Item 04 - 15925 Quail Hill Rd - Staff Report & Exhibits 1-12TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 23, 2015
ITEM NO: 4
PREPARED BY: Marni F. Moseley, Associate Planner
MM o seley@ los ga tosca.go v
APPLICATION NO.: Architecture and Site Application S-14-027
LOCATION : 15925 Quail Hill Road (South side of Shady Lane just west of
Drysdale Drive, accessed through a driveway easement at the
end of Quail Hill Road)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Kevin Hwang and Sabrina Dong
CONTACT PERSON: Sabrina Dong
APPELLANT: Brad Krouskup
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review
Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to
demolish and construct a new single-family residence on
property zoned HR-1. APN 527-02-007
RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development
Review Committee to approve the application.
PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential , 0-1 dwelling
units/acre
Zoning Designation: HR-1 -Hillside Residential
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Hillside
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
--· Existing Land Use --North Single-Family
East Single-Family
1----
South Single-Family
West 1 Single-Family
Development Standards &
Guidelines
42,525
General Plan Zoning -· -· ___ c_
Hillside Residential 1 HR-l ---Hillside Residential HR-1 ---··---Hillside Residential HR-1 . ----
Hillside Residential HR-1
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
15925 Quail Hill Road/S-14-027
September 23 , 2015
CEQA :
FINDINGS:
CONSIDERATIONS:
ACTION :
EXHIBITS:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental
Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures.
•
•
•
•
•
As required, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, this
project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
As required by Section 29 .1 0.09030(e) of the Town Code for
the demolition of a single-family residence .
As required by the Hillside Development Standards &
Guidelines that the project complies with the Hillside
Development Standards & Guidelines.
That the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan .
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting
approval of an Architecture and Site application.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed
within ten days.
1. Location map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Conditions of Approval (eight pages)
4. Project data sheet (one page)
5. Letter of justification and project description (two pages)
received January 6, 2015
6. Consulting Architect report (four pages), received June 5, 2015
7. Development Review Committee meeting minutes for July 21,
August 11 , and August 18 ,2015 (13 pages)
8. Easement documents provided by Appellant
9. Easement documents provided by Applicant
10 . Letter from Applicant's attorney, received August 18, 2015
II. Correspondence from Appellant 's consultant, John Livingstone,
and staffs responses ( 15 pages)
12 . Appea1letter (one page), received August 20,2015
13. Additional materials submitted by the Appellant, received
August 15,2015 (82 pages)
14. Development Plans (nine sheets), received June 26 , 2015
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 3
15925 Quail Hill Road/S-14-027
September 23 ,2015
BACKGROUND :
The applicant began working with the Town regarding redeveloping their property prior to
purchasing it in late 2013 . The project scope and design changed several times due to
undocumented utility easements and input from neighbors. The applicant has worked with her
neighbors and staff to try to address site and design issues .
The current application scope is to remodel and add to the existing residence to the extent that
the proposed project would be considered a demolition. The proposed residence is
predominantly a single story home with a daylighted cellar at the rear of the residence.
Staff began meeting with a neighbor (now the appellant) and his consultant in May of 2015 .
Staff provided information to the appellant regarding appropriate access and development of the
property based on the Town 's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Staff
encouraged the appellant to provide his concerns to staff in writing to allow the applicant to
consider ways to address their concerns. Such a letter was not submitted . Instead staff received
two letters from the appellant's consultant requesting information regarding staffs review of the
application on August 11 and August 18, 2015. The consultant's letters along with staffs
responses are included in Exhibit 11 .
The application was considered by the Development Review Committee over the course of three
meetings : July 21, August 11 , and August 18 , 2015 (Exhibit 7). The Committee continued the
item from the July 21, 2015 meeting to provide the applicant time to have her surveyor further
document the location of the existing easements to access the site. The Committee considered
the application again on August 11, 2015 and continued the item based on a title report provided
by the appellant at the meeting which provided different easement information from the two title
reports provided by the applicant. The continuance was granted to allow the applicant 's title
companies to review the discrepancies in the reports.
The Town Attorney determined that despite the discrepancies in the reports, the property has
legal ingress and egress. The application was complete and could be considered for approval
with a condition that prior to occupancy the improved driveway be located within an
appropriately defined access easement.
The application was approved by the Development Review Committee on August 18, 2015. The
application was appealed on August 20, 2015.
Planning Commission Staf f Report -Page 4
15925 Quail Hill Road/S-14-027
September 23, 2015
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The project site is located on the south side of Shady Lane just west of Drysdale Drive and
is accessed through a driveway easement at the end of Quail Hill Road (E xhibit 1 ). The
property is surrounded by single-family residential uses.
B. Architecture and Site Approval
Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of a new residence .
C. Zoning Compliance
The total proposed floor area for the residence and garage is within the allowable floor area
for the property and the proposed residence complies with the setback and height
requirements of the HR-1 zone. While the Town Code allows a maximum height of30 feet
in the HR zone, the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) is more
restrictive with a 25-foot height maximum. A single-family residence is a permitted use in
the HR zone. The site also contains a legal second unit located to the rear of the residence.
