
and that fill is undocumented. Nobody knows if it was
compacted, but it likely wasn’t to current engineering
standards, and there is a driving force for that fill and
that colluvium with gravity when it gets wet and saturated,
and with earthquake loads, to want to landslide down the
hill.
The proposed house eliminates the middle third of
the colluvium on the slope in the area of the house, and
then the retaining walls support the upper third, so you’re
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
reducing two-thirds of the potential, at least, of shallow
landsliding on the site.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So two-thirds is
substantial?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: It is substantial, yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: The other questions about
this had to do with the way the work would be done, and not
causing an issue during the construction itself. I
understand that detailed construction project plans haven’t
been done yet, but if you could talk a little bit about how
that would work so that actually putting in this foundation
doesn’t cause a landslide on that hillside.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Sure. There are two elements to
the foundation. The first is the drilled piers that are for
the driveway, or piers if they’re needed for the retaining
wall. These are standard auger gas piles, so it’s not a
pre-made concrete pile that gets hammered into the soil
like you see in Santa Clara and in the flats where the
Baymont is. There is not any hammering; there are not any
loud vibrations on the slope. It’s drilling, usually 16” to
18” diameter, sometimes 2’ diameter, holes with a very
small zone of influence outside of that area of drilling
where any vibration is felt. Once they’re drilled, the soil
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
is off-hauled from the site, and then the reinforcing steel
is put in and they are filled with concrete.
Borings were drilled in 2007. Those borings were
drilled to a depth of over 20’, and based on their findings
there is no groundwater that was encountered, so we don’t
have to deal with any risks of the pier holes caving
because of shallow groundwater. They were actually drilled
in February, which is the wet time of year. The fact that
small portable sampling equipment could drill down to 20’,
I have full confidence that a standard pier drilling small
excavator like was shown could drill to the depths needed
for the foundations.
The second, for the shallow footings, there are
excavations that happen for the uphill walls of the
building, and then the wall for the cellar, and those are
set back enough that typically there will be a vertical,
and then a stair step, and then a vertical; or a vertical
and incline, and then a vertical. As long as everything
meets the OSHA standard, I don’t see a problem with it.
Now, what we do is when we’re onsite and we
monitor the construction is we initially watch the
excavation, and usually the least stable portion of the
excavation is the 3’ of colluvium when you cut through
that, and so that’s what gets inclined to a 1:1 angle or
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
even flatter so that it’s less of a risk of debris being
deposited in the construction site.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: One more question, if I may,
on the construction process.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Sure.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: There are trees there now;
some trees will be removed. My understanding is that to
some degree the trees are holding back or stabilizing that.
They’re going to get pulled out. Is that going to cause an
issue when they get pulled out? And most importantly to me,
what is their ability to hold back a slide on that hill
compared to the foundation, in your opinion?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Well, it depends on the type of
tree, and I’m not an arborist that knows all the root
structures, but roots will inherently help hold the
colluvium and soil in place, but as the tree gets larger
and the wind puts an effect on the tree and actually wants
to tip the tree over, it can have an adverse effect and it
can actually cause the roots to want to uplift out of the
ground. So there becomes a point where trees inherently
hurt the stability of a slope.
If the proposed trees that are being removed are
within the area of grading or the house footprint, and
they’re going to be excavated along with all the other soil
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
for the foundation, there’s no change in what the global
stability is. If trees are being removed outside of the
footprint of the house, the only risk is during the short
interim that the tree stump is ground, if there’s a void
there we would want to cover or protect that void from any
rainfall getting in until it’s backfilled, and it would be
backfilled with engineered fill that we would test the
compaction of.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the
speaker?
You’ve received some good questions from the
Commission, and I don’t have any good questions. I walked
the property again this morning specific for some of the
driveway concerns, and took two steps on the hill and
decided I didn’t want to die. We’ve done a lot of hillside
houses, and we haven’t done any that go up to I think as
high as 70%, coming down to an average of 53%. I think the
normal people in the audience, like I’m normal; I don't
know geotech. Have you done 70% slope houses before?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Yeah, we’ve actually done houses
that are against the sea cliff over in Aptos, in La Selva
Beach, right against the toe of the bluff where it’s
steeper than 100%.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Is that where the bluff is
coming down?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: Yeah. So there are engineering
solutions to deal with a slope.
Most of the oversteepened portion of the slope is
like you said, right near the road, right near the
driveway, and it’s all related to the fill. When the road
was built, material was excavated from the uphill side and
the road grader pushed it off the downhill side and it
reached an angle of repose where it’s going to reach, and
that’s the oversteepened part now that you’re left with.
Modern fill is not built that way. Modern fill is engineer
compacted, and it has a certain gradient to about 50%, 2:1
slope.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The attorney wisely said that
you’ve got to go with the science, and not with the
emotions. I will try to do that, but that is one steep
slope. It doesn’t even have an LRDA. When we put houses in
the hillside we ask the owners to take their property and
identify the areas where maybe a house could be built.
There isn’t one here. You’re aware of that?
CHRIS HUNDEMER: But part of my work on this, and
my philosophy, is the entire site is technically buildable
if you design the foundation right. If you do the right
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
kind of engineering and the right kind of geotechnical
solution, you can build houses against vertical cliffs, you
can build houses on steep slopes, you can build houses on
bay mud, in Foster City on fill. There are geotechnical
solutions for every type of problem; it’s just a matter of
whether it’s cost effective.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right, thank you. Any other
questions? Thank you very much.
I’ve enquired whether or not we would have the
Town geotechnical consultant come up now if you had any
questions for him or her. No questions. Pardon me? Not at
the moment. All right.
Then I will see if there are any further
questions for the Applicant, or move on to the public
hearing portion.
All right, seeing none, Robert DiNapoli. Mr.
DiNapoli, you will have three minutes, and please adjust
the mike when you get up there, and give us your name and
address, please.
ROBERT DiNAPOLI: Good evening, my name is Rob
DiNapoli and my address is 322 Bella Vista. I am
essentially across the street and one house down from the
proposed development. I’m here to speak against approving
the development of the house.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
In the 19 years that my wife and I have been at
that location we have never seen an issue bring our
neighborhood so closely together, both Maggi Court and
Bella Vista, and I think it’s for a good reason. This is a
significant issue. Everybody in the neighborhood has
various reasons to objecting, but for the most part it’s
going to change the safety, the appeal, and really the
neighborhood itself.
In our case, we have a situation in which we have
tried to reduce the speed and the people racing through the
neighborhood. It happens both in the morning with the high
school traffic, and it happens in the evening when there
are extra curricular activities going on; it happens Friday
nights with the football games; and in the early evening
with the use of the pool and the tennis courts and all
those good things down there.
The neighborhood people are speeding down that
road. It runs parallel to Los Gatos Boulevard and Main
Street and people use it because there is so much traffic
now on Los Gatos Boulevard. The neighborhood, a year-and-a-
half ago, put some speed bumps there. Really, in that
section the proposed house is going in, it sort of starts
to straighten out and the kids just speed along there, and
others that are using that road.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
At the same time, that neighborhood, maybe
because of its beauty and because of the oak trees that
line the downhill slope of the neighborhood, it’s become a
huge walking and biking path. People are just using a lot
of it, so they come around and use it, and people are
speeding by.
Now, the Rosses have done a good job of lowering
the house, maybe for visual effects, but at the same time
it’s dropped the garage and the steepness of that driveway
as it comes into and meets Bella Vista. The current concern
really is the driveway and the cars that are going to be
parking along that will hide or block the existing cars
there.
We live across the street. We hear a lot of
noise, screeching, people really driving fast there. I
think the addition of one extra home and that driveway, the
sloped driveway, is going to cause increased risk along
that road.
So that’s what I’m here to say, to object to the
development of that piece of property.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Any questions for
the speaker? Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: If I understand what
you’re concern is, can you articulate a little more why the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
solution that they’re done for the driveway with its slope,
which is with the Town codes and standards, creates a
significant increased risk to what’s going on there now?
ROBERT DiNAPOLI: The road itself is very narrow
at that point, so backing out of that, and from a 15%
slope, I’m afraid no one will see them, because of the
amount of cars, and the age of the people, and the speed at
which they’re trying to get to their destination. It’s a
significant area, and the amount of people that are
walking, I’m worried that with the speeding drivers and
somebody pulling out of a 15% grade onto a road, blindly
backing out, they’re not going to see the oncoming traffic.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Are you aware, have there
been sight line analyses done that would substantiate what
you’ve just asserted? I’m not arguing with you one way or
the other, but as has already been stated in the record, we
can’t make decisions based on assertions.
ROBERT DiNAPOLI: No, I just feel that you might
make a decision based on the amount people that are
objecting to it, and I’ve lived there 19 years and I object
to the amount of… I don’t object; I take it with the good
and the bad of the neighborhood. It’s beautiful, but we
have a huge amount of traffic that’s going by there, so to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
add that driveway there, with the slope, backing out, will
only increase the risk and the danger in that area.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Just so you know, I ride
my bike down there. I don’t live close to where you live,
but I ride my bike lots of places in town, so I’m quite
familiar with that. I try not to ride my bike when there’s
a lot of traffic going to the high school back and forth,
but that’s a whole other story.
You have significant traffic, and I take you at
your word because you live there. So then one is going to
add a home that would likely have two cars in it, so
probably two drivers, so that’s going to represent what
kind of increase in the amount of traffic?
ROBERT DiNAPOLI: It’s the backing out. There are
the additional two cars, but it’s the back out on a road
that is somewhat blind, and overly fast drivers that are in
a hurry, that I’m worried about.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Let me see if I can help on
that one. Ms. Moseley, we estimated ten trips a day?
MARNI MOSELEY: Engineering is here to answer
that properly. I believe that’s correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s in the Staff Report; I
just want to make sure I remembered it correctly.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
MIKE WEISZ: I am not aware of the total number
of additional trips for this particular property.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Okay, I’ll try to find it. All
right. Other questions? Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If there were two homes
here, because there are two lots, would that make the
situation worse than this one home, better, or the same?
ROBERT DiNAPOLI: I’d say it might make a
difference in the size of the home, I guess, if it
conformed, if it was too small houses, as is I think
acceptable to build.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But doesn’t it depend on
the number of cars? You’re talking about car a problem, not
a size of the home problem. If you have two houses and two
cars in each house, you would now have four cars instead of
two cars. We have this one house before us, but if this
doesn’t go through, we could have two houses before us;
small houses, but now four cars rather than two. So I’m
wondering if you have a solution to that problem?
ROBERT DiNAPOLI: No, I don’t personally, but I
understand that the houses would be under 1,000 feet each,
which seemed to be the approximate size of an apartment
building. Maybe there would be one house; maybe they’d ride
their bike, the one person. I really don’t know. It’s a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
large family house that is proposed being built on a very,
very steep lot with a driveway that’s now below grade.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Nicholas
Williamson followed by Erin Johnson, if Ms. Johnson would
like to get ready.
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: Good evening. Nick
Williamson at 148 Maggi Court, so I’m the house directly
below this property.
I know from the last time that we met that you
review everything very thoroughly, so I hope you’ve read my
latest letter, because I tried to be very specific about
reasons for denial of this.
One thing I did say right at the top was we feel
this project is too massive, too intimidating, too invasive
of privacy, too unsafe in many respects, and too damaging
of the natural environment. I believe it’s unconscionable
to design for a slope of 30%.
You asked about net lot area reduction when it
gets to a steep slope. Well, the diagram at the bottom
shows at 30% you’re making the maximum deduction, then it
just flatlines. There’s no further deduction, because at
that point it’s already hazardous. This house has been
designed for a slope of 30% maximum FAR. You can actually
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
see though that between 10 and 20, and 20 and 30, it’s
increasing not lineally, but exponentially. If you
extrapolated that up on a site like this, you’re quite
rapidly running out of any floor space whatsoever, so I
think it’s pretty unconscionable that we can be designing
for 30% house on a slope of over 50% in a hillside
residential area that would need five acres of land to
build a house, one dwelling.
The result of this is that we have a proposed
building which is too massive and too bulky, and it’s
something which it shall not be. It shall not be
prominently visible to surrounding properties. That’s
clearly stated in the Hillside Standards; that’s a non-
discretionary regulation, so there can be no discretion
about that. This building is 30’ away from my back yard.
You’re starting to think that law anywhere, 30’, I mean
there’s nothing that can really get in the way. It means
that you need a very tiny house on this land.
There are other reasons why this should be
denied; specifically this is a three-story elevation.
Frankly, everybody thinks it is, so it gets to a point
where I don’t believe the explanation at all; that’s a
breach of the Hillside Standards. It does exceed FAR. It
exceeded FAR at the last meeting, because the garage is not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
included. It’s not neighborhood compatible. The plans
weren’t complete.
Ultimately, this is a very difficult plot and
virtually unbuildable. In my opinion, that was obvious when
the land was bought. I believe there has to be something
quite exceptional, not quite exceptional, totally
exceptional, to be approved for this piece of land.
Anything else is really becoming an abuse of the Hillside
Standards, which I think is a very precious law here, and I
don’t think that’s really what the Town wants to do.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, sir. Any questions?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your
presentation and your letters; they were very helpful. Did
you receive letters from the Applicant requesting to meet?
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: Yes, I did. Actually, we
met.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: You were the one that met
with the Applicant?
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: I was, yeah. Actually, we
met twice. We met immediately after the hearing. In fact,
virtually the entire neighborhood had a small chat then, so
we kind of felt that we’d already had… We knew that this
wasn’t going to move. On May 13th, I think, I got a letter
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
in the post, but the letter didn’t say hello, Mr.
Williamson, good news. We took on board your concerns and
we’ve revised the plans. It just said we meet the
variances, we meet the guidelines, and so it was unchanged.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for talking to
the Applicant, because I think that’s an important part of
this, because everyone needs to be sort of okay with this
at the end.
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: None of this is about Mr.
Ross; none of it is about that. Obviously, we’re all very
emotional, because we want one thing or the other, just as
Mr. Ross wants something.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So then my next question
for you is what type of house do you think is appropriate?
Because there are, maybe not you, but others of your
neighbors, that don’t feel that it’s possible to build
anything there, and certainly our Town rules say that’s not
the case. Further in the Hillside Design Guidelines, if you
didn’t know, there is a pretty big reduction in the
available FAR because of the slope of the lot, and so what
they can build is much, much smaller than what it would be
if it were flat. I would just like to hear your opinion,
because you’ve been very vocal, in terms of what kind of
house would be appropriate.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: I’m not here to design the
house, I just want one that conforms to the law. When I
bought my property, there is a law in place that says what
I can expect, so somebody else, if they buy the land,
they’ve also got to look at the law available, the
constraints that are available, and say what can I build,
and come up with a design that we can assess and say does
that conform? I’m not going to stand here and say build a
house like this and then I think it can conform. If Mr.
Ross owned my house, then maybe he could do that, but at
the moment I just want to see a proposal that has a chance
of conforming to the laws.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: But you believe there is
some size of house that could work? I don’t expect you to
say what it would be.