ANALYSIS :
A. Architecture and Site
The propo sed residence appears one story from the street and steps down to two stories at
the rear elevation. The proposed 641 square foot cellar is exempt and is not included in the
floor area total. The residence was designed taking into consideration the neighborhood
and the constraints of the site. As discussed below the proposed residence would be
compatible with the immediate neighborhood in regards to size and floor area. A color and
material board will be displayed at the meeting.
The Town 's Architectural Consultant reviewed the plans and visited the site. The
consultant recommended several detail changes (Exhibit 6) which the applicant
implemented in the final development plans (Exhibit 14). Story poles were placed on the
site prior to the Development Review Committee meeting to aid in the review of the
project.
The project is in compliance with the HDS&G inclusive of grading and drainage criteria,
allowable fl oor area and architectural and landscape design. General project data are
included in Exhibit 4.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 5
15925 Quail Hill Road/S-14-027
September 23 , 2015
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood range
in size from 1,812 square feet to 6,243 square feet. The FAR ranges from 0 .02 to 0.11. The
applicant is proposing a 4 ,577-square foot home (Including garage but not cellar) on a
42,525-square foot parcel (0 .1 0 FAR). The maximum allowed square footage for the lo t is
4 ,900 square feet (including garage).
The Neighborhood Analysis table below reflects the current conditions in the immediate
neighborhood.
House
ADDRESS House Garage and garage Lot size FAR
15951 Quail Hill Road 4 ,075 470 4 ,545 50,094 0.08
15941 Quail Hill Road 4 ,393 557 4,950 43 ,273 0.11
15925 Quail Hill Road {E) 2,766 602 3,368 42,525 0.07
15925 Quail Hill Road .. (!»). 3,870 707 4,577 42,~25 0.10
15921 Quail Hill Road 4 ,166 583 4,749 41 ,382 0.11
15920 Quail Hill Road 2 ,784 517 3,301 40,120 0.07
15930 Quail Hill Road 2,074 528 2,602 45 ,738 0.05
15970 Quail Hill Road 5,107 811 5,918 57,064 0 .10
15971 Quail Hill Road 2,985 1,436 4,421 57,065 0.07
1 00 Drysdale Drive 2,472 816 3,288 41 ,382 0.07
110 Drysdale Drive 3,990 910 4,900 42 ,680 0.11
130 Drysdale Drive 4,483 666 5,149 57,064 0 .08
107 Drysdale Drive 4,711 712 5,423 79,279 0 .06
15820 Shady Lane 1,428 384 1,812 60,113 0.02
1 04 Angel Court 5,043 1200 6,243 105,489 0.06
C. Tree Impacts
The applicant is proposing to remove six protected trees, all except one of th e trees are less
than 10 inches in diameter, and all are of low to poor hea lth according to the Town
Arborist , Rob Moulden, who visited the site and reviewed the proposed development plans .
The applicant will provide the required canopy replacement per Town Code standards.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 6
15925 Quail Hill Road/S-14-027
September 23,2015
D. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
E. Development Review Committee
The Development Review Committee (DRC) held three public hearings for the proposed
application on July 21 , August 11 , and August 18 , 2015 (Exhibit 7). Written public hearing
notices were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants (minimum of 30) prior to the
July 21, 2015 meeting.
Mr. Krouskup and his wife Dana were present at the DRC hearings along with their
consultant Mr. Livingstone. The concerns raised by the neighbors were primarily in
regards to the ingress/egress easement over their property. Two additional concerns were
mentioned in regards to the proximity of the residence to their home and the height of the
proposed residence. Staff and the applicant discussed changes that had already been
considered and or implemented to reduce the impact of the proposed residence on the
adjacent neighbors including keeping the home as a single story. The applicant was unable
to offer any additional solutions to increase the setback from the neighbor 's property or to
further reduce the 19-foot tall proposed residence.
On August 18, 2015, the DRC found that the application was complete and in compliance
with the HDS&G . The DRC approved the application subject to the conditions provided in
Exhibit 3.
F. Appeal
The application was appealed by Mr. Krouskup (Exhibit 12). The appellant's reasons for
the appeal are:
1) Significant negative impact on their adjoining property;
2) The proposed new development does not comply with the Hillside Development
Standards;
3) The new development does not comply with Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan; and
4) The proposed new development relies on ingress/egress across their adjoining property,
of which there is no legal easement supporting the required access.