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: Tiny. I think the
International Code of Residents gives 88 square feet as
livable space, so it could be very, very small here, I
don't know. You’ve actually got a lot to work with. I think
they’ve got to come with a property that we can assess. I
don’t know whether there’s a particular size that meets the
laws.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you very much.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner
Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: In your earlier public
testimony you used the phrase, “Something would have to be
totally exceptional.” Those were your words, as I
understand them, but I gather from your answers to
Commissioner Hanssen’s question you’re unable to
characterize for us what would be totally exceptional, you
just don’t consider the present proposal as totally
exceptional?
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: As something very different
than the normal. I’m using the words totally exceptional to
stick a little bit away from saying nothing can be built
there, but I think it actually is a very, very small house.
The problem with this is the house is just simply too big.
A lot of the problems go away if the house gets smaller.
The driveway issue, if it’s a smaller house it only has one
car, it goes away, or the driveway should just be designed
differently to have less issue.
I just think that the size of the house is the
starting problem, and the bulk, and the mass, and the scale
of it, which is the real issue, that’s been consistently
the issue, is still the issue. This house, I think somebody
pinpointed earlier, it’s still there. I’m still looking at
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
341 Bella Vista as if the plot wasn’t merged, and it’s
still huge.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you very much for your
testimony and your very thorough letter, and I intend to go
through a number of the points in your letter with Staff
when we resume that part of the discussion.
There was one point that I wanted to cover with
you, which I wasn’t quite clear on the point you were
making. In your letter, point 7, when you talk about the
driveway and you say that the driveway has come up as an
issue and it’s still a concern. “The driveway as currently
proposed is steep, possibly as steep as the 15% that’s
allowed.” So if it is not exceeding 15%, could you maybe
articulate what your issue with how steep the driveway is?
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: I think it came up at the
last hearing. Mr. Tillman raised it one of his letters as
well, and Mr. DiNapoli has just spoken to it now.
I think if anyone reverses up the slope 15° the
angle that you’re then looking out of your rear window is
maybe above the height of cars along that road, so it’s a
concern that you would have to reverse out. If the trees
aren’t coming out, the trees are then certainly in the way.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
If they are coming out, it’s still on a blind bend. So
somebody has got to reverse out. I think it was picked up
as an issue last time that that is unsafe, and in a
previous hearing somebody commented that if it was too
steep, maneuverability was an issue. What I’m saying in
that point is that these things have not been properly
considered, and I would like to have seen maybe line of
sight diagrams.
This is part of the problem with the meeting. We
thought we were going to get a lot more documentation to
review to address the concerns beforehand, and I think at
least three Commissioners asked for the documentation in
advance so we could see it. I had to file my letter with no
new documentation. So that’s part of the problem. There’s
nothing new coming. What new is there to say? We’d already
had a hearing with all of the… I apologize if I’m speaking
very emotionally, but I speak a little bit emotionally.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Let me follow up on the
driveway issue. Do you believe that the driveway exceeds
15% and that’s providing a risk, or do you believe that 15%
itself is a risk to public safety?
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: I think a sloping driveway
is a potential for a public safety problem, and therefore
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
needs proper line of sight diagrams drawn out so we can see
it. Reversing my car on the flats, I don’t like the
visibility out of the rear window, so up a slope I don’t
think I could see a cyclist very well. I would personally
be very worried about my liability to the cyclist, and so
therefore I’m naturally worried if my son is the cyclist
going on that road, as he will be going to high school one
day.
The 15% came up as an issue at the last hearing,
which was is it 15% or isn’t it 15%? We don’t know. It’s a
slope that won’t be greater than 15% in the diagrams. I’m
not sure that they’re architect diagrams, but they’re the
engineer’s diagrams.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Mr. Williamson.
Thank you very much.
NICHOLAS WILLIAMSON: Thank you for your time.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Erin Johnson followed by
Patrick Tillman.
ERIN JOHNSON: Hi, my name is Erin Johnson and I
live at 150 Maggi Court. My primary concern on this project
is that it does not follow the rules, also known as
standards.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
One of the standards is to be neighborly friendly
by protecting the privacy of the neighboring homes. Another
standard is to not be prominently visible from surrounding
properties. Once again, we have a complete disregard for
rules, rules that are pretty simple to adhere by.
This is our sixth hearing in five years. We’ve
had two neighborhood meetings, one of which we graciously
hosted at our house. That totals eight meetings regarding
the same rules. I’m bewildered that this home is a repeat
of past presentations, and I’m shocked at the overly
massive bulk and scale.
There is no privacy to several master bedrooms,
living rooms, and back yard patios. When I was a child I
owned a dollhouse. Never did I think I would be living in
one, and that’s how it feels from Maggi Court looking at
this property. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Questions for the speaker?
Thank you very much. Patrick Tillman followed by Doctor
Timothy Coughlin.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Patrick Tillman; I live at 150
Maggi Court. I live with Mary Badame, who is a Chairperson
and Commissioner.
I imagine you received all my letters. My
apologies, there are a lot of them. I expected most of that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
information to be supplied by Staff, and I’m not too
pleased that it wasn’t. Anyway, I thought I gave you what
you needed to see.
I’m not too pleased with them changing plans
again, but my correspondence applied to the last set, and
they’ve tweaked it a little bit, but it doesn’t make a
nickel’s worth of difference; most of these things are
wrong.
Separately, by virtue of a couple of government
code sections a while back a few people got together,
townspeople, and drafted up some regulations in lieu or, or
in supplement to, the state code. Those would include the
General Plan, Land Use, and Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines; all those things predate Dan Ross. They are
very specific with respect to issues of the neighborhoods
and our right of privacy, which is not a subjective issue;
I heard that word thrown about. The right to privacy is not
subjective, it’s guaranteed by the United States
Constitution as interpreted by cases, and it’s right in the
document for the California Constitution; it’s Article One,
it’s that important. It’s a big deal, and these provisions
are to enforce that.
There are multiple references to privacy. Bulk
and mass and all these things, they can be more
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
specifically defined, but it’s one of those things you know
it when you see it. We have a set of rules and they should
be enforced; if not, then we should get rid of them.
Anyway, privacy is a big issue, and Dan Ross recognized
that in his comments of October 12, 2011; I supplied that.
He referenced yeah, I understand the right of privacy is an
issue here, and this house is bigger than the one he
submitted in 2011.
He also made reference to or acknowledged the
issue about bulk and mass. I gave you a lot of the quotes.
They’re all quotes. I didn’t make them up, I didn’t
paraphrase them; those are quotes that I put in my letters.
What is happening with this program here is this
house is bigger than all of the prior presentations, but
it’s more impressive or more… There are three or four fewer
victims, and we’re one of them. We’re right down below.
This is a huge, huge house. It’s bigger than anything
around. It’s bigger than ours, and I thought we had a big
house.
With respect to the reduction from two homes to
one, politely, that explanation is nonsense. You can, if
you would, address this as an issue of limited number of
victims, the same problem.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
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
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Mr. Tillman.
Questions for the speaker? Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Most of what you talked
about at the front end was about privacy, and you suggested
that privacy was subjective. Can you then help me
understand how you would define privacy so that I can
understand what the threshold is when someone is not being
respectful of the “right to privacy?” Does it have to know
what someone was intruding upon? You have to help me
understand how you would define privacy and at what moment
I would be intruding upon that, if you would.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Certainly, but if I said
subjective is the standard, it’s just the opposite. The
right of privacy is not subjective. You can talk about it
all day long, and then there are variations of it, but the
right of privacy is not a subjective issue. Subjective is
something like there’s music playing, somebody likes it,
some people don’t, and it’s the same music.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Let me re-ask my question.
I apologize for not asking my question clearly, apparently.
Can you help me understand your definition of privacy, so I
can understand the right is to what? So that I could then
have some understanding about whether what they’re
proposing is infringing upon that right of an undefined…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I’m just trying to understand what your definition of
privacy is.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Well, privacy is a broad term,
but it can be in any number of places. Specific to this, we
bought a home, we have a back yard, and it’s a three-story
home. There is somebody who wants to build something that
will take away our ability to enjoy our property; our back
yard completely gone. Now we’re going to have to do
something to make sure folks are not looking into our third
story bedroom windows. That’s an invasion of privacy. It’s
borderline peeping Tom, and it’s there, it’s set, you’re
cooperating on it, you’re allowing him to set up shop. He
can sit on his patio and look into our yard, and we’re not
going back there anymore.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: So then if there were
measures done on this property as potential modifications
to the present proposal, or a different proposal to build
something on there, that mitigated against that ability to
see into the bedrooms and to see into your back yard, and
you could conceive of something that could be built upon
that property that wouldn’t be intrusive and an invasion of
your right to privacy?
PATRICK TILLMAN: No. Can’t be done, and here’s
why. My apology. I don’t mean to be rude, but this house is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
59
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
shoved into a hill. Its whole design is to get a view west.
We’re west and downhill. The whole design is there. It has
five patios; two look west at us. Maybe you can tell them
to smoke out the windows or something like that, but those
windows can be changed. They can sit out on their patio;
they can sit on the roof; anywhere they want to be. The
whole house is designed to look in our direction. You can’t
look east, because that’s the hill. It’s designed for that,
and that’s the only reason they’re pushing this is because
it will have a view. The issue of its visibility was
resolved in 1997. I quoted one of the Town Council members,
who says—there’s a long quote that I supplied—“This is a
visible area,” and if you can look out, you can look in; it
works both ways. It is all designed to look towards us, and
to say that they are not going to look this way, or you can
do something, like they’re going to build a house where
they can’t look west? Then they’re living in a closet, and
that’s not going to happen.
And Mr. Ross is not going to live there. He’s a
spec homebuilder. I itemize that too. I think he owns, I
don't know the number, it’s over north of ten. But there is
a rule out there, it’s a tax issue, you stay in the house
for a year and a day, and now you can protect a half a
million dollars worth of equity.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
60
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 EREKSON: I think you’ve answered my
question. Thank you very much.
PATRICK TILLMAN: I have more.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Mr. Tillman.
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I understand the concern
that there is a hillside there now and there is a proposal
to put homes there, and that will dramatically change your
quality of life in your opinion.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I have to work within the
zoning codes and the guidelines that are provided to us,
and I also have to work within the facts that are
presented, and so with regard to privacy, one of the major
ways that that is implemented is through setbacks and
compliance with setbacks. With regard to the privacy issue,
do you believe that the proposal is in compliance with the
setback requirements?
PATRICK TILLMAN: Maybe. If you’re pacing it off,
yes, but I believe setback requirements are more set up for
flatlands so that you can have some privacy and then you
can install a fence. In this case, you can’t even grow
trees, so the setbacks don’t have much application here. I
made the comment that they’re taking out all the trees,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
61
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
they’re not going to be there, and there is nothing you can
do to interfere with the view between their place looking
down on us. Their basement is higher than our third floor
bedroom window. They look down at an angle, and there’s not
even enough room between the house and their property line
to grow a decent tree. You can’t use a setback to call… You
could enlarge it if you want to, it doesn’t make a nickel’s
worth of difference, they’re up there and they’re towering.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. That helps me
with that issue. I have another question on a different
topic.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Can I pursue that, or do you
want to move on?
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll ask for Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I just wanted to ask the
same question I asked of the other speakers. What kind of
house do you feel is buildable on this lot? If I listen to
your comments, I wasn’t hearing anything.
PATRICK TILLMAN: And you heard my comments
correctly, that there is nothing you can build. There’s
Land Use, there’s the General Plan, and the Hillside
Standards. There are issues that have to do with something
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
62
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
other than the mechanics of building something, and I don't
know if they can satisfy them, frankly, because they would
have to build something that’s a little box to try to
minimize the intrusion and what they’re looking at. That’s
why repeatedly they’ve come back with, and I think they did
it again, but we knocked off 150 feet. Who cares? You need
to get down to 500-800 feet. There are homes in that
neighborhood that are 800 feet, but he has consistently
refused to do that, and he has acknowledged throughout that
the size has to come down.
The words that we were looking for beforehand on
that issue were, “He was told to dramatically reduce it,”
and that was back in 2011, and there are other words on
here too, but I don’t want to over-answer your question.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes, I think so.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: You did.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Other questions for
the speaker? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I wanted to come back to a
comment you made earlier. You said that this proposal is
bigger than the one submitted in 2011.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Yes, by 1,000 feet.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I need to kind of deal with
facts here, and so would it be possible to put up A-1.4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that was submitted? Tell me, do you agree with this
representation that the bottom is the proposal from 2011,
and the top is the proposal from April 13, 2016, and the
middle is the proposal from today, May 25, 2016?
PATRICK TILLMAN: I can tell you that what they
had is…because I remember I made a mistake, I left out the
garage. Give me just a second here, if I may. Yeah, the
last proposal, which was February 13, 2013, I believe—it
doesn’t matter, they’re pretty close—one of the homes was
1,736 square feet, the other was 1,885 square feet. This
one is almost 3,200 square feet. So what’s that, 1,400
square feet bigger? Yes. Now, which of them? I don't know,
and quite frankly, I have trouble with their diagrams. I
don’t believe that some of these things are accurate, for
example, the garage.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Maybe I wasn’t clear, but
I’m referring to the bulk and mass issue…
PATRICK TILLMAN: Which we’d be staring at.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: …which is what you would be
looking at, and that’s why I asked the question last time
about the façade of the home that’s facing you, and I just
want to understand if you have a different point of view on
these diagrams. It looks to me like it’s consistent with
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
64
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
what the Applicant stated, that they’ve reduced by 50% the
face that’s facing your home.
PATRICK TILLMAN: I can’t agree with that. None
of them are a reduction of 50%. They’re very close…
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Well, the numbers they’ve
presented were that there were two homes in 2011. One was
1,614 and the other was 1,327, for a total of 2,941, almost
3,000 square feet, and that the proposals that we’ve been
looking at now are about half that size.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Well, yeah, when you have one
house as opposed to two?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Right.
PATRICK TILLMAN: I’m sorry, I’d like to answer
your question; I don’t know how. The house that they’re
proposing now is bigger than the other one, but all I had
were diagrams, so to me, looking at all four of those…
Well, actually the one there on the left looks a little bit
smaller, but the three on the right-hand column look very
much the same to me. As far as placement on the poles and
whatnot, this one is much bigger than the other one.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Mr. Tillman, I want to thank
you for your testimony and your letters; they have been
very helpful. Other questions for the speaker?
PATRICK TILLMAN: Sarcasm (inaudible)?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
65
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: No, none whatsoever, but I am
going to move on.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Okay.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, again.
PATRICK TILLMAN: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Doctor Timothy Coughlin
followed by Ann Marie White.
FEMALE: (Inaudible).
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
TIMOTHY COUGHLIN: Tim Coughlin, 320 Bella Vista
Avenue. We’re right across the street from the proposed
project. I just have a couple of quick points. I made my
points in my letters, and I just want to make this brief.
My main concerns are the loss of those beautiful
trees. I wish there were a way that we could mitigate that.
I know that this is a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and I
would proposed that one mitigation might be to underground
all those wires across the front of the property, because
with those trees gone, all we’re going to see is wires.
Now, you saw a nice image here of 52 Oak Hill,
which actually was kind of attractive, set down below grade
level and had a nice tile roof and so forth. But what you
didn’t see in that picture were power lines, and what we’re
going to see is power lines, the high voltage, the medium
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
66
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
voltage, the cable, the telephone; it will be right there,
because the trees will be gone. They’re a backdrop right
now; we don’t see the lines as much. So if there is no way
to avoid losing those trees, then at least let’s get some
kind of conditional situation where we require the
undergrounding of the utilities.
Secondly, with regard to the driveway, I think
15° is in the Town Code. I understand that’s legal and so
forth. What I think happens though, and this is true down
the street where driveways have been underutilized, is that
people end up parking on the street. This is a narrow
street, there’s not a lot of parking. When you drive down
there you’ll see cars parked where they can be right now,
and I think what’s going to happen is somebody will drive
onto that driveway or into the garage, and after a few
times, they’re not going to want to do it.
So those are my two points. I’d be glad to answer
any questions you may have.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Doctor. Questions
for the doctor? Seeing none, thank you very much for your
presentation and your letters. Jeff Saunders followed by
Sandy Decker.
JEFF SAUNDERS: Good evening. My name is Jeff
Saunders and I live in Los Gatos. I speak for a group of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
67
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
friends and neighbors who live on Loma Alta, Los Gatos
Boulevard, Johnson Avenue, Caldwell Avenue, Villa Avenue,
Farley Road, and Grove Street. For the sake of time, I will
speak on behalf of this group.
We have watched this process over many years. In
the time the Rosses have worked on this project we have
seen the new 30,000 square foot library built on Villa
Avenue, along with the Reservoir Road project, Shady Lane,
multiple homes on Bella Vista, and the nearby Bluebird Lane
project, completed.
With their new proposal, the Rosses have offered
to give up one of their legal buildable lots. This is a big
compromise. In addition to conforming to all the current
rules and fitting well into the neighborhood, their new
plan pushes the house further away from the neighbors,
preserves more of the existing mature trees, orients the
driveway to the best location, and adds new trees and
landscaping.
Some say this is a difficult site, and we
disagree. There are ten other homes on the downslope of
this street, and many other homes in Los Gatos that sit on
a slope. On behalf of our group of friends and fellow
citizens of this town, I ask that you approve this plan.
Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
68
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: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Thank you, Mr. Saunders. Sandy Decker followed by
Lee Quintana.
SANDY DECKER: Planning Commissioners, I’m Sandy
Decker on Glen Ridge.
There are so many surprising things to endure
along the way of getting old, but I never expected one of
them to be testifying against this project site for 14
years.
This project is a perfect example of why this
community writes, and hopefully upholds, protective land
use law. These are the reasons nothing has been built on
that lot. All can be found in our land use language
requirements.
It is a 50° slope. The extensive cut and fill
needed to engineer the non-supportive colluvium soil on the
site is a major reason why this Town discourages building
on such a precarious slope. The removal of the trees will
destabilize.
Cutting further into the site to create a… Are we
calling it a cellar? Are we calling it a story? I assume
it’s being called a cellar so that we can look at the
square footage as being reduced, and not a story, which
then creates a three-story structure on the site. But in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
69
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
this case, the use of both story and cellar violate our
zoning definitions. I personally worked very hard to make
these zoning distinctions clear and viable for hillside
sites.
The ingress and egress on Bella Vista is still a
very dangerous configuration.
This proposal, like all others for this site, is
not compliant with the General Plan or the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines.
So Planning Commission, it’s up to you to decide
whether this developer, who has been told repeatedly that
this site is not appropriate to sustain the impacts of his
proposal, can go ahead and over-engineer to build this
project, which will destroy a natural hillside, not to
mention what you will be imposing on the adjoining
neighbors whose quality of life will be changed forever.
The action you must take has been imposed on many
other projects in the hillsides with not nearly these
constraints. The final answer tonight should be denial.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Excuse, Ms. Decker, there may
be questions. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you very much for
your comments. I understood everything that you were saying
and it was said with a lot of passion, but I wonder, like I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
70
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
asked some of the other speakers, what type of house could
be built on this lot? Our Town zoning rules and whatnot say
that it is certainly possible to do that, and we’ve had
testimony from a geotechnical engineer that there certainly
is a way to engineer it to make it safe, so I’d like to
hear your perspective on this, since you’ve been following
it for so long, on what would be acceptable.
SANDY DECKER: I couldn’t thank you enough, Ms.
Hanssen, because there’s something I think you must
understand, as well as the rest of you probably do, because
I know you’re new to your seat.
You’re sitting with some scientific data; you’re
sitting with a whole bunch of facts. Those facts have been
given to you, they have been rechecked by our geotechnic
people, but your place here, if we only looked at
applications by just that set of information, you wouldn’t
be here. The reason you are here is because as a Planning
Commissioner you represent this community, and the
community you represent has gathered together for years;
many, many public hearing, many, many sitting down in
committees to put together our Hillside Standards, our
General Plan, so that this community is not inundated by
just scientific data.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
71
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
What’s happening tonight is that you are seeing
a piece of property that has an immeasurable number of
constraints on it. As we’ve been told several times you can
engineer anything. You’ve got enough money; you can
engineer anything. The point is you will be destroying
something that’s very important to this town, and that’s a
natural landscape and the privacy and quality of life of
people who live here, like you do.
So I really appreciate your question, and I hope
that answers it. And no, I can’t design for you, and I
wouldn’t. We don’t do that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I certainly appreciate
your comments. Thank you.
SANDY DECKER: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the
speaker? I have one. The Resolution 2002-167 that gave the
Town language on attics and cellars, you were on Council
and approved that; I assumed you worked on the resolution
that Mayor Randy Attaway signed and you all voted
unanimously. I’ve often looked at it and thought well,
here’s one page with six words, and I don’t know that it’s
working for us as well 14 years later. It simply says, “To
encourage basements and cellars to provide hidden square
footage in lieu of visible mass.”
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I think when we talk about Commission matters
later I’m going to bring up a need to review that and find
out what that means. But when you wrote it, in your
opinion—and I’m make my own decision—but in your opinion,
does this cellar conform with the spirit and the intent of
the Cellar Policy as we were thinking about it at that
time?
SANDY DECKER: Absolutely not.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right. Well, thank you very
much.
SANDY DECKER: You’re welcome.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Lee Quintana followed by
Shannon Susick.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue. It’s
very difficult to follow Sandy, but I agree wholeheartedly
with a lot of what she said. I’m not going to repeat what I
have written in my letters, but I do hope that you don’t
focus on the geotechnical.
Yes, this house can probably be built safely, but
so can another house, so can a smaller house. Geotech and
geological considerations aren’t what you should be
focusing on. It’s land use, and that land use includes the
General Plan, the Hillside Design Guidelines…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
73
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: Ms. Quintana, pardon me,
please. Do we need to adjust what you’re trying to provide
us with? And can we stop the clock?
LEE QUINTANA: What I’m trying to provide you
with is two things.
One is the fact that the Hillside Standards and
Guidelines in the definition do not refer to the Zoning
Code definition of cellar. It has its own definition, which
goes beyond that, which states that if the lower floor is
higher than 4’ at any point along the periphery, it’s not a
cellar, and therefore the square footage is included in the
site.
But even that doesn’t make any difference. As I
said in my letter, whether you consider it a cellar or
whether you consider as countable square footage, it
doesn’t matter. You’re going around in a circle, because it
all boils down to is it consistent with the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines, and is it consistent
with the General Plan?
My time is running out, as usual, so I am going
to go on to a couple of other things.
It was mentioned that the retaining wall was for
the patio on the south side of the house. One of the
problems with this plan as it currently exists is it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
74
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
doesn’t restore the property to its existing contours to
the greatest extent possible, and the patios on the side is
one of the reasons. If that wall is necessary for something
else, I assume that it can still be backfilled to natural
contour and limit the number of patios.
Also, the proposed redesign doesn’t step the
house back on the second story, it doesn’t step with the
topography of the hill. It does follow the contours, but
following the contours makes it a very long house.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you, Ms. Quintana. Can
you give us a summary?
Unfortunately, this is legal lot and the Town
apparently does have to approve some project. I don’t think
that the changes that have been made so far are sufficient
to conform to the Town’s responsibility to reinforce…
VICE CHAIR KANE: I think that’s a good summary.
I agree. Questions for the speaker? I have one. I’ll admit,
I don't know where that provision is on cellars. Can you
tell me where I find that in the guidelines?
LEE QUINTANA: Which provision on cellars?
VICE CHAIR KANE: You said the Cellar Policy
doesn’t apply to the hillside.
LEE QUINTANA: That’s what I have up there. If
you have a copy of your Hillside Design Guidelines, go to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
75
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 Definitions page and read the definition under Cellar.
That’s what it says. Interesting, Fannie Mae also has a
different type of definition of cellar.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I want to read you what it says
on cellar definition. In the Glossary or in Definitions?
LEE QUINTANA: It’s either the Glossary or
Definitions.
VICE CHAIR KANE: The Glossary says, “Use
definition in Cellar Policy.”
LEE QUINTANA: No, it says, “Use definition in
Cellar Policy Resolution Number…”
VICE CHAIR KANE: That’s that one I read, 2002-
167.
LEE QUINTANA: There’s more to it than what you
read.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I shall look.
LEE QUINTANA: There’s a lot more to it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes, did you
have a question?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yeah, I wanted to ask you
what is the point about the Fannie Mae, the way they look
at cellars, and how does that relate to this project?
LEE QUINTANA: It’s become almost standard to do
“cellars” on hillside properties, but those cellars are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
76
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
very different than what we normally think of cellar on a
flatland, and the Fannie Mae definition says essentially
that most of the time you would discount a cellar or a
basement, but if—and I think it specifically calls out
hillsides—it’s on a hillside, or if the material and finish
of the cellar is substantially the same as the rest of the
house, there’s no distinction between them.
This is a house that has a cellar. All of the
bedrooms are in the cellar. This is a house that you can
see out the back on every single room. You can walk out the
back on several of the rooms. The exit wells and egress
wells are actually not wells; they’re level with the
ground. The whole back of that house is not a cellar.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And something I want to
follow up with Staff on. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much.
LEE QUINTANA: And I think it’s important that
you read the rest of that definition from the resolution.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I shall. I’m on it. Shannon
Susick followed by Forrest Straight.
SHANNON SUSICK: Hi, good evening. Shannon
Susick, Shady View Lane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I spoke before regarding this project and I would
recommend again that it be denied in its current
application.
I think the prior application with two homes
should not really be too much of a consideration. This is a
singular application with a different proposal.
Lee mentioned that the bedrooms are all in the
cellar.
What I wanted to speak about is—I should have
done this during the public comments—I have some
suggestions and recommendations.
I think that in general if you look at the
turnout and the constant however many years this project
has been looked at, someone is not listening to their
neighbors, someone is not listening about the trees, the
road, the impact, and that appears to be the Applicant,
regardless of his idea that his piece of property that
slopes should be developed.
But what I would like to propose is that the Town
and Planning Commission officially review the use and
definitions of cellars, basements, FAR, floor, and stories,
and consider modification of these terms. There are some
towns, such as Los Altos Hills, that they do not use the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
78
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
term cellar any longer, because they had a number of issues
with basements being built out.
I also think that in this case the FAR
calculation is incorrect, like Lee said. That basement
area, you’re not going to market a home with zero bedrooms.
So you’re going to say that that house has zero bedrooms?
Or you’re going to apply for a loan and have an appraiser,
like me, come out there and say, “It’s zero bedrooms? It’s
not going to qualify.” Because they’re all in the cellar
that’s not part of the living area.
In any case, there’s a misuse of these areas, not
just this application but on many other ones at the DRC and
that the Town has seen, and I think that a complete review
of these terms needs to be done.
Another thing I would like to suggest is that all
new construction, basement, cellar, and demolition permits
be heard by the Planning Commission instead of going to the
DRC.
Another idea that I have—it’s not my own, but I
think it was Jak’s—is that I think the Town should create
some kind of preservation fund and use fees from builders
and developers and maybe a parcel tax, and have this fund
be nonprofit, so that people that have pieces of land that
are nothing but issues could donate it, or the Town could
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
79
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
buy back these properties, so that you don’t have people
spending thousands and thousands of dollars on engineering
studies and plans that just repeatedly get denied.
That’s my ideas. Thanks.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. You might
want to put that in writing, because I didn’t take all the
notes.
SHANNON SUSICK: You know what? I apologize
because I was late, so I’m going to email it to you guys.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s okay. It’s a good idea.
Send it to us.
SHANNON SUSICK: Okay, thanks.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Mr. Straight, I lied to you.
You’re not next, sir. I’ve been requested that we’re going
to take a ten-minute break. Thank you.
(INTERMISSION)
VICE CHAIR KANE: If we would take our seats,
please. Mr. Straight, sorry for the delay. Forrest Straight
followed by Vitaliy Stulsky.
FORREST STRAIGHT: I’m an Almond Grove homeowner,
but I choose to live at 146 Maggi Court.
On bulk and mass from the previous application
that we had several years ago, from my perspective what I’m
looking at right from below the site is a three-story
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
80
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
building, and as far as bulk and mass what I’m looking at
is 100% bigger, not footprint, but something with decks, a
4,000 foot house where it was under 2,000 before. In
addition to that, it’s 10’ closer than the last one, and
it’s somewhere between 40’ and 50’ from my house, and 60’
above my house. As far as scale and mass and all that
stuff, all these numbers and stuff are meaningless, but
what I see is this huge structure six stories about my
house.
To achieve this, what he has to do is essentially
clear cut all the heritage oak trees, which are in
excellent health, off the property. I’ve given you a letter
from a tree fella.
The other thing I was going to talk about was the
cellar. This is not a cellar. There’s a definition for
cellar that you have; the definition has to change. A
cellar doesn’t have three sides exposed to daylight.
The rest I’m not going to really talk about,
because I think what happened is the lawyer downplayed my
abilities and some of the things that I wrote to the Town,
whether it be on trees or geotech or civil. I have a degree
in civil engineering; I worked for a soil engineer for two
years, (inaudible) in Palo Alto; graduate degree in civil
engineering from Stanford; and I was part owner in a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
81
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
construction company that build perhaps 50% of every high-
rise building from San Jose to San Francisco, so I think I
know what I’m talking about.
Some of the statements I made about geotech or
civil, one of the things is just common sense. Just looking
at the drawing behind you, the new civil came out with
something that said the slope was 50%. Well, if you read my
letter you know you have percent grade and you have
degrees, but let’s just talk about degrees. If it’s 50%,
what you’re talking about is 22°. If you look at the
building behind you, if that’s 26°, that’s more like 45°,
so common sense tells me it’s not 50%. Along that hillside
you have many different percentages, it goes up and down,
but from the top of the slope to my house is more like a
35-37° slope; in degrees, not percent grade.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Let me see if there
are questions for the speaker. I have one question. You
write those letters with the very large print?
FORREST STRAIGHT: Perhaps.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Bless you. Vitaliy Stulsky
followed by Eric Morley.
VITALIY STULSKY: Commissioners, my name is
Vitaliy Stulsky; I live with my family, my wife and two
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
82
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
kids, at (inaudible) Maggi Court, below the proposed
construction project.
I wrote numerous letters expressing my concerns
and disagreement with the project. I don’t want to spend a
lot of time and repeat all the great points that other
people have made before me.
I’ll just reiterate that our concerns are with
the bulk and mass of the construction, and the cellar that
is, so to speak, creatively counted or not counted as FAR,
making the whole proposed project too huge, and when you
look at this project from down below it becomes apparent
that it’s going to be huge.