No specifics were given as to how the application does not comply with the HDS&G or the
Hillside Specific Plan. Staff has discussed with the appellant and the applicant the standard
conditions regarding construction management and how the applicant could agree to reduce
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7
15925 Quail Hill Road/S-14-027
September 23,2015
their construction hours and address additional construction concerns the neighbor had , but
no specifics were requested by the appellant. The site has contained a single family
residence since 1957 , and the second unit was legalized in 1986. The proposed
modifications would improve but retain the single family residence, no modifications are
proposed to the legal second unit. As discussed in the background section of the report , the
site has legal ingress/egress rights over Mr. Krouskup's propet1y ; however, the easement
lacks a defined width. Current Town standards would require a 20-foot easement for this
type of access. The existing paved access varies from approximately 15 feet to 30 feet in
width. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the existing access and
approved its continued use for the proposed project.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION :
A. Conclusion
The project IS m compliance with the HDS&G and the Hillside Specific Plan. The
proposed residence is appropriately designed for the neighborhood and site constraints and
would be compatible with the surrounding homes. While the language within the easement
may need to be defined, according to the Town Attorney, this is a civil matter and not a
sufficient reason for denying or delaying the application. According to all documents
provided by the applicant and the appellant, the site has legal ingress/egress rights. Staff
recommends that the application be approved as outlined in the recommendation section
below.
B . Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to deny the
appeal, uphold the decision of the DRC and approve the Architecture and Site application:
1. Find that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Exhibit 2); and
2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code
for granting approval of a demolition of a single-family residence (Exhibit 2); and
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines (Exhibit 2); and
4. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 2);
and
5. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and
6. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-14-027 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and development plans attached as Exhibit 14.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8
15925 Quail Hill Road/S-14-027
September 23 , 2015
Alternatively, the Commission may take one of the following actions:
1. Grant the appeal and remand the application to the DRC with direction for revi sions ; or
2. Modify the conditions of approval in Exhibit 3 as deemed appropriate; or
3. Continue the application to a date certain with direction to staff and the applicant for
desired r ev isions; or
4. Grant the appeal and d eny the Architecture a nd Site application .
Prepared by:
Mami F. Moseley, AICP
Associate Planner
LRP:MFM :c g
pproved by:
aurel R. Prevetti
Town Manager/ Community Development
Director
cc: Sabrina Dong, 15925 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos CA 95032
Brad Krou skup, 15921 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos CA 95032
N :\DEV \PC RE PORTS\2015\Quail Hi ll -15925-appeal.doc
15925 Quail Hill Road
.EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATI ONS FOR: September 23, 2015
15925 Quail Hill Road
Architecture and Site Application S-14-027
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to construct a new
single-family residence on property zoned HR-1. APN 527-02-007.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Kevin Hwang and Sabrina Dong
FINDINGS
Required fmding for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 : New Construction or Conversion ofSmall
Structures.
Required fmdings for demolition:
As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family
residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house will be replaced.
2. The structure has no historic significance.
3 . The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure due to its current
condition; and
4. The economic utility of the structure is limited due to its condition.
Required Compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the site is developed as a single
family residence on an existing parcel. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria
included in the plan.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of applications:
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture
and site application were all made in reviewing this project.
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\20 15 \Quail hill 15925.doc EXHIBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-September 23, 2015
15925 Quail Hill Road
Architecture and Site Application S-14-027
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to construct a
new single-family dwelling on property zoned HR-1. APN 527-02-007.
Property Owner/Applicant: Kevin Hwang and Sabrina Dong
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the
conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans . Any
changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved b y the Community
Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the
scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two
years from the date of approval (September 23, 20 17) unless the approval is used before
expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted
under the Zoning Ordinance.
3. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
4. EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the
Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines (earthtone colors with a light reflectivity
value of30 or less).
5. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction
shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that
requires all exterior materials be maintained in conformance with the Town 's Hillside
Development Standards & Guidelines.
6. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit,
the developer shall provide the Planning Director with written notice of the company
that will be recycling the building materials. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum
materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company
which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these
materials, noting the type and weight of material s, shall be submitted to the Town prior
to the Town's demolition inspection.
7. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of thi s plan, and must remain on the site.
8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
9. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing
trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall rem ai n through all
phases of construction. Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone attached to two-inch
diameter steel posts driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than I 0 feet
apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans.
10 . OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be
down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No
flood lights shall be used unless first approved by the Planning Divi s ion . The outdoor
lighting plan can be reviewed during building plan check. Any changes to the lighting
plan shall be approved by the Planning Di vision prior to installation.
EXHIBIT 3
11. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115
requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall
defend , indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its official s in any act ion brought by
a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is
a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval.
Building Div ision
12. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the demolition of
portions of the existing single family residence and the construction of new single-
family residence alterations and additions to the existing single-family residence.
Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as
necessary.
13. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
on the cover sheet of th e construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be
prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the
Conditions of Approval will be addressed .
14. SIZE OF PLANS : Four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24" x 36", maximum
size 30" x 42 ".
15 . SOILS REPORT : A Soils Report , prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted
with the building permit application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil
Engineer specializing in soils mechanics. As an alternate, the necessary foundation
elements can be designed by a licensed Civil Engineer to the minimum requirements of
Chapter 4 of the 2013 California Residential Code.
16. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licen sed civil engineer
or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation
ins pection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as
specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevation and any on-site r etaining
wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans.
Hori zontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or
registered civil engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d . Retaining Walls
17. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy
Compliance Forms must be blue-lined, i.e. directly printed onto a plan sheet.
18. BACKWATER VALVE : The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50 .025 . Please provide
information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the
in stallation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District
(WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood
level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
19 . TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA
Pha se II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905 . Tree limbs shall be cut
within 10-feet of Chimney.
20. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof as sembly.
21. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban
Interface Fire Area, however only new buildings must comply with Section R327 of the
2010 California Residential Code. Additions and Remodels are not required to comply
with Section R327 at this time.
22. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared
by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public
Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182 .
23. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION : Provide a letter from a California licensed
Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements
have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government
Code Section 51182.
24. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704,
the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to iss uance of the building permit.
The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all
requested parties prior to permit issuance . Special Inspection forms are available from
the Building Division Service Counter or online at www .l os gato s ca.gov/building
25. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) shall be part of the
plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is availab le at the Building
Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee or online at
www .lo s gatosca. gov/buildi ng.
26 . APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and
agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development-Planning Division
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department
d. West Valley Sanitation District
e . Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to
permit issuance.
TO THE SA TFISF A TION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS &PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
27. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted
Town Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall
conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be
kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not
be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the
sidewalk and /or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is issued. The
developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours.
Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the
Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
28 . APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance wi th all the conditions
of approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and
approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or
conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
29. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5 ,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the applicant/developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not
limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits
must be submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to releasing of any permit.
30. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The developer or his representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work
pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's
right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without
inspection.
31. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The developer shall repair or
replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or
removed because of developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to:
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers ,
thermoplastic pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition
equal to or better than the original condition. Existing improvement to be repaired or
replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall
comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. Developer shall request a walk-
through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to
verify existing conditions .
32. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on
the job site at all times during construction
33. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan
review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
34. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance
of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map.
35. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to
the approval of the Town prior to alter work is started . The Applicant Project Engineer
shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least 72 hours in advance of all the
proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final "as-built"
plans.
36. GRADING PERMIT: Grading permit may be/is required for all site grading and
drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Grading
Ordinance. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the
Engineering Division of the Parks & Public Works Department located at 41 Miles
A venue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location,
driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork
quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically
allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued
concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the
building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on
E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint.
37. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT : Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, it shall be
the sole responsibility of the owner/applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required
easements and /or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. Proof
of agreement/approval is required prior to issuance of any Permit.
38. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior
to issuance of a grading permit/building perm it.
39. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified
by a licensed surveyor or regi stered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying,
for the following items :
a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
40. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or
approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading
permit plan review process.
41. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the
application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site
grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design and erosion control. The
reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance
with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code.
42. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MlTIGA TION MEASURE. A geotechnical investigation
shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at
the si te and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The
geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design
of foundations , retaining walls , concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation,
drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the
in vestigation shall be incorporated into project plans
43. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the applicant's engineers shall prepare
and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval
by the Town. The applicant's soils engineer shall review the fina l grading and drainage
plans to ensure that designs for foundations , retaining walls, site grading, and site
drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments.
The applicant's soils engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by
letter or by signing the plans.
44. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant 's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes
in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The res ults of the
construction observation and testing should be documented in an "as-bu ilt" letter/report
prepared by the applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release
of any occupancy permit is granted.
45. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated , or temporarily removed
utility services, including telephone , electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.0 15(b ). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable
television service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility
alignments from any and all utility service providers. The Town of Los Gatos does not
approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities.
46. EMERGENCY ACCESS EASEMENT: Prior to the issuing of a certificate of
occupancy, the applicant shall perform one of the following:
a. Record a new emergency access/ingress-egress easement to encompass the
existing driveway between the public right-of-way at Short Road and the
subject property (APN 527-02-007). The existing access easement shall be
vacated;
b. Construct new roadway improvements within the existing emergency
access/ingress-egress easement. New improvements shall conform to Santa
Clara County Fire Department Standards.
47. FENCING: Any fencing proposed within 200-feet of an intersection shall comply with
Town Code Section §23.10.080.
48. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements,
including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Section
23.1 0.080, 26.1 0.065 , 29.40.030.
49 . FENCES : Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property
lines/boundary lines . Any existing fences encroached into the neighbors will need to be
removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines. Waiver of this
condition will require signed and notarized letters from all affected neighbors .
50. AS-BUILT PLANS: An AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans shall be
provided to the Town prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The AutoCAD file
shall include only the following information and shall conform to the layer naming
convention : a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer:
DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING WALL; d) Swimming Pool,
Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Tennis Court, Layer: TENNIS-COURT; f) Property
Line, Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer: NEWCONTOUR. All as-built
digital files must be on the same coordinate basis as the Town's survey control network
and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or higher.
51. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture 's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval
from the Town Engineer.
52. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning
or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a .m. and between 4:00p.m. and
6:00p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the
Town Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic
control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on
or off the project site . This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the
developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of
construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination
with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling
soil, sand, and other loose debris.
53 . CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8 :00a.m . to 8:00p.m., weekdays and
9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays , construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level
exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet. If the device is located within a
structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-
five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the
property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA .
54. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's): The applicant is responsible for
ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and such
measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained
and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material ,
equipment and/or operations that need protection . Removal of BMPs (temporary
removal during construction activities) shall be placed at the end of each working day.
Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction
notices , citations, or stop orders.
55. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects must incorporate the following measures :
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas .
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas .
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum .
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
56. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so
that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of
grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks
shall be present and in use at the construction site . All portions of the site subject to
blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum
of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads ,
parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of
blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur.
Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by
the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction
activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p .m. and shall include at least
one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets
soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily
basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork
activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH . All
trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
57. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest
requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for
Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual
of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, the Town's grading and erosion
control ordinance and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control
as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities .
58. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly
connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO
DUMPING-Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all
projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal
Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels,
directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable
surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 1 0 ' minimum from adjacent
property line and/or right of way.
59. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor
and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned
up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be
washed into the Town's storm drains.
60 . GOOD HOUSEKEEPING : Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be
allowed unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent
public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the
day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing o f
goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a
special permit is iss ued . The developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site
during all working hours . Failure to maintain the public right -of-way according to this
condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's
expense.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
61. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire
sprinkler system is required for the new residence and bam, hydraulically designed per
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. A State of California
licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit
application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval , prior to
beginning work.
62 . PREMISE IDENTIFICATION . Approved addresses shall be placed on all new
buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from the street. Numbers shall be a
minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background.
N:\DEV\CON DITNS\20 15\Quail Hill 15925.doc
r
. , ' .... ~·L . ,• 1-5925 Qua~ KiD • PROJECT DATA --:.. .
.'· ... -. r •. .f
PREVIOUS PROPOSED REQUIRED/
PROJECT PROJECT PERMinED
Zoning district HR-1 same -
Land use Single family Home same -
General Plan Designation hillside residential same -
L ot size ,•:
$ square f eet 42,525 same 40,000 sq . ft . minimum
$ acres 1 same .92 acres min imum
Exterior material s: . •
$ s iding Wood plank ' Stucco and stone -
veneer
$ trim wood wood -
$ windows Aluminum single pane Clad dual pane -
$ roofing Roll roofing asphalt concrete tile -
Building floor area:
$ main floor 1992 3210
$ l ower floor 0 385 4,500 sq. ft. maximum
·$ carport 423 220/464 400 sq. ft . exemption
$ cellar 0 380 i exempt
$ accessory structur e(s) 774 774 included in FAR
$ total (excludi ng cellar) 2766 4833 4,900 sq. ft . maximum
Setbacks {ft.):
$ front 41.9 . 39.5 30 feet minimum
$ r ear 200+ 200+ 25 feet min i mum
$ side 18.8 20 20 feet minimum
$ s ide 25.9 23.6 20 feet minimum
Average slope (%) >30 >30 -
Maxi mum height (ft.) 14feet 21 feet 25 feet maximum
Building coverage (%) 7.5% 11% no maximum
Parking i .
garage spaces 2 3 four spaces minimum in
uncovered spaces 3 4 addition to two in garage
Sew er or septic sewer sewer -
N :\OEV\M•mi\A&S\1 S92S Quail H illlprojccldala. wpd
EXHIBIT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
LETTER OF JUSTIFICATION
15925 Quail Hill Road , Los Gatos, CA
RECEIVED
·jAN -B 701"
TOV\IN OF LO~ GAT0$
PLANNING Dl'v•3,vi-.J
12/10/2014
I carefully reviewed my client's objectives and town hillside guidelines . I worked closely w ith my clients,
and planning staff to be sure the home satisfies everyone's objectives.
Client Des ign Guide lines and Objectives
• Efficient floor plan design.
• Specify durable, low maintenance and fire resistive exterior materials.
• Incorporate Feng Shui design principles.
• Utilize passive solar design principles for natural light, heating and cooling.
Town Design Guidelines and Objectives
A.Design Objecti ve
• This home maintains the existing foundation to minimize the impact to hillside.
• The design is primarily single story with small lower floor built under the extended portion of
the home to maintain a one story appearance.
• The existing detached guest house will be preserved to maintain the Towns affordable housing
objectives .
• Add covered and guest parking and improve vehicle backout and turnaround.
B. Neighbor Friendly
• Impact on adjacent neighbors :
•
•
North : no neighbor (two story elevati on)
Sou th : minimal impact because proposed home and carport location and width is the same as
existing.
East : minimal impact because proposed home and carport locations are similar to ex ist ing.
West : minimal impact because proposed home and carport locations are similar to existing .