We are concerned about the environmental impact,
cutting down the trees and making the slope less green and
removing the trees that grew there for many years; they are
much older than I am, and probably lots of people in this
room.
And we have the concerns about safety, with two
kids; they are 13 years old and 6 years old. They’re going
to go to school, they’re going to go up and drive their
bikes up the road, Bella Vista, and so we’re concerned
about their safety. Traffic there is huge, and cars backing
up from the hidden driveways, not necessarily just this
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
83
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, but other houses like that, create not that safe an
environment.
Finally, I just want to mention to the Commission
that the whole process has been extremely painful and
taxing for the community and for the Applicant. We went
through many years discussing this project and working on
different kinds of ideas and solutions, but it is, it
seems, just the wrong site to be built on, in my opinion.
I’m not a civil engineer, I don't know how to build houses,
I just know how to (inaudible) the requirements, and all
the proposals that I’ve seen so far, they just don’t meet
the requirements. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Thank you very much.
VITALIY STULSKY: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Eric Morley followed by Eleanor
Leishman.
ERIC MORLEY: Eric Morley, 16322 Lilac Lane, Los
Gatos resident. I have no economic interest in this
project; I am a neighbor across the street with my business
at 405 Alberto Way, and I actually look at this lot every
day from my office, in front of my office, and I’ve been
following this for the last five years.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I just wanted to clarify; there were a couple of
questions from some new Commissioners about the two-lot
plan versus the one lot plan. I was at the Planning
Commission meeting when it was denied five years ago. I was
at the Council meeting. That is relevant, the two-lot plan.
The Council and Commission gave very explicit direction,
which was merge the lots, build one home, and have
significantly less square footage—and I think Commissioner
O'Donnell was here for that as well—so that the relevance
of what we’re looking at this evening and what Mr. and Mrs.
Ross are proposing, that’s exactly what the Council and the
Commission directed him to do.
I would also say that this site and the proposal
that’s before you, I think it’s been said over and over
again, it complies with the Town’s regulations. I think the
Staff has reiterated that over and over again. I feel like,
as I’ve watched this process, that the goalpost continues
to move, or there is no goalpost for the Rosses. But I
think more importantly, as I listen to this tonight, it
feels like this process has become a game of keep-away for
the Rosses, not having the ability to have dialogue despite
extensive proactive efforts and good faith efforts for the
Rosses to not only reach out, but to be responsive, and in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
85
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 absence of any dialogue despite their best efforts,
continuing to refine the plan.
I would encourage the Commission to either
approve the plan that’s on file, or the modifications,
which I think are well articulated. I think the Town
Attorney has indicated that if the Town were to deny
development on this site, he said clearly at the last
meeting, that the Town would need to compensate for that.
I think the Rosses have designed an appropriate,
livable home and I would encourage you to approve that.
Thank you. Happy to answer any questions that you might
have.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Any questions for the speaker?
Thank you, sir. Eleanor Leishman followed by Debra Chin.
ELEANOR LEISHMAN: Good evening, Commissioners.
I’m Eleanor Leishman; I live on Bella Vista Avenue a little
bit north of the property and on the east side of Bella
Vista.
I know you’ve seen my letters, so you know my
issues have been kind of Bella Vista-centric. Traffic. I
was concerned and continue to be concerned about the
driveway, but I think tonight so many things have been
addressed so well by others.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I do feel I need to say something, again like
everybody else, about the bulk and mass. Given the
constraints of this property and how close it is to those
townhomes, that is really the issue, I think. My husband
and I walk down the street every day and we look down the
hill and try to imagine what it’s going to be like for
those people to look up at this building. The footprint is
large with all the decks and patios. They’re using outdoor
stairwells to kind of maximize their space and keep the FAR
down. It spreads out, and whether they’ve taken a deck away
or not I think is of little matter. This thing is going to
loom over them.
We took a little drive down on the other side of
Bella Vista. There are very few houses over there, by the
way, but we went down to Los Gatos Lodge parking lot and we
looked up at 225 Bella Vista, which is a little house right
south of the bridge. It looks like a little house from the
street, but when you look at it from the parking lot the
back side of it is quite massive, although from the parking
lot up to the house there’s so much more space that it
really wouldn’t be a problem if somebody did want to build
out down at the lodge right to the edge of that hillside.
It’s just that the hillside is deeper; there’s a lot more
space there. And all along that south side of Bella Vista,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
87
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
if you look from down the hill, my husband went over to the
softball field and looked up at those houses and you can
hardly see them.
So this house is not like that, and I think it’s
going to set a dangerous precedent if you allow it to go
ahead with the proximity to those townhomes.
Just to get into the loss of the trees, I think
that’s, yes, three protected trees, but how many more
trees? The arborist report, if you read it, says there’s
not guarantee how many of those trees are going to survive
the other trees.
I think given the serious excavation, the
destruction of that hillside, the trees, and the habitat, I
think are legitimate cause to not approve the Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
I also just simply want to ask, who is the
architect of record on this? I don’t see a name anywhere. I
don’t see architect’s drawings. These are all kind of like
some super duper design presentation drawings, so I would
just want to know that for my own personal interest.
Thank you very much. I do hope you will deny this
application.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
88
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: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Seeing none, thank you very much. Debra Chin
followed by Reverend Rebecca Wilson.
DEBRA CHIN: Good evening, Commissioners. My name
is Debra Chin; I live at 154 Maggi Court.
There has been a lot of discussion, and I also
submitted several letters, so I don’t want to elaborate on
those, but just to ask, as Dan Ross did in his letter of
May 17th, that the Town should review the facts and remove
the emotion. I couldn’t agree more with that.
I believe that a thorough review of the facts
should lead the Commissioners to deny the project, as it
was denied in 2011, for many of the same reasons. It’s not
moving goalposts. The Hillside Standards and Guidelines are
consistent and should be applied consistently.
I also want to make a remark to 2011. I was here.
I was here for the Planning Commission and the Town Council
meetings, and the Planning Commission did not specify that
the lots should be merged and one house should be built
instead of two. I know there were several comments about
that, and I believe you can go to the record and check it
yourselves. I believe it was Commissioner Kane who said
that mentally it doesn’t make sense to compare the two
houses to one. Naturally there would be a 50% decrement
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
89
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
because you’re comparing two entities versus one entity,
but the impact is actually greater to several of the
townhome residents because it is one larger structure, and
that should be the point of comparison. In terms of
numbers, the single home with 2,638 square feet is an
increase of 14%, and 20% respectively, versus each of the
two prior planned homes.
At one of the last meetings it was Jake Peters
who made a statement that if the community did not like two
homes on two lots, they were certainly not going to like
one larger home being built, so we are not surprised to see
this come before us, and it was made as almost a threat to
the community.
Lastly, I believe there are over 900 responses
between the individual letters and a petition that’s been
signed. These are all neighbors that are approximate to the
property, and these are very intelligent community members,
as is Mr. Ross. There are doctors, lawyers, engineers, and
professionals. We cannot be accused of groupthink, because
we’re simply too independent and strong willed as a
community, so I hope you would respect that.
Lastly, in terms of the conversation, a
discussion is a dialogue to discuss and resolve a problem,
and that’s not what we have here. There’s no acknowledgment
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
90
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
of our concerns. Commissioner Hanssen asked me if I would
be willing to meet with the Applicant. I was willing, but I
did not see any reason, because there was no proposal
planned that addressed my concerns. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Seeing none, thank you. Reverend Rebecca Wilson
followed by Melanie Kemp.
REV. REBECCA WILSON: Good evening,
Commissioners. I’m Reverend Rebecca Wilson; I live at 312
Bella Vista Avenue. Mr. Kane, let me apologize for my
earlier action. I’m sorry.
Our concerns are many here and I don’t want to
repeat things, so I’m going to talk about the things that I
worry about each day with this proposal.
The neighbors and we are concerned about the
historical, scenic beauty, and the flora and fauna that
enhance the character of the Town of Los Gatos. Bella Vista
Avenue is one of the main routes for our Town marathons,
joggers, walkers, bicyclists, et cetera. Bella Vista is
enjoyed by a myriad of people who come from near and far to
appreciate the natural beauty, the distinct quality, and
historical character of Los Gatos.
Bella Vista is also the main thoroughfare for the
students driving and walking to and from the adjacent
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
91
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
schools. It is already very busy with auto and foot
traffic. We can’t ignore the danger this construction and
additional parked cars on the blind curve brings to this
already highly traveled and congested area. Each day as I
cautiously back out of my driveway I worry about the blind
curves with joggers, walkers, bicyclists, and students
walking and driving to and from school, and the possible
danger it presents.
Is the Town of Los Gatos going to be responsible
for the additional danger it poses to pedestrians and autos
on these blind curves? There are two about approximately
three houses when you’re facing south. If you’re standing
in the middle of the street, which I walk three miles on
that route every day, you can’t even begin to see where the
driveway is going to be upon the construction of this
project.
So my question, again, is the Town of Los Gatos
going to be responsible for the additional danger it poses
to pedestrians and autos on these blind curves? If they
allow these deviations to the hillside rules and the Town
standards and ordinances, will the Town of Los Gatos be
responsible for the accidents resulting in injuries or
possible deaths, heaven forbid? This project brings with it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
92
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
additional danger to pedestrians and autos on these blind
curves for the residents who witness it every day.
This project has a huge negative impact, not only
for the nearby residents affected by the infringement of
their view and privacy, but by the appearance of this
massive house affecting the entire community who has chosen
to live here in Los Gatos, which is known for its small
town charm and picturesque mountainsides.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Questions
for the speaker? Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you, and I appreciate
you bringing up an issue that we haven’t heard a lot of
detail about. With regard to the safety issue on the
street, are you referring to the issue of the location of
the driveway, or are you referring to the parking that will
occur during construction, or are you referring to parking
that will occur after the construction?
REV. REBECCA WILSON: All of the above. It’s a
very narrow part of the street. My house is at the bridge.
When you cross over for St. Charles I’m the first house on
the right after the bridge, so when I back out of my
driveway I have sort of a clear view for about two houses
down, but then it curves, so I’ve got a blind curve when
I’m backing out and I’ve got to be very careful. And I see
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
93
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
walkers, bicyclists, and the high school students speeding
through there every morning and every afternoon.
My concern is with all the added distractions, in
addition to the driveway with the steep slope and then
coming up, it’s going to be very difficult to see with that
little curve that comes around before the driveway going
this way, because that’s where the traffic comes and goes,
right in front of that area. So that’s my concern with it:
safety.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Thank you,
Reverend. If there are other speaker cards that need to
come in, this would be a good time to do it. Melanie Kemp
followed by Ken Lown.
MELANIE KEMP: Good evening, I’m Melanie Kemp. I
live at 174 Cuesta De Los Gatos Way. I’m part of the Bella
Vista townhome project that’s at the foot of this
development. I came here tonight to talk to you about the
quality of life in this neighborhood here, but there are
other concerns that I’ve had here, just listening to what’s
going on.
One of the biggest concerns that I had that I can
speak to, I can attest to, is the privacy issue, the lack
of privacy that this development would impose on the Maggi
Court owners. I speak to you from experience. I’ve been a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
94
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
real estate agent for 40 years; every year, full time, for
40 years. I’ve sold 150 Maggi Court, and I’ve sold another
house on Maggi Court before.
I can tell you that I’ve stood on that balcony of
150 Maggi Court, the balcony right outside their master
bedroom. I have also gone up to the top of this hill on
Bella Vista and have walked down to where this house is
going to be built, and I can tell you that you can look
directly onto that master bedroom deck, and directly
through that sliding glass door to the bed at 148 Maggi
Court, the Williamson’s house. I mean I just can’t even
imagine having to have my drapes pulled in my bedroom
during the day and during the night, lest someone be able
to look into my master bedroom. And the house next door,
150 Maggi Court, been in that house many, many times too.
If you’re standing at that kitchen sink on a Saturday
morning having a glass of juice in your nighty, you’re
going to look directly up at the master bedroom of the new
house being built. I just can’t imagine the loss of privacy
these people are going to have.
From a sales standpoint, as a realtor, it would
be very difficult to get buyers on that master bedroom
balcony looking up at a house that’s 30’ away; it would be
very, very difficult, and no way really to screen it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
95
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 a developer in Cupertino and Saratoga I’ve
built several homes, and I can tell you that I’ve been
before planning commissions many, many times. The last time
I had to go before the Saratoga Planning Commission five
times for them to approve the right shade of gray for the
house I was building at the top of Parker Ranch. They
certainly used their good judgment, their discretion, and
certainly their wisdom to decide where and how the rules
should be applied.
So I’m asking you to use more than the
intelligence of looking at the engineering reports here,
but I ask you also, in your wisdom, to make a decision
that’s right for this entire neighborhood and not allow a
developer, profit making, to supersede the privacy issue of
these private residents. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions? In the
form of a question, privacy is an issue, and the proximity
is real, but do you know that something is likely to go
there?
MELANIE KEMP: If this house is built, I assume
something is going to go there.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s a buildable lot, so your
argument is going to extend to anything we put up there,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
96
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
unless we put conditions on windows and heights, which we
could do on this structure as well.
MELANIE KEMP: I understand. You know, this house
poses a problem, I believe, from two standpoints. You’ve
got for some reason a house that’s not considered a three-
story house, because the lower level is considered by
definition a cellar, but from a practical standpoint, I
will tell you, from a real estate standpoint, from 40
years, if I am on the bottom side of that, if that has
three levels, it’s a three-story house from a functional
standpoint.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Ken Lown
followed by Mary Ann Lown.
KEN LOWN: Ken Lown, 156 Maggi Court. There are
just a couple of things I want to say tonight, because most
all of the speakers here have been much more eloquent than
I am.
The Hillside Standards. The project, if you take
it at face value, maybe it complies with all the Hillside
Standards, and there’s an awful lot of debate about that. I
personally think there are areas that perhaps it doesn’t,
but it’s right at the limit. I believe the Hillside
Standards have verbiage in there that talks about you may
not be allowed to build to the maximum FAR, which I think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
97
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
suggests that the Planning Commission, the Town, has some
discretion over the regulations. I don't know what that
discretion is based on, but I would assume it would be
based on a lot of the factors that have been talked about
here tonight and have been talked about in many of the
letters.
The other comment I want to make is in mass and
scale. The words that have been used are “significant
reduction.” Well, I always think about compared to what?
It’s been compared to the other two homes, but if you look
at it from the perspective of the people living at that
corner location at Maggi Court, it hasn’t reduced in mass
and scale from that perspective. From that relative
perspective it has increased. We had people talk tonight.
It’s about 1,500 square feet of wall; some of it is
recessed, some of it is patio, but it’s 1,500 square feet,
so it’s huge relative to that site and I think relative to
the proximity of the Maggi Court homes.
There’s just one other thing I want to talk
about. I’ve lived in a lot of places over my life. I grew
up in New York City, and granted it was Queens; it was in
the suburbs. I’ve lived in Boston. I’ve lived other places
in California. I have never lived in or seen a home where
there is direct line of sight between two homes into
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
98
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
somebody’s bedroom. That’s really all I have to say
tonight.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Well, Queens may be Queens, but you should try
Brooklyn, because we’re looking at everything all the time.
KEN LOWN: Well, that’s where my mom grew up was
in Brooklyn.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Bless your mom. Mary Ann, and
Laura Williamson. You’re coming together. Okay.
LAURA WILLIAMSON: Good evening, my name is Laura
Williamson. I live at 148 Maggi Court with my husband and
two small children. We have a petition here today. If it’s
okay, could I come forward and give you copies?
MARY ANN LOWN: Hi, I’m Mary Ann Lown; I’m at 156
Maggi Court. I’d like to read what’s on the petition. We
circulated it, Laura and I, and I want to make note that we
only went to homes in our own complex or on Bella Vista,
and we collected 62 signatures, and every single person we
talked to signed willingly and quickly. They did not
question it. They were quite surprised when we talked to
them. They said comments like, “I can’t believe somebody
could build there.” “I thought it was denied before. Why
will it be granted again?” “I never thought it would be an
issue,” and they quickly signed, so please do look at the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
99
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
addresses and see that these are all local, all around our
area.
It simply says, “We, the undersigned, the
neighbors of the proposed 341 Bella Vista Avenue project,
have significant concerns about this project, including
bulk and mass, privacy intrusion to the downhill neighbors,
removal of protected trees, road safety during and post
development, road closure, and traffic management during
development. The application should be denied. Thank you
for protecting our neighborhood.”
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speakers? Thank you very much.
MARY ANN LOWN: May I ask you one more thing?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes, ma’am.
MARY ANN LOWN: I did not get a letter from Dan
Ross, but I did agree to speak to him when I was up here
last time, and I changed my mind when I heard his attorney
say that they were not there to protect the neighborhood,
and I felt very disingenuoused by that. We did speak with
him in the hallway a little bit, and I did meet with him in
person another time back, but I could see we’re way far
apart in our opinions and I didn’t see us coming together.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
100
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
LAURA WILLIAMSON: Just to reiterate, they’re all
62 signatures, which is basically all of Maggi Court,
Cuesta De Los Gatos, and the majority of the area affected
on Bella Vista. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I have one more speaker card
from the public. Janet Carmona.
JANET CARMONA: Hi, I’m Janet Carmona, 160 Maggi
Court.
I just wanted to bring up the fact that the
proposed home does not fit with the neighborhood. It is
modern in form, and it does not look like anything else on
Bella Vista, or on Maggi Court, or on Cuesta, or anywhere
nearby. Like I mentioned in the past, it looks like
shipping containers stacked on top of one another.
I do have a question. Why do we find ourselves
here again? The reason is that we are dealing with a
developer that refuses to accept no. I get it. Being in the
red may force them to seek a bailout. We’ve seen it. I
appreciate his right to build, but that does not mean
authority to build. This is a risk you assume and
understand as a land developer. I appreciate his
persistence, but what I do not appreciate is the attempt
for a bailout by the Town of Los Gatos and existing Maggi
Court and Bella Vista residents. The Town nor its residents
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
101
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
are in the business of bailing out developers that make
unwise, risky decisions. The decision should be clear. A no
vote is a right vote. Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your
comments now and at the previous hearing. I just had a
question for you. Getting back to the lack of dialogue
between the neighbors and the Applicant, could I ask, was
this your writing that you…
JANET CARMONA: That is my name. My concern, as
it has been brought up, was the attorney’s dialogue when he
was up here saying that we shouldn’t be protected, that our
voice really doesn’t matter. I find it difficult to have a
genuine dialogue with anybody who is coming up here and
making such comments.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Seeing no
other speakers, I’m going to invite the Applicant’s
representative up. Counsel, you’ll have five minutes. Mr.
Hechtman, right?
BART HECHTMAN: Yes, thank you. Vice Chair Kane
and Members of the Commission, Bart Hechtman, again. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
102
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
wanted to address a number of the points that have come up,
and I’ll try to move through them quickly.
The first point is I just wanted to show again
these pictures of 52 Oak Hill. There was some confusion
about whether it’s on a slope or not. It is on a steep
slope. That’s the same house from downhill, and that’s from
the top, so it’s going down that hill.
Also, the Glen Ridge house, which is under
construction, again, is on a downslope. This house, as I
pointed out, is being built right next to the Ross’s
current house and it will have views into the three
bathroom windows at the Ross’s house, and the living room.
It’s a fact of urban living that you’re going to have some
impacts to visibility.
I point out that—and I’ll get to it later—we have
a landscaping plan that proposes a lot of trees, and again,
I think that some of the fear here is this fear that the
house denuded of all trees is going to loom, when really
the landscaping will play a large role, as it does
throughout the neighborhood.
I wanted to point out that there has been a lot
of talk about the slope of the driveway, the 15%, and I
just want to make sure you all recognize that there’s a
relationship between the height of the house and the slope
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
103
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
of the driveway. Though the house could be lifted up to
make a flatter driveway, when you do that you increase the
elevation in relation to the townhomes below it. Mr. Ross
was encouraged to push the house down, and he has done that
as much as he could, and really the limiting factor was
that 15% driveway slope.
The patio, I just want to clarify that that patio
on the south end is there as the platform for emergency
access. That’s necessary; you need to have escape routes
from this house, as are the exterior stairwells. The house
has interior stairwells; they will move about during the
day inside, I want to clarify that.
But having that small patio there, the other
thing it does is it minimizes the need… Because all these
houses need some open space for use of the people that live
there, having the patio there on the south side where it’s
fairly secluded keeps it from being on the north side,
where it would be closer to the townhomes.
There’s a reference to the Fannie Mae definition
of cellars. I just wanted to be clear, as far as I
understand, the Town has not adopted that; it has it’s own
definition of cellars, and it’s been applied here.
I’m going to let your Staff address cellars, but
I did want to point out that part of the issue here,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
104
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
because of the slope, and I’m sorry this will sound
foolish, but the house has to hit the ground at the bottom.
Town codes don’t allow you to use stilts, as I understand
it, and so you’ve got to fill that space, and I think
that’s part of the co-dynamic that was thought through over
a lot of time before they came up with these definitions.
I wanted to point out that the driveway proposed
on Bella Vista is the longest driveway on that side. I
mentioned before, that the mouth has been widened, and so
we are maximizing the safety. Obviously, the Rosses are
going to live there and they’re concerned about safety. I
wanted to remind you again that there is a Condition of
Approval that requires the site distance; I want to say
it’s Condition 66.
There was a comment mentioned a couple of times
in the letters and again here that I had made a statement
that we’re not here to protect the neighborhood. You can
look at the tape. What happened was one of the speakers
last time said, “Planning Commission, you are here to
protect the neighborhood, not the Applicant.” My response
was, “That’s not quite right. You’re here to apply the code
and to balance the rights of the neighborhood and the right
of the property owner,” and I don’t want that misread as a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
105
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
reason why people didn’t come to see Dan Ross, because
that’s not what I said.
With that, we’re available to answer any
questions now, or even if you close deliberations and find
you have need, we’re here, and so I request your support.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Do we have questions
for the speaker or any of the team members? Commissioner
Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m trying to understand the
driveway situation. You said that the driveway has been
widened. Has it been widened since the April meeting, and
if so, have we been provided with a drawing that shows the
current configuration of the driveway?
BART HECHTMAN: I’m pulling in the wrong
direction trying to get to the two diagrams that we have
that show.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Could you clarify which
drawing shows that you’ve widened the driveway?
DAN ROSS: You can see the bottom part of this
image?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Is that a new drawing, or is
that the drawing that was submitted in April?
JOEL PAULSON: If we can get Mr. Ross to pick up
the microphone when you’re speaking.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
106
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
DAN ROSS: I believe this image here is the new
drawing, and it’s a slight variation, but the point is that
we can open up the mouth of the driveway to make it
possible to back out into the southbound lane more easily.
I also want to point out that this driveway is
46’ long. The bulk of the driveways on that street are
anywhere from 12’ to 18’ to 24’; it’s almost double the
length of most of the driveways on the street.
We’re also preserving the two parking spaces
adjacent to our lot. I don’t want to go too off topic here,
but the yellow image above is the old footprint of the old
home that actually shows the house closer to the neighbor.
The new plan is the gray area. It shows the house farther
from the neighbors.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: When you say old and new,
are you talking about April and May, or are you talking
about 2011?
DAN ROSS: The images above are 2011, the two
houses.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: What I’m trying to
understand, we were presented with material for the April
hearing that included a diagram of the driveway, and in the
letter…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
107
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
DAN ROSS: Yeah, I’m sorry, I went a little off
topic there, but you’re speaking of two images here; I
didn’t want to confuse people. But you’ll just see on the
north part of that driveway.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Which drawing, A-1.3?
DAN ROSS: Right here. This used to be
straighter, so what the architect did was he’s curved this
to allow cars to back out more easily this way and then
head southbound. Before it was this way, so it was a little
awkward to get the tail of the car out, then get it out
into the lane. This way it’s going to be easier to keep it
closer to the southbound lane and then go southbound. If
you could picture it before, it was a straighter image.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: This is what I’m having
trouble with is that I don’t believe we had that drawing in
the package in April, and we certainly don’t have it now.
DAN ROSS: Okay, so this is new. We’re trying to
introduce improvements. You see on your regular plan set on
1.2 or 1.3?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: If you could provide us with
a copy of this, because I will have some questions of Staff
about the driveway and parking. If this is what you intend
to submit, it would be helpful to have a copy of it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
108
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: Commissioner Hudes, are you
happy for the moment? Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a follow up question
about the driveway. We live up in the hillsides, and we
actually have a house across the street from us that’s down
and they have a driveway that slopes down, but they have a
place outside their garage where they can turn around so
they don’t have to back out. Is that an option here? That
would mitigate a lot of the safety concerns if you didn’t
have to back out.
DAN ROSS: I know of a home on Alpine that did
that. It’s not out of the question.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you.
BART HECTMAN: I’ll just augment that. The civil
engineer, Terry Szewczyk, is here. He’s familiar with the
site conditions, and he says it’s something that could be
accomplished.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions? Commissioner
Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Whoever of the team can
best answer this question, you can choose. Can you help me
understand how the landscape plan that you’re proposing,
just walk me through, will address the privacy issues for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
109
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 neighbors down below? If someone can do that, that
would be, I think, very helpful.
DAN ROSS: Can you reference the landscape plan
in your plan set there?
BART HECTMAN: There should be a landscape plan
in the plan set. You want me to walk you through it?
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Yeah, just walk us
through. Walk me through how the landscape plan, because
that’s part of…
DAN ROSS: In our Letter of Justification, we
have stated that we want to work with the Town and the
neighbors to arrive at a tree and plant plan. In the past
we’ve heard conflicting information where our houses are
too tall and they’re going to create too much shade, or
anything we plant might create too much shade, so in our
Letter of Justification we stated we want to work with the
Town and work with the neighbors to plant appropriate
shrubs and trees that would get at a height that would
screen, but not get so tall it would create more shade for
the neighbors.
David Fox is the Town Landscape Architect, and he
prepared our plan. He’s very familiar with approved plants
and trees, sun patterns, and what would do well in that
zone. Does that help?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
110
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
What I’m trying to say is we want to help with
everyone to plant something that’s going to provide
screening, but not be too tall, or if neighbors elect that
they want something that’s going to be taller, we’re open
to that. We’re flexible in what the planting choices would
be.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I appreciate that answer,
but you don’t have a specific plan now that you can
describe to us about…
DAN ROSS: The plan is in your plan set. Or, go
ahead; I’m sorry.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: …that would help us
understand. I’m just giving you the opportunity—if you
don’t want to take the opportunity, that’s up to you—to
walk us through how the landscape plan helps address the
privacy issue that has been mentioned by several of the
neighbors.
DAN ROSS: Let me grab the sheet and we’ll go
through the planting schedule.
On the plant schedule, he has itemized trees and
shrubs that are Town approved that he feels are appropriate
for that border. You can see the quantity there from the
whole length of the parcel. I can add them up. It’s 8
Western Redbuds, 19 Toyons, and 26 California
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
111
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
Coffeeberries. That’s what’s been done to date from David
Fox, who does all of his work in Los Gatos. He’s open, and
we’re open, to any amendments.
BART HECHTMAN: Let me just try to answer it a
little more directly. You can see that the homes on Maggi
Court are shown here. These larger circles are the trees,
the 8 Redbuds that were referred to, and then in its
typical landscape design, to fill in the gaps with shrubs.
I can’t read this. I think one is 19 and the other is 26,
shrubs that fill in the gaps between the trees to provide
screening along this entire edge.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: You’re confident they
would be of sufficient height that they would mitigate
against the privacy issues that have been described?
BART HECHTMAN: Well, the trees, for example, are
24” box, and the shrubs are 5 gallon. That’s in the small
print that is too blurry there to read. That’s sort of a
standard size. It’s anticipated that they’re typically
planted at a relatively small size and grow, but you pick
varieties that will get to the right size.
DAN ROSS: We’re happy to add a condition that
would increase the quantity and size of bushes and trees as
needed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
112
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 EREKSON: Thank you very much, both
of you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions? Going once.
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me just follow up on
that privacy issue, because what we heard tonight… Well, we
heard a number of things on privacy, but one that I recall
was because of the way this is designed, because of the lot
as I understand, it has to be designed, a person with a
three-story house down below, when you get to the third
story it’s pretty hard to screen anything, because whatever
you plant down below, the third story of one of these other
houses is at least 30’ up in the air, so is there any way
at all to screen? We’ve heard people in the kitchen in one
unit, and we’ve heard in the bedroom in another unit, and
those are third floors, as I understand it. Is there any
way to all to screen those houses, those units, from the
view up above looking straight down?
BART HECHTMAN: In terms of if we’re thinking of
vegetative screening, I think the answer is no, but what
Dan was reminding me of is part of the concern is somebody
up above is looking out and seeing me down below, right?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Right.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
113
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
BART HECHTMAN: So there are techniques, like a
frosted half-glass, for example, where the uphill, the Ross
house, the window, which would sort of frame me like this,
the bottom part is frosted. So I’ve got a view out above
the house below, but I can’t look down into the house. You
can do it with frosting; you can do it with vegetation
planter boxes. Some people in this situation use a wood
shelf kind of device, so it physically blocks. So there are
techniques like that that can be employed, and I’ve seen
them in other jurisdictions, to at least partially address
the issue.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you.
CHRIS HUNDEMER: One other thing to note is that
the ground surface elevation where these trees will be
planted is about 10’ higher than the ground surface
elevation on the lower floor of the townhomes, so the first
story of the townhomes is effectively mitigated just by the
ground elevation, so the trees only have to get two-stories
tall, not three, to shade the third story.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the
Applicant? I have one, Counselor. In one of the letters
that was sent to us, the most recent from Mr. and Mrs.
Ross, there would seem to be the suggestion that the garage
was not imperative and in fact they could eliminate the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
114
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
structure and park their cars there anyway, but what I took
it to mean was if that would be a way to move the project
forward—I’m not saying it is—but I’m just wondering if
that’s in fact what I read, that the garage is disposable?
BART HECHTMAN: The garage is not a mandatory
element per code, but my understanding is in the absence of
a garage a carport is; you don’t have to have covered
parking. So our thought is that provides a more typical
single-family home that keeps them from storing stuff
outside when it can be inside, and our thought was that it
overall was a better fit for the neighborhood and sort of a
typical accommodation. I don't know if you have other
houses in town that just have sort of a parking deck that’s
open on top of a roof basically.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So that is an option?