C. Sustainable Design
Doors and windows take advantage of summer and winter breezes and provide excellent cross
ventilation.
Sustainable building materials and practices t hat are cost effective and sui table to the style of
this home will be incorporated. EXHIBIT 5
D. Fire Safety
• This project will comply with all the strictest hillside fire protection standards and guidelines.
E. Height
• This project is in compliance w ith all height limits of the Town Hillside Zoning Ordinance .
F. Bulk & Mass.
• The proposed small lower floor minimizes the bulk and mass and avoids the appearance of a
two story home from adjacent properties.
G. Roofs
• The simple roof design reflects the craftsman style which is my client preferred style and an
appropriate architecture for this setting.
H. Architectural Elements
• Architectural detailing will be consistent on all sides.
• No massive, tall or prominent features are proposed for the downhill far;ade .
I. Materials & Colors
• Fire resistive materials and earth tone colors are proposed for the exterior.
Conclusion
This project will improve owners quality of life, vehicle access, fire conditions and hillside stability, and
enhance the overall neighborhood character.
Sincerely
Mike Vierhus,
Project Architect
Lic.#C19155
CDG -CANNON
DESIGN
GROUP
June 5, 2015
Ms. Marni Mosley
Community Development Departme nt
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 15925 Quail Hill Road
Dear Marni:
AR CHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DES IGN
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is accessed by a long driveway which is shared by one other house located immediately adjacent to the existing
house. Other nearby homes are either located at some distance from the site o r are si ted well below this parcel. The site
is sh own on the aerial photo below, and photos of the si te and its surroundings are on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LAND ING C I RCLE. SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
EXHIBIT 6
TEL: 4 '15.331.37 95
COGPLAN @ PACBfll.NET
[xisting house on the site
View to the west
V1ew to the east
CANNON DES IGN GROUP
1 5925 Quail Hill Road
Design Revi ew Commem s
June 5 , 2015 Page 2
[xisting house on thf' site and interfc~ce with adja -
cent house to the south
Immediat e ly adjace n t hou se to the so uth
View to the south
View to the north
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRC LE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 9493 9
Issues and Concerns
15925 Quail Hill Road
Design Review Commenrs
June 5, 201 5 Page 3
The proposed renovation and expansion of the existing house o n the site will result in a rather eclectic structure with
a multitude of roof forms and orientations. There are some details that suggest a Craftsman Style home, but they are
limited, and not ve ry consistent with the forms and detail s that are included on many good examples in the Town of
Los Gatos. Some specific issues and recommendations are as follows:
1. The detailing shown on the drawings for gable ends and the entry fall short of what has become the nor m for
other homes of this style in Los Gatos.
2. The termination of the stone base at the right side of the front facade without continuing it to the east fa cad e
is not consis tent with Residential Design Guidelines 3.2.2 and 3.8.4 which provide guidance on extending front
facade materials around all sides of the house and making material and col or changes at inside corners.
3. The overall design would ben efi t from the extension of the ston e base to th e wa ll an d col umn bases at the cov-
ered p orch on the west side of the house. This would be increase consistency with Residential Design Guideline
3.2.2.
4. There are areas on the rear facade of the house that would have two-story hig h walls with no articulation to
break up the wall s. This is not consistent with Re sidential Design Guideline 3.3 .3.
5. There is a rather chaotic mix of roof forms toward the rear of the house which is not consistent \vith Residential
Design Guid eline 3.3.1.
Recommendations
1. A dd additional brackets and detailing appropriate to the architectural style. Carry these detail s to the r oof gable
ends o n oth er sid es of the hou se.
2. Refine the design an d detailing of th e entry to more closely match the ar chitectural style.
3. Extend the stone base around to the east elevation and carry it to a termination point at an inside corner.
4 . Extend the stone base around to the walls and column bases o f the covered porch.
Wrap stone around
s i de to wall and
column bases for
design continuity
and compliance with
Residential design
Guideline 3 .2 .2
CANNON DESI GN GROUP
Add brackets and gable detail
appropriate to the architectural style
Refine entry details to more closely
match the architectural style
700 LARKSPU R LANDING CIRC LE . SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
5. Simplify the roof forms consistent with the architectural style.
15925 Quail Hill Road
Design Revi ew Comments
June 5, 2015 Page 4
6 . Add a trellis or other projecting element on the rear elevation to break up the two-story wall.
S implify the roof fo rms consistent
with the architectural style
Add brackets and gable detail
nn1•nnri::.itP tO the architectural Style
elevation
or
element to break up two-story wall
See Residential Design Guideline 3.3.3
Marni, please let me know if you have any que stions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESI GN G ROUP
Larry L. Cannon
CANNON DES IGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874 ___ , _______ , __ _
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JULY 21,2015 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 10:05 a.m. by Chair Machado.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present:
Jenn(fer Savage, Senior Plann er
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
Doug Harding, Fire Department
Michael Machado, Building Official
Mark Glendinning, Building Inspector
Ryan Fang, Assistant Civil Engineer
Mike Weisz, Associate Civil Engineer
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1: 14325 Mulbeny Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-15-002
Requesting approval to demolish an existing pre-1941 single-family residence and to
construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 409-15-020.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Far Creek Properties, INC .