BART HECHTMAN: Yes.
DAN ROSS: Our concern was junk, and car noise
and car headlights, if there’s no garage wall there.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I was just seeking
clarification on the letter. I thought it was an
interesting way to end the letter and I wasn’t clear if
that’s what you meant, so now I am.
Other questions? Thank you very much. I’m going
to close the public hearing. I’m going to look to my
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
115
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
Commissioners for discussion, debate, comments, questions
of Staff, or a motion. Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Perhaps some of us may
have questions of the Staff; I know I do. I’d just like to
ask a couple of questions of the Staff.
You began the meeting tonight giving us some
answers to questions that you had seen come up before. I
thought your answers were very clear. On the other hand, I
listened to all the speakers, and notwithstanding what
appear to be the declarative of your answers I was hearing
different testimony. For example, there’s a fairly good-
sized argument about is it a cellar or isn’t it a cellar?
Would you remind me at least why you believe it is a
cellar?
MARNI MOSELEY: There are portions of that lower
level that qualify as cellar, and there are portions that
qualify as what we would call basement that are not exempt
from the floor area ratio. As you look at the definition of
cellar in our Town Code, as well as what is referenced in
the Council resolution, it does not say that once it
exceeded 4’ above grade that all of that area is excluded
from the cellar discussion, it’s just the area that exceeds
the 4’ above the existing or proposed grade.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
116
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: So your determination as
to the square footage that should be taken into
consideration did that; you decided what was above 4’ and
what was not above 4’?
MARNI MOSELEY: Correct, and that is shown in
color on A-2.3. The purple is counted as floor area and is
considered basement, and the blue is considered cellar per
that definition.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: A follow up on that is
in counting stories. You said part of that “cellar” area is
a basement and part of it is a cellar, right? So in
counting stories, shall we say, do we start with the garage
as a story?
MARNI MOSELEY: Correct. There are three stories.
There is not a three-story elevation on this proposed
residence.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Take me through this.
The garage is a story, is that correct?
MARNI MOSELEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Then you come to the
first story as drawn in all the plans.
MARNI MOSELEY: Mmm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Then you come down one,
which is what? That’s not the cellar, is it?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
117
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
MARNI MOSELEY: So there is cellar/basement. That
is a story.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So the three—like the
argument goes—stories would start with what mostly we call
cellar, go next to the living area, then it would finally
go to, at the moment, the garage.
MARNI MOSELEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So when the question is
asked if you didn’t have the garage, you’d simply park the
cars there. I assume that would take away a story.
MARNI MOSELEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I just want to ask the
question a different way, and that is what would make this
into a three-story residence that was out of compliance
with the guidelines?
MARNI MOSELEY: So again, the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines do not prohibit three
stories, they prohibit three-story elevations. A three-
story wall plane, similar to what you see down on Maggi
Court, is a three-story elevation. Those residences have
three-story elevations at those planes. Originally the
proposed project had a full, I think, 7’ or 8’ wall plane
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
118
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
at the garage, and what you see currently is that sloped
roof, which was brought down so that it didn’t have a wall
plane, that it was a considered a story at that point, and
it was pulled back and reduced. So they shifted the
direction of the garage so that it was offset and didn’t
create that three-story plane.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Could we put up A-1.4? That
shows the elevation that’s visible. So referring to the
current proposal, which is the one in the center, how is
that not a three-story elevation, and how would it become a
three-story elevation?
MARNI MOSELEY: It’s hard to discuss that one,
because we don’t have anything more than what you have in
front of you. I don’t have enough information to talk about
the wall plane that’s now exposed. That wall height from
the previous proposed plans, assuming that it hasn’t
changed, was only 4’9”, I believe, and we stopped counting
floor area at 5’, anything once you hit 7’ down to 5’ per
Town codes, so the discussion was because it’s brought down
below 5’ it’s not even technically floor area and a story
at that point.
So that was the goal of the Applicant; by
reducing that wall height, there is more of that wall
height that’s exposed in that center section as a result of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
119
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 revision. I don’t have enough information from their
resubmittal to really analyze it along with you as far as
how that would then become a three-story elevation, but I’m
happy to talk about the current design that I have more
information on.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes, please.
MARNI MOSELEY: If you shifted the garage back
around so that that flat wall plane, instead of just having
a corner of it at that reduced height, if you brought that
exterior, what you see the shingles on, if that came out
and met the plane that you see along that edge, then you
would have a three-story, because you’d have that upper
story, the garage story directly attached and visible along
with the plane of those lower two floors.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So because it’s recessed,
it’s not considered part of that plane?
MARNI MOSELEY: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. That helps me
immensely.
MARNI MOSELEY: Good.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Because I kept looking at
this and saying this is three stories.
JOEL PAULSON: It is three stories. Just for a
little clarification, it’s the wall plane, and a lot of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
120
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
times on the 2-D elevations it’s tough to pick up those
offsets, especially in something as uniquely designed as
this.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: What we have in front of us
tonight is a request to approve the construction of this
new residence. Is the drawing that we’re being required to
approve or deny based on what you just had, the middle
diagram? Am I to understand though that that’s all we have?
You don’t have anything in floor plan elevation with
dimensions for how the floor plates are stepped back or
anything? It’s just based on this?
MARNI MOSELEY: If you were to request the
Applicant to implement anything that was included in the
materials from this evening rather than the April 13th
materials, that’s all that we have. We’ve provided you with
everything that we’ve received on their attempts to try to
mitigate that additional wall plane height on that end of
the house, but we don’t have anything more that we’ve been
able to analyze. Those are elements that the Applicant is
willing to implement, and Staff could be responsible for
making sure that they address all of our requirements, if
that’s something you’re comfortable with, but our
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
121
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
recommendation is in regard to the plans that you received
on April 13th.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: As a follow up to that
point, back to the question I asked earlier. The floor area
ratio calculation, it’s very clear in the Hillside
Standards and Guidelines. Yes, the calculation that is in
our Staff Report is relative to the complete square footage
of the lot, based on 10,000 square feet versus 40% of that,
which would be allowed, given the slope of that lot. So if
I did the math the proposal on April 18th would not have
been in compliance with the maximum floor area allowed,
because it’s 1,401 square feet, and if you added in the 185
plus the 1,278, plus the extra 100 feet from the garage,
you get something over 1,500. And now that they’ve proposed
to take away 172 square feet, it would bring them in within
10’ of the 1,401 is what I calculated today, unless I
missed something. So help me understand why we can even
approve the thing from the proposal from April 18th.
MARNI MOSELEY: Let me clarify a little bit, and
it’s probably going to confuse you even further, because
this site particularly as well as similar ones are
convoluted when it comes to our FAR discussion.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
122
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 site is zoned R-1:8, and so it is subject to
the R-1 FAR calculation; or because it’s in the hillside
area, it’s also potentially subject to the numbers within
the HDSG.
What we do when we look at these sites that are
R-1 zoned, not hillside zoned, but in the hillside area, we
take worst-case scenario; we take the most restrictive. In
this case the most restrictive is the R-1 FAR calculation,
which has a separate allowance for garage than the living
space, and so they never carry over like they do in the
hillside. So it’s not a matter of you then have 100 square
feet from the garage that then counts as living square
footage, like you do in hillside zoning; you have a
separate calculation for maximum allowable floor area for
garage, and then a separate for living.
The proposal from April 13th is compliant. It is
just shy of it with that slope reduction, but you do not
carry over the garage, 101 square feet for the 501 square
foot garage, into the living floor area. Did that clarify
it?
JOEL PAULSON: Just for a little more
clarification. For instance, if you look at page 20 of your
Hillside Guidelines, for a lot in the hillside area that’s
zoned Hillside, 11,000 square feet or less allows you a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
123
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
3,800 square foot house and a 400 square foot garage.
Obviously, that’s far less restrictive than using R-1:8; so
that’s why Staff uses the R-1:8 in this instance, which is
far more restrictive than the Hillside Guidelines.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I thought it was relative
to the net lot area after you took away from the slope
reduction. Is that not the case?
MARNI MOSELEY: We don’t use the ratio from that
chart; we use the maximum allowable floor area from that
chart.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So you don’t consider the
fact that this has a 50% slope, so you would have to reduce
the usable square footage of the lot in calculating the
floor area ratio?
MARNI MOSELEY: You do, and we did, in providing
the maximum based on the R-1 calculations, and that is
shown on the cover of their plan set on sheet A-0.0.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’d like to step through
maybe three or four points that are raised in Mr.
Williamson’s letter, because I think that letter converges
a lot of the issues, so I want to maybe quickly step
through it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
124
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 first one talks about what can be built on
this and the fact that the site has no LRDA. Does the fact
that the site has no LRDA impact what can be built on this
site, according to the Hillside Guidelines?
MARNI MOSELEY: The Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines give direction as to how to
analyze a site to determine where the least impactful
development location on that site is, given its
constraints. It gives direction as far as slope, which
usually is looking at development on slopes less than 30%,
but it doesn’t mean that there isn’t an LRDA as far as
determining that there’s a least restrictive location on
that site that’s least impactful for that site to be
developed on. There are many applications that have been
considered by the Commission and the Council in the past
where based on the constraints of a site, developing slopes
greater than 30% is the least impactful location, and so
that is within the purview, and again, it’s a guideline as
far as analyzing that LRDA.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. The next point
that I wanted to jump to is number 3. It says that, “HDSG
says that buildings shall not be prominently visible to
surrounding properties.” Did you address that issue, and
could you explain whether that applies, or not?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
125
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
MARNI MOSELEY: Each site, again, is you’re
looking at what is prominently visible, given the
constraints of the site. Some sites, you can’t mitigate
that, and based on where the least impactful location to
develop would be, you’re going to be somewhat visible to
some locations, and that’s something that you look at.
This site, they did look at trying to move the
proposed residence so that existing trees screen it. It
will be maintained, providing additional screening, but
it’s a constrained site. There is nowhere on that site that
you’re going to be able to develop, and not have it be
visible from adjacent residences.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: But the statement is that,
“buildings shall not be prominently visible to surrounding
properties.”
JOEL PAULSON: The Planning Commission has the
ability to determine what prominent is, so if this is too
prominent from the Planning Commission’s point of view,
then a smaller home may be still visible, and depending on
who you ask, still may be prominently visible, but may be
more acceptable to the Commission, so that is definitely in
your purview for discussion.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay. I think we addressed
the FAR and the stories. The other point was about trees,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
126
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 page 2 of 3 at the bottom talks about a large oak is a
heritage oak. Is the tree in question a heritage oak? If
so, have procedures been followed regarding those kinds of
trees?
MARNI MOSELEY: We do not have heritage
definition in our Town Code.
JOEL PAULSON: This tree is not a heritage tree.
Heritage trees were defined in the revised Tree Ordinance,
however, there is a process for when trees are going to be
determined to be heritage trees, and that process has not
been set forth yet.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: And then point D on page 3—
this is my last one—says, “Does this project require an
erosion control plan before construction begins, consistent
with General Plan policy?” What’s your opinion about
whether an erosion control plan is required and is required
at this time?
MARNI MOSELEY: It is a requirement. It is a
Condition of Approval as far as determining exactly how
that’s implemented. The grading and drainage plan is kind
of the first step in that process. The erosion control plan
will be hammered out as part of the construction management
plan, which is a Condition of Approval.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
127
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: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: A follow up question on
this idea of the Least Restrictive Development Area. I
might have thought to ask the Applicant this as well. Was
any consideration given, or is it even feasible, to have
the house closer to Bella Vista in terms of elevation,
having more of the house up the hill? Although people would
be able to see it on Bella Vista, it wouldn’t be as
prominent, and then it would be less prominent down the
hill. Does my question make sense?
MARNI MOSELEY: The house is set back at the
closest front setback per Town Code, so to bring it closer
to Bella Vista would require a variance. The driveway
width, or depth, was part of the discussion previously.
They requested a variance previously for that, and so as
you bring the house closer to Bella Vista you’re increasing
the height, because again, you’re dealing with bringing it
down to the existing grade, so there are a couple of
factors in that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Just to make sure I read
the original Staff Report, the depth of the lot is a
nonconforming lot, so they have less options in terms of
complying with setbacks and moving the house from front to
back?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
128
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
MARNI MOSELEY: The project does comply with the
required setbacks, but it is nonconforming as to depth.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: The driveway as proposed
has a 15% slope, which is consistent with the Town Code,
but there have been concerns expressed about site lines and
so forth, so in developing that part of the Town Code, does
it presume that a 15% slope of a driveway, if one backs out
at a reasonable speed, provides adequate sight line? So how
do I think about whether the slope is affecting the sight
line?
MARNI MOSELEY: The 15% slope is from our
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and it
doesn’t directly speak to visibility constraints. There’s a
separate section in the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines that discusses that, but Staff would be
responsible for analyzing and making sure that there is a
clear line of sight.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Let me ask a question on that
point. On page 58 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, it
goes into the very problem of cars backing out when you
have to rate it as serious, not so serious, and that sort
of thing, and there’s a category. This thing is 80 pages,
but there’s a category in there that says, “Substantially
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
129
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
increase hazards due to a design feature, sharp curves,
dangerous intersections, incompatible…” et cetera. This is
marked, “Less significant with mitigation incorporated.”
There are four of them and this is the second worse.
What that means is you have to give mitigation
incorporated, and that seems to be given on page 58,
Mitigation Measures, under the heading Transportation and
Traffic, and this is, “horizontal stopping sight distance,”
which is what I think we mean by can I see where I’m going
when I’m backing out? “Demonstrate to the satisfaction of
the Town Engineer that adequate horizontal stopping sight
distance exists for the project driveway in each direction
on Bella Vista.” It goes on and on and on.
But I’m wondering if we have a report from
anybody to say that this has been done, is going to be
done? I have the same concerns a lot of people have of it
just doesn’t seem like a good idea to back out going up a
15° slope when maybe my trunk is higher than my window and
I can’t see the traffic on the blind driveway. Do we have
someone to address that?
MARNI MOSELEY: The mitigation measure requires
that that be completed prior to issuance of building
permits.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
130
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, how do we know it’s going
to be achieved?
JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Weisz is here, so he may have
some additional input from Parks and Public Works.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Sir.
MIKE WEISZ: The items that you just listed are
included within Condition 66, so that confirmation of
adequate horizontal stopping sight distance should be
confirmed before permits.
VICE CHAIR KANE: And if they don’t get a permit,
this whole thing falls apart? Well, wouldn’t it be logical
to see if that permit was going to be awarded before he
tries to build a house?
JOEL PAULSON: That is one way, but we don’t
handle all mitigation measures prior to planning
discretionary approval. Then you’d have to go through every
single mitigation measure and do it before the Planning
Commission approves it, or Council or Staff. Staff is
confident that they’re going to go through the necessary
analysis, and then should that analysis come back that it’s
not feasible to have that sight distance, then we’ll have
to look at other feasible mitigations to address the sight
line issue. The horizontal stopping distance isn’t for the
people backing up, it’s for the people traveling on Bella
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
131
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
Vista, making sure they have enough time to stop if someone
is backing up, as I understand it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: This also talks about line of
sight. Isn’t that the person backing up?
JOEL PAULSON: Line of sight is for the
horizontal stopping distance, so the car driving down Bella
Vista has line of sight to someone potentially backing out
of the driveway.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I got that. So it doesn’t apply
to the person backing up?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Fascinating.
MARNI MOSELEY: Just to clarify, the driveway is
actually at the farthest point on the lot, and so you can’t
create location on the property that provides a better
location or safer stopping distance.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This question was
somewhat asked previously, but I want to pursue it, and
that is when you look at the plan and you look at the
length of the house, including a quasi-cellar, and you look
at it from the street above, it certainly would appear that
if you were to build the house up so you had a normal first
story—I say normal, not just a garage—facing the street
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like all houses normally do, you would cut the length of
the house going down the hill, because now you’d have a
story above the declining portion of the hill. From your
answer though, I thought: One, has that been looked at?
Two, is there some reason that that’s just not possible?
Again, when I look at this, I don't know what you
can build there without it looking big, and if you’re down
below you can build a much smaller house and it’s still
going to look big. But the higher up you go, and I don’t
mean to be very high, this house, it almost recesses below
the street, and I’m wondering is that because you have to
do it that way, because of the site configuration, or could
it be higher up?
MARNI MOSELEY: That has to do with how the Town
measures height, and that is from existing grade; you’ve
got to deal with the existing grade and topography of the
sight when you’re looking at building up. Even if you did
stilts, you’re still dealing with the existing grade and
measuring that height. So whether you put a cellar down on
that lowest level or leave it open, you’re still having the
same height discussion, so they’re constrained by that as
far as that upper level.
JOEL PAULSON: And I think to clarify, yes,
theoretically where the garage level currently is, that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
133
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
could be house level, but what you run into then is how do
you get a driveway that doesn’t require a variance even to
get parking there?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m not pursuing that.
JOEL PAULSON: It could be pulled up, and then
theoretically you end up with the stilts scenario,
depending on whether or not they’re able to put a cellar
under the new first floor level, or they’re asking to
exceed the FAR. I think it’s technically possible; it just
creates other issues that have to be evaluated.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You would not
necessarily need stilts, I assume, if you had a cellar down
below the living area.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, that correct, but I don't
know if as you move it up the hill whether that cellar
component still is viable or not, so we’d have to look at
those plans.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I have a question of Staff, and
it’s like my perennial question. It goes to page 38 of the
Hillside Guidelines. I seem to spend a lot of time trying
to understand what step-down means, and we’ve argued about
this a number of times, and I’ve got this concept of step
down like an Slinky; it goes down a stairway like this. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
134
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
didn’t know that I could have three Slinkies. I’ve been
here six or seven years, but that’s news to me. Be that
Architecture and Site it may, when I look at even the
revised proposal, even if I forget the garage for a second,
I still see two stories on top of each other; I don’t see
any step-down. Why is that a step-down? Why isn’t it three
stories? Why is that a basement? I’m trying.
JOEL PAULSON: We talked about those things, and
obviously when you have a cellar element; you’re not
stepping down.
VICE CHAIR KANE: This cellar has sliding glass
doors that allow people to walk out of it without bending
over.
JOEL PAULSON: Which is not uncommon on sloped
lots, but if the Planning Commission does not believe that
that’s appropriate you have the purview to say that that’s
not appropriate and you want to bury it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s in our purview, right?
Purview is the word.
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, of course.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right.
JOEL PAULSON: As with any of the topics.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’d like to see what Tom was
driving at, which was if we got the thing up higher and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
135
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
stepped it down with two floors and a garage on the side
and a smaller scale, it seems like it would start to fit
with these objections. I’m not getting a lot of support to
get there, because suddenly that’s a cellar, and that’s not
a three-story, and this is 24’ of straight up and down
step-down, and it’s not, to me, but what do I know?
JOEL PAULSON: Sure.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions of Staff?
Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: This isn’t going to be a
question of Staff. This is going to be taking that
conversation just a step further.
In looking at this, I understand Commissioner
O'Donnell was just discussing as far as if we did move it
up the hill, but I would like to just point out to my
fellow commissioners that one of the largest aspects of the
conversation was had today for privacy for the people down
the hill, and essentially what you will do is take perhaps
what was a screen and walk out off the cellar. You’re
actually going to move that up the hill and we’re going to
create probably even more privacy issues, so it’s just
moving a door now up. So before we go too far with that
conversation, I just want to bring the line of sight in
conversation so that we understand that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
136
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: I don’t think whatever
structure goes in there will not be privacy issues, because
of the intensity of the slope. We need the Italian
Cypresses to go straight up and down for 30’ and bunch them
together. Regardless of where the house goes, it will be an
issue.
You’re correct, it’s more of an issue if we move
it, but we pick up some other benefits if we reduce the
mass and scale. Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Back to the step-down,
when I look at the diagram, which is section 2, and I’m
looking at my friend’s diagram here…
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Tab 2.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: …Tab 2, it does appear
to be a step-down, so I’m wondering definitionally, do you
view that as a step-down? I’m looking at the side view,
which is where I determine a step-down.
MARNI MOSELEY: Yes, because the cellar element
at that point is hidden. We look at what you see visibly,
and so that would follow that. But again, as Joel had
mentioned, it is in the purview of the Commission to
disagree with that.
JOEL PAULSON: Vice Chair Kane brought up page 38
of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
137
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
don’t show a cellar element, so if these houses had a
cellar element, obviously the cellar element is not going
to step down, because it’s going to go below whatever is
above it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: When you say the
Planning Commission can disagree with it, what are we
disagreeing with? What I guess I’m wondering is it’s one
thing to say we don’t like it, it another thing to say we
don’t like it because it’s not a step-down, when if you
look at Section 2, if that isn’t a step-down I would be
very, very surprised, because the drawing suggests it
clearly is a step-down.
So I want to know what you’re saying. Are you
saying if you determine that to be a step-down, that if you
don’t like it you can turn it down? I don’t understand our
jurisdiction to be we don’t like something and therefore we
can turn it down.
JOEL PAULSON: I guess I’m not saying you would
turn it down because of that one specific site, but the
Commission, Mr. Kane clearly has expressed that he has
concerns that it’s not stepping down, and so then when you
go to the diagram that he pointed out on page 30 of the
Hillside Guidelines, it looks like it steps down
internally.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
138
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 challenge with this site is the floor depths,
given the setback constraints and the slope of the site.
It’s 20’ wide, so the living area is 20’ wide, so you’re
clearly not going to step down in a 20’ wide room as you
would maybe in one of these more sprawling ranch houses
where you can have the ability to go down a gentle slope.
This does not have a gentle slope, so stepping down in that
traditional sense, I think, is impractical on this site.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We’ve also discussed
today, and I think we’ve got some good comments, the
question of grade versus degrees, I guess, and we have
written evidence produced by the Applicant talking about
how they did measure either degrees or the grade.
On the other hand, a fairly intelligent comment
by the gentleman sitting out there who was saying that’s
got to be crazy, because when you look at it, it appears
that it’s much greater than that.
So I read both those things, I’m not an engineer;
I’m a bit confused by that. You people, I believe, have
made some judgments as to the accuracy of what you say in
the report. Could you explain that again, why in essence
you’re disagreeing with an intelligent member of the public
who had a differing opinion?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
139
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
MARNI MOSELEY: Staff, based on all the
documentation within our guidelines and standards refers to
the slope, the average slope, the slope at any given point
on the property. When you look at degrees, the difficulty
is that you’re looking at two points and not all those
points in between. The slope gives us all those points in
between, so we’ve always used slope versus any form of
degree discussion.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Other questions or comments?
Anybody up for a motion?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That was Staff. I leapt
into the comments; because this is really I think, for me
at least, a very tough matter. So if the Chair would allow
me to make some comments so I could get some help.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Comments would be great.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Saying the obvious, to
say how difficult this is. On the other hand, I guess what
I’m troubled by is this is a buildable lot, or lots, so you
either have one buildable lot if you put the two lots
together, or we have two buildable lots if you don’t. That
means somebody can build on that. Now, I don't know what
they’re going to build—we have something before us tonight—
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
140
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
but it does occur to me that whatever they build there,
they’re going to have the same privacy issue.
And when we talk about traffic, you’re not going
to build a house if it doesn’t have at least two cars in
California, or certainly in Los Gatos. So instead of having
the nominal two cars, and even that is nominal, you’re
going to have the nominal four cars, which I don’t see as
an improvement.
My conundrum is if you start with the assumption
that they are entitled to a house or houses, and then you
look at this and say well let’s make it better—obviously
you can always make something better—but unless you make it
a tiny house, and at some point it will not be a house. I
mean if I were the property owner I’d say that’s not a
house; you’re not giving me the ability to build. I don't
know when you cross over.
But I guess what I’m wondering is, and I’m saying
this to the people sitting around me if you assume they
have a right to build, and if you assume further that
certainly there was encouragement given to combine the two
lots so you only have one house. It is not a done deal; it
hasn’t been approved, so we could have two.
The Applicant has now gone through this thing
multiple times, and tried, I believe, to respond to the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
141
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
issues we’ve raised. I guess I’m just curious, what is it
we could do reasonably to satisfy the issues raised, i.e.
the privacy issue? And notwithstanding comments, there is
no absolute right when you build a house that everybody has
to have privacy. I’m sorry to say that, but the
Constitution doesn’t speak to that.
So I’m looking for help. If there’s something
reasonable we could do to say yes, you can build, but not
this house, I’d appreciate hearing something.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, Commissioner O'Donnell, I
agree, it’s a sticky-wicket, and in trying to figure out
what, if anything, can be done I went to the Forward of the
Hillside Standards and Guidelines, and it says the obvious,
as has been stated by other people. “Not every site can be
developed at the maximum density or intensity allowed by
the zoning ordinance. Some sites cannot accommodate a two-
story home or accessory uses…” Then it continues with, “It
is beneficial to inventory the site’s natural physical
properties. A site plan and design program should be
developed only after the Least Restrictive Development Area
has been identified based on a site specific constraints
analysis.” Then it says, “It makes for good relations with
your future neighbors if you meet with them beforehand to
discuss any special concerns they may have prior to siting
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
142
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 designing the house, landscaping, or making any
significant site improvements.”
Those three points are among the 12 philosophical
introductions to what is our very important Hillside
Guidelines, and I don’t think we’ve followed a straight
road on that, and I think it takes us to the disappointing
place of the answer to your question being that maybe the
guidance you gave them last time it was here, you quoted in
two or three of the letters (inaudible) that you asked for
them to come back with smaller, and the Town Council said
in 2011 combine it and come back smaller. Well, that’s not
happening, because that’s not what the family wants or
needs, so we do have a sticky-wicket, and I don’t see a way
out in terms of what they want and need, and to give them
what they want and need is going to drive that neighborhood
crazy and cross a lot of gray lines, and some black lines,
on what the Hillside Guidelines say.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me just say to you
that depending on how you do this, if you say you take two
houses, make them any size you want, and add them together,
because that’s the total impact, total square footage, and
then you compare that to the one that is being proposed,
that’s why we’ve got this Exhibit A-1.4. It shows the
proposed house now at 1,436 square feet versus two homes,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
143
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
which for illustration purposes were 1,600 plus 1,300. That
certainly is a reduction, and a significant reduction. Or
you compare it to the one they had in April, which was
1,558 square feet, and again 1,436 is a reduction.
So they are reductions. Now, whether they’ve
reached a reduction satisfactory to us, or whether we say
it’s still too big, which obviously one could say, I’m just
wondering how small do you make it where you don’t still
have the same problems we have now?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If I lived down below
and you had a 600 square foot house with a window looking
down into my bedroom, it isn’t the square footage that
causes me the problem, it’s looking into the bedroom.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We can deal with that.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We can deal with that,
so I guess what I’m saying is whatever we do today, whether
we approve this, or whether we sent it back to the drawing
board, so to speak, or whether we deny it and they can
appeal it, I don’t want us to sidestep the issue of is
there anything that can be done with this lot, even if you
put in a single story? Forget the whole thing, no cellar,
you put in a single story, it will not have all the same
issues basically that we’re having now, except the larger
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
144
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
view of that house. So if you’re looking at the house
that’s being proposed, and say you cut it way down,
obviously if you’re looking at that it’s going to be much
smaller, but I don't know that it’s going to satisfy
anybody. That’s enough; that’s all I’m going to say.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I think you’re right. That’s
the problem with having a very difficult site. I don't know
how a growing family needing three bedrooms is going to
make that square peg fit into this round hole.
Anyone else? Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Over the course of the
meetings that we’ve done there were a number of issues
which people brought up, a number of issues that we asked
for additional information about. It seems to me that some
of those issues, at least from my perspective, have been
put to rest.
The concerns about the geologic and geotechnical
issues, at least from my perspective to the extent that I
understand them and so forth, have been put to rest so that
there could be something built on the site that would be
safe. So if you would, I can check that one off.
There were concerns about the impact of
construction on the site and so forth. The Town is
reasonably good at developing construction management plans
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
145
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 enforcing them. My experience would suggest to me that
there is always some inconvenience to neighbors in a site
where there is construction going on; there’s no way to
avoid that. The Town tries to minimize that, but it can’t
go away. So the Town is good at construction management
plans, works hard on that, so I can check that one off.
There have been concerns expressed about traffic,
and certainly there are traffic issues on Bella Vista.
Whether one builds this house or doesn’t build this house,
the traffic issues, in my opinion, on Bella Vista don’t
change very much. They’re serious, but building this house
won’t either make them dramatically more serious than they
already are, so it seems like to me there aren’t huge
traffic issues, so I checked that one off.
There were issues about trees. I would like for
my friends the Coughlins not to have trees taken down
across the street from them, but there is not an inherent
right under the policies of the Town to say I can’t build
on a site because there are trees on there. There are
policies in place that allow for trees to be taken down and
then replaced, and I would say all trees, like all of us,
have a lifespan anyway, so those trees eventually will die,
so if we can figure out ways to mitigate against them.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
146
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I would like to see there being no wires in town
any place, like Dr. Coughlin suggested. I’m not sure that
that’s something we can require in this circumstance, but I
would note their point.
So it comes down for me to the bulk and mass
issue and the privacy issues. That seems like to me what’s
left that we have to struggle with. I’ve been down to Maggi
Court and walked up the hill, gone down to the bottom and
then literally walked up the hill—I haven’t gotten arrested
for trespassing yet, but I probably should have—and I
appreciate if I lived in 140, 142, 144, 146, et cetera,
that whatever is built there is going to be in my face, if
you would.
I’ve been struggling with trying to not to design
myself, but I was trying to figure out how could I solve
that problem? If I was smart enough, how would I solve that
that would allow them to do something and mitigate it being
in my face so much, and doing as much as one can to respect
the privacy of both parties, the people who occupy the
house that’s proposed to be built, and the people who will
occupy the places down below?
I don't know that the present one is a good
enough solution to those two problems for me to applaud and
say this is the best that one could do on this site. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
147
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
think they put a lot of effort into trying to address the
remaining two issues, and so I struggled with what could be
a better solution to it without shrinking the size of the
house to what would be an unreasonable size that in a
practical way would never actually occur? We don’t
fiscalize our land use decisions, but certainly owners of
property fiscalize them, so if I shrink the house small
enough it will never happen, because it will never pencil
out. To build a 200 square foot house on the place would
never pencil out, so it would never happen.