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2 . Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
4. Members of the public were present:
Jess and Val Guy, Mulberry Drive, stated that they feel the project will improve the
neighborhood.
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Ry an Fang moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations:
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
c The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
EXJ:UBII 'l
DRC Minutes
July 21,2015
Page2
Required fmding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
• As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single-
family residence:
a . The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be replaced .
b . The existing structures have no architectural or historical significance, and are in poor
condition.
c. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
d . The economic utility of the structures was not considered.
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes
not in hillside residential areas.
CONSIDERATI ONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
7. Mark Glendinning seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8 . Appeal rights were cited.
ITEM2: 15925 Quail Hill Road
Architecture and Site Application S-14-027
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to
construct a new single-family residence on property zoned HR-1. APN 527-02-
007.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Kevin Hwang and Sabrina Dong
PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3 . Applicant was introduced.
4 . Members of the public were present:
Bernard and Marcia, I 00 Drysdale Drive, had no objection to the project.
Brad and Dana Krouskup, Quail Hill Road stated that the project entrance driveway is 30 feet
from their front door and the construction noise will be overwhelming. Brad Krouskup
presented some parcel maps and stated that the access easements are not clear and that this
should be resolved prior to approval of the project. He continued that the condition ofthe road
is not able to support construction traffic, that the applicant is not in compliance with the Road
Maintenance Agreement, and that construction traffic will be forced to tum around onto their
property.
DRC Minutes
July 21 ,2015
Page 3
John Livingstone, I he Krouskup 's Land Use Consultant, made the contention that he felt that
the project was not consistent with the General Plan and that the home will be assessed as a
new house when in reality it is a remodeled house. He mentioned that legal access can and
should be resolved prior to project approval. He quest ioned whether the secondary dwelling
unit had the proper permits.
Brad Krouskup added that they are most concerned about parking and safety during
construction.
Ryan F o ng. Town Assistant Civil Engineer. stated that the titl e Report shows that there is legal
access .
Brad Krouskup countered that there is conflicting information .
Ryan Fong suggested that the easements be more clearly plotted by a Civil Engineer.
Dana Krouskup is very concerned about the quality of the road .
Ryan F ong also suggested that a Condition of Approval could be added requiring pre-
construction and post-construction surveys of the road condition be provided by the applicant.
Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshal, added that emergency access on private roads are always
problematic and that the Fire Department can only regulate the minimum width and maximum
grade of new private roads or driveways, not existing ones.
Ryan Fong added that a Construction Management Plan will be required prior to issuance of
the building permits and that verification of access rights is not in the purview of the Town.
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Doug Harding moved to continue the application to a date certain, August 11 , 2015 , in order to
allow the applicant's surveyor to more clearly plot the easements and existing access
improvements.
7 . Ryan Fong seconded, motion passed unanimously .
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned a t 10:55 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review
Committee is the following Tuesday.
"-7Y''be.,A AlA :t:z3:;;z~A~~~~~
Michael Machado, Building Official
N :\DE V\DRC'\Min 2015\7 -2 1-I S.d oc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR AUGUST 11, 2015 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m. by Chair Machado.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present:
Jennifer Savage, Senior Planner
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
Doug Harding, Fire Department
Michael Machado, Building Official
Mark Glendinning, Building Inspector
Mike Weisz, Associate Civil Engineer
Fletcher Parson, Contract Civil Engineer
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1: 15925 Quail Hill Road
Architecture and Site Application S-14-027
___ , ___________ _
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to
construct a new single-family residence on property zoned HR-1. APN 527-02-
007.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Kevin Hwang and Sabrina Dong
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
(Continued/rom 712112015)
I. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
4. Members of the public were present:
Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshal, summarized the Fire Department Conditions of
Approval.
Michael Vierhus, Architect, questioned if the conditions will also include a requirement for
turnaround.
Doug Harding responded that a fire truck turnaround will be required within 40 to 50 feet of
the project site.
Michael Vierhus mentioned that he would like to meet with the Fire Department at the site to
work an acceptable location for the turnaround.
DRC Minutes
August 11 ,2015
Page 2
Mike Weisz, Associate Civil Engineer, presented a map showing where the actual access road is
out of the described easements and read an additional condition to address this situation.
Brad Krouskup stated that he had hoped that the 20-foot easement location would have been
resolved since the last meeting. He submitted a 1958 Grant Deed with a description of an
ingress/egress easement. He went on to state that the project as proposed does not serve his
and Dana Krouskup 's best interest.
Sabrina Dong said that her surveyor has plotted the easement description.
Doug Harding questioned if the easement description includes the width. He said if not then it
is an easement with an undetermined width.
Brad Krouskup said that Chicago Title needs to explain where their other description originally
came from.
Fletcher Parson, Contract Civil Engineer, questioned if either Title Report describe the
easement width.
Brad Krouskup said the Title Report that he has does not. He suggested that Sabrina have her
Title Company review his document.
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner, stated that even though the description is incomplete, the
applicants do have legal access.
Fletch er Parson added that the applicants may have a prescriptive easement which would take
legal action to prove.
Brad Krouskup questioned whether access could be achieved from Drysdale Drive.
Micha e l Vi erhus said that he and their Civil Engineer tried to design an access driveway but the
hill is just too steep.
Brad Krouskup believes it could be done and woul d like to leave that access as an option for
the development of the property.
Marni Mosely asked what revision would make the proposal acceptable to the Krouskups.
Development outside the LRDA would need to go to the Planning Commission for approval.
Brad Krouskup responded that his home directly faces the proposed project. The front doors
will be 60 feet from each other. As proposed, the applicants will have to use his property to
turnaround . A further front setback to 35 feet would allow the applicants to turnaround on
their own property.
DRC Minutes
August 11 , 2015
Page 3
Marni Moseley explained that staff has reviewed the project for neighborhood compatibility
and compliance with the Town Code and Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, in
addition , the Town 's Architectural Consultant has reviewed the project and the applicants have
incorporated his suggestions into their design.
Brad Kroskup replied that the location is the biggest issue and he will have an Architect review
the proposal.
M ichael Vierhus commented, "Do neighbors now design their adjacent neighbor's house?"
Brad Kroskup continued that the access easements have still not been resolved and does not
comply with the road maintenance agreement in place.
John Livingstone, Consultant, questioned the off street parking in the front yard .
Marni Moseley replied that the off street parking shown in the front yard are not required
parking spaces and are therefore permitted in the front setback.
Fletcher Parsons added that Engineering did not know that there were still discrepancies
between the two Title Reports from Chicago Title and First American Title. He felt the
application should be continued for one more week to see if they can be reconciled.
Marni Moseley suggested that she could put a placeholder for a future Planning Commission
Agenda item while the access easement descriptions are being resolved. She also suggested
that the Krouskups put their concerns in writing and that it might be possible to modify the
Conditions of Approval to address some of those concerns.
5 . Public hearing closed .
6 . Doug Harding moved to continue the application for one more week.
7. Mike Weisz seconded, motion passed unanimously.
IT EM 2: 17101 Los Robles Way (Heard out of order)
Architecture and Site Application S-15-051
Requesting approval of a time extension for a previous approval for a grading permit
for a new deck and retaining walls on property zoned R-1 :20 . APN 532-36-072 .
PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT : Karen Evenden
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage
I . Chair Mac hado opened the public hearing .
2 . Staff gave report on proposed project.
3 . Applicant was introduced.
4 . Members of the public were not present:
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Doug Harding moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations:
DRC Minutes
August 11 ,20 15
Page 4
FINDINGS
• As required by Section 29 .20.325 of the Town Code for time extension reque sts:
(b) (1) There would be no legal impediment to granting a new application for the same approval.
(2) The conditions originally applied or new conditions to be applied as a p art of th e
extension approval are adopted to any new facts concerning the proposed project.
7 . Mark G lendinning seconded , motion passed unanimously.
8 . Appeal rights were cited.
OTHER BUSINESS-NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11 :20 a.m . The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review
Committee is the following Tuesday.
"···rr~~/'<-L r'
Michael Machado, Building 0 fictal
N:\DEV\DR C\Min 2015 \8-ll-15 .doc
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR AUGUST 18, 2015 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA .
The meeting was called to order at 10:00 a.m. by Chair Machado .
ATTENDANCE
Members Present:
Jennifer Savage, Senior Planner
Marni Moseley, Associate Planner
Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner
Doug Harding, Fire Department
Michael Machado, Building Official
Mark Glendinning, Building Inspector
Mike Weisz, Associate Civil Engineer
Fletcher Parsons, Contract Town Civil Engineer
Robert Schultz, Town Attorney
PUBLIC HEARINGS
ITEM 1: 15925 Quail Hill Road
Architecture and Site Application S-14-027
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to
construct a new single-family residence on property zoned HR-1. APN 527-02-
007 .
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Kevin Hwang and Sabrina Dong
PROJECT PLANNER: Marni Moseley
(Continued from 712112015 and 811112015)
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
Sabrina Dong, Applicant, presented a Deed of Trust from Frist Republic title Company
descripting the ingress and egress easement and added that a real estate attorney is of the
opinion that she has a prescriptive easement.
4 . Members of the public were present:
Brad Krouskup asked if they could continue to do more research. He stated that he and Dana
Krouskup are not opposed to the applicants developing their property. They are opposed to the
current proposal and want to offer positive not negative input. John Livingstone's letter lists
their issues of concern. He said their primary issue is the project's impact on their house. He
stated that an easement exists with no defined width. He said that access from Drysdale Drive