I’m intrigued by can we move the house up the
hill so that there is one story above, if you would,
viewable on Bella Vista, and one story more of less below
the grade at Bella Vista. I understand, and we’ve been
through some of this before, that may require consideration
of a variance of the driveway, which is one of the
complications for it. But I’ve been trying to figure out,
is that a lesser evil, because it allows us to move the
structure away from the people below potentially, but may
require some things above?
I’m also intrigued by is there no way that one
can use vegetation, even if one plants trees in the setback
area pretty close to the Maggi Court area? In other words,
the landscape plan that they did did not suggest the trees
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
148
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
would be planted at the property line. They were inside of
the setback, so if you pushed the vegetation back there,
does that help with the privacy issues?
So are there ways that one can begin to provide
ways that can respect both parties and begin to address
those issues. That’s enough for me for the moment.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, I think it’s well said.
With the exception of the traffic thing where we still need
to do that Mitigated Negative Declaration piece with the
Town working on the line of sight, yes, I support most of
your thoughts.
Commissioner Hanssen, did you have your hand up?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yes. I agree with
everything that Commissioner Erekson said.
I wanted to comment about the issue of the bulk
and mass. We talked a lot already tonight about the
Hillside Standards and Guidelines, and there were
references to not always building to the maximum floor
area. This is an application where it is absolutely at the
maximum floor area ratio, and on top of that it’s taking
advantage of our Cellar Policy. It is what is it; they’re
entitled to do it. But as it stands right now with the
revised proposal, the actual floor area of the house versus
the cellar that’s counted towards FAR would be less than
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
149
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that in the cellar, so this is clearly something that has
pushed the very edge of the envelope in terms of our
guidelines, and this is a lot that’s it’s very difficult to
build on, and I don’t think that this is a situation where
you’d want to build the biggest house you possibly can
according to our guidelines, even if it is within the
guidelines, albeit by just a little bit.
I would say though that I share Commissioner
Erekson’s concern as well that what would be the right
thing that wouldn’t impact the privacy of the neighbors,
and I’m not sure if there is a small enough house for that,
but I do think that there is some room to make it better
than it is.
VICE CHAIR KANE: That takes us back to the
letter from Dan and Deborah Ross that I was talking about
earlier where the first paragraph says we want to do this,
we want to do that, “alternative design to reduce bulk,
square footage and still meets our family needs and
requirements for a livable home.” That’s the sticky wicket.
We could put a fine home on there, but it’s not going to
have three or four bedrooms for a growing family.
Everything Commissioner Erekson said is applicable and
considerable, and I don't know what the hell to do. We
can’t get a house big enough for them, because we’re still
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
150
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
left… He mitigates seven points; we’re still left with mass
and scale and some restrictions in Hillside Guidelines.
Commissioner Hudes, you had your hand up.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I was going through a
similar checklist process and arrived pretty much at the
same conclusion the other Commissioners spoke about.
I think there was one other one relative to the
geotechnical, it was specifically safety issues and the
stability of the slope, and after listening to the
engineers I’ve become convinced that the slope actually is
likely to be safer after the construction of the home. It’s
not a reason to give permission to build a home, but I
believe that takes that one off the table from a safety
perspective.
The one that concerns me the most, which it hit
me immediately and I spent a fair amount of time in Maggi
Court, is the privacy issue. I just don’t think enough
thought has been given to how to mitigate that issue, that
maybe ideas would have come about if there had been
community meetings. I feel that at this point the landscape
plan is vague, it doesn’t describe the existing trees and
how they relate to line of site, so I think that there is
work to do in solving the privacy issue.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
151
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I personally am skeptical about moving the house
up and solving that problem, because I think you might gain
maybe another 5’ of separation between these properties,
but you’re definitely going to be pushing the house closer
to Bella Vista and getting into setback problems that may
cause problems with the neighbors who are across the
street, so I’m skeptical about whether that could solve the
privacy issue.
I believe that we had not enough information on
the driveway, and I’m not comfortable getting a diagram
during a hearing and being assured that that’s going to
solve everything. If more work were to done on this
application, I would suggest something serious about
privacy, really get serious about it; and about the safety
issue in accessing the driveway.
The bulk and mass issue, I am less concerned
about that, because I feel that direction was given by
Council, and I think the Applicant has followed that
direction, so I’m not sure what further direction we might
give in that regard. I think that eliminating half of the
area, which is essentially what they’ve done by going from
two to one, is following that direction, so I’m not
convinced that that’s an area that I would want to put a
lot of effort in.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
152
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: Other comments? Commissioner
O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Your comments I thought
were very well taken, but they also though would lead, for
example, to saying go back and address these issues and
then come back, which I’m sure they’d want to pull their
hair out. What I wouldn’t want to happen, I think, is if we
in fact have been able to reach agreement on many of these
issues, then if you say to somebody these are the issues we
think we need for information on, I’d hate to have them
come back and then somebody says oh, by the way, in
addition to those, let’s say, three things we needed help
on, we want to revisit all these other things. That to me
somehow doesn’t seem right.
I honestly don’t know what the right square
footage is, I just know that whatever they’re proposing
now, they could take it down another 400 square feet, I
think it makes no difference, except to them, and therefore
in that sense it would be simply punitive. If there were
some good to come out of it, then that’s different, but if
it’s merely to make you feel better, then that’s not what I
would want to do.
What I would invite, I think, since I didn’t have
those wonderful comments that you’ve made, if one of you
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
153
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
would like to make a motion clarifying that, if you need
more information. I don’t think it’s unusual at all, maybe
I’m wrong, that they didn’t submit a more detailed
landscape plan, and we have a question now whether no
matter what they submitted, could they more clearly address
the privacy issue? We’ve also heard from Counsel, for
example, that there are several things they can do on the
privacy issue, so that would be something they could come
back on.
There has been one comment saying maybe this is
the maximum and it doesn’t have to be the maximum. But
again, I would like to say that even if it’s not the
maximum, I’d like to know what difference it makes. So yes,
it doesn’t have to be the maximum, but there’s no use
saying just take some square footage off and take some
square footage off.
That having been said, I would support a motion,
if you feel it necessary to get answers to whatever your
questions are so we could bring some end to this. But that
would mean, in my judgment at least, that as to the other
issues, for example, that Commissioner Erekson identified
the issues and said he was satisfied with this, this, and
this, if everybody else is satisfied with those, I would
like to think sort of the preamble to the motion would be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
154
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that we are satisfied with those things, but we have these
questions. Since I’m not making the motion, that’s merely
something to think about.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, Commissioner O'Donnell, I
appreciate what you said. I may have misunderstood it, but
my passion for protection gets heated up when you suggest
that compliant is punishment. To bring it down to mass and
scale to be more in line with the guidelines, I don’t see
that as punitive.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No, I just want you to
understand my comment.
VICE CHAIR KANE: He’s hitting my sacred cows;
that’s all. It’s not punitive; it’s compliance.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m saying if 500 feet
would not address the issue you’re concerned with, then why
do it?
VICE CHAIR KANE: I didn’t ask for 500.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I know, but I’m saying
whatever you do on reduction, it has to address a problem.
Not to do that is punitive. It’s not only punitive, it’s
stupid, but that’s what it is.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I just went from bad to dumb?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, I was hoping you
weren’t either, but if you want to plow into that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
155
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: So gentlemen, if I can
inject. I’m going to stop that right now.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: He’s not. I didn’t say
he was.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Stop.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yes, stop.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I agree, we’ve been able to
check a lot of items off the list, and I think that’s
great. Commissioner Erekson and Commissioner Hudes, I
appreciate you going through that list, because I trust you
guys are going to take some really good notes so that it
reminds of us which items we checked off the list so they
don’t come back and haunt us later.
But to this last sticky wicket, which is the bulk
and the mass, and the privacy, quite honestly, yeah, I
think there is some level of responsibility on us. This
responsibility needs to go back to all of you. As difficult
as it is to meet, this unfortunately has been slated as a
buildable lot, and I need the neighbors to get together and
to meet. It means you have vegetation; you come up with
screening. You don’t like where the balcony is; you want
half windows. It’s your moment to get it in there. We can
keep coming up and we can keep sending it back, but I need
them to have an input on this, because otherwise this is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
156
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 spin, and what I’m afraid of is at some point some
of these guys are going to retire.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Or die.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Now I’m dead?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: No, you’re retired. You’re
not dead, you’re retired, and what if something goes
through? So yeah, I agree we can check things off the list,
but I also, if we’re saying we’re going to see this again,
because we think there (inaudible) change, I really, really
wanted it to come back with some neighborhood input. I
don’t want to make the decision for people. I don’t have
all the other notes that Charles said.
VICE CHAIR KANE: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER BURCH: What Charles said. So my
motion is Commissioner Erekson so eloquently put together a
list of items that we are now going to say have been
completed to our fulfillment by the Applicant. And
Commissioner Hudes, sorry.
However, we’ve still come to these final couple
of issues, privacy, and bulk and mass, that I wish I could
give some perfect kind of direction, but obviously we’re
going to I guess say we’re going to continue this for
something along that line? Is that what my fellow
commissioners…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
157
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: The advantage is that we’re in
a corner of what we want to do, what we’d like to do, what
we can do, and our authority is limited. It’s a quasi-
judicial process. We’re adjudicating, we’re not
legislating, and so there’s the legislative remedy, which
is to listen to what we’ve said in all of our points, and
appeal it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could we simply be sure
that we have hit the items that really the three of you
have identified? Because that’s, I believe, what the maker
of the motion is doing.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Is trying.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So speak now if you
think the maker has forgotten something.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I’ll second the motion, so
we can discuss the motion, so it doesn’t die for lack of a
second, and then I’ll raise my hand.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: We’ve articulated, so I
don't know that we need to rearticulate, what we’re
satisfied with; it’s part of the record. What I think we
need to be clear about in the motion is what remains to be
addressed, and I would suggest I believe the maker of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
158
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
motion’s intent with the bulk and mass, and scale issue is
the impact, so they have to reduce the impact of that.
The reason we have standards and worry about
bulk, mass, and scale is because we worry about the impact
of it, not just theoretically what it is. What they need to
do is address, I believe, what the intent would be, or at
least that would be my intent if I had made the motion, for
them to address the impact of it, because I absolutely
agree with Commissioner O'Donnell; there’s no reason to
reduce the square footage for the simple reason of reducing
the square footage, but they need to do things, and I
believe if they’re clever about how they do it and good
about how they do it, they’ll be able to address the
privacy and the impact of bulk and mass at the same time,
potentially.
VICE CHAIR KANE: But especially by reducing it.
You’re doing the same thing he did.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Well, that’s not for us to
solve. That’s really for the Applicant to solve.
The other comment I would make, I absolutely
agree with Commissioner Burch about dialogue needs to
occur. I would suggest something though, that the Applicant
has a choice at this point in time. It’s likely that the
Commission will continue this item with some direction. A
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
159
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
vote hasn’t been taken, so we don’t know that. Then they
have a choice. They can do something in response to that,
or they don’t have to do anything in response to that, that
becomes their choice.
I would suggest that the dialogue should occur
after they make that decision, and after they make that
decision if they want to do some things to address the
issues, then they have the dialogue with them. I don’t
think it’s very productive for the neighbors for very
productive for the Applicant to sit down and say okay, how
are we together going to solve these problems? They need to
come up with a solution to the extent that they’re
comfortable with, and then let the neighbors react to that,
as opposed to gathering everyone together to figure it out.
That’s not really going to be very productive.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I like that. Why don’t we get
that in the form of a motion? It makes sense.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: The maker of the motion
agrees with what Commissioner Erekson just said.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I’ll have what he’s having.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me just comment. I
would like to comment on the idea that they were unable to
talk last time, and we’ve heard reasons why and those are
credible reasons, but I think some of the speakers seemed
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
160
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 think we have the right to deny anything on this
property, and that is not my take. We have a right to buy
the property, or give them a house on the property; that’s
my understanding of the law, and the Council has, I think,
agreed with that.
Therefore, if you do talk to them, and if they do
think about anything else they can do and therefore are
willing to talk to you in a way that you think is more
positive and not simply closed, then you also have to think
in terms of we don’t have a choice to say nothing, you get
nothing. If you assume they’re going to get something,
because I think they will, I don't know what it is but
they’re going to get something, maybe it will help the
dialogue.
I’m not being Pollyanna. Maybe at the end of day
you won’t really agree, but maybe you’ll agree on some
things, and that would be really great. That’s why I do
agree with this conversation that we’re encouraging, but
Commissioner Erekson said don’t have the conversation until
they’ve had a chance to really go over this, and if they
would say to you we’re not changing anything, you might say
well what’s the point of the conversation?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Of course.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
161
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: So that would be your
judgment at that point, so hopefully that makes more sense
to you.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Maker of the motion,
(inaudible).
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Well, I think most of the
motion is made, but I do think that the onus falls back on
the Applicant and their designer to take a look at privacy
and landscaping. Honestly, it’s a very inadequate
landscaping design. For a project that’s gone this far, I
would expect a lot more. I would particularly expect some
information on tree rate of growth and things like that;
that’s what we get.
And then if you have looked at that and you have
said to yourself all right, we’re willing to do all these
things, it needs to become then a neighborhood outreach
program where now the neighbors can say that works for us,
or that doesn’t, so that at the next point when we get to
together it’s not nobody spoke, the neighbors haven’t seen
what’s coming in front of us. This is what you want to do,
because it’s just spinning.
So I feel that the first step falls to the
Applicant to do that level of research, and then to do a
neighborhood outreach, and at that point I feel that the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
162
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
neighbors need to step in more and really be vocal about
what you’ve seen and what you’re willing to do, and that’s
what I would hope we’d come back with and have a very
actual productive conversation on these items next time,
instead of no one has conversed.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: So I guess then, with the
Chair, we have to come up with a date certain to add to the
motion.
VICE CHAIR KANE: As part of the motion?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah, I’d like to do that.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Staff, we need a date certain.
JOEL PAULSON: We’re probably looking at June
22nd. We may have to move some items that are tentative on
that, but June 22nd probably is the most realistic.
Otherwise, the 8th is only two weeks away, so that probably
becomes too tight.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Are we not meeting in July? No,
we’re meeting July 13th. They might need extra time for
that.
JOEL PAULSON: They may, and if they decided or
we get to that point, we can also always do a cover letter
and continue it to another date certain.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So your number was what?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 5/25/2016
Item #3, 341 Bella Vista Avenue
163
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: June 22nd.
VICE CHAIR KANE: June 22nd. Merci. To the maker
of the motion, does that work for you?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah, that works for me.
VICE CHAIR KANE: So we have things that we think
can be handled or mitigated, and we have these vague things
in terms of the motion where we’re hoping they come up with
something, and we’ve all talked about suggestions, I think.
Reducing the mass and scale. One or two of us have talked
about trying to get the house closer to Bella Vista and
moving the garage to the side and then having the second
floor down below just to reduce the slope of the whole
thing and try to get it a little tighter. Don’t know that
that’s going to meet the family’s needs, but I think it’s
the best we can do right now.
I’d be happy to second the motion. Oh good,
Charles already did. Do we have further discussion? Seeing
none, let’s call the question. All in favor? Opposed?
Carries unanimously. Are there appeal rights, Mr. Paulson?
JOEL PAULSON: There are not, because this was a
continued item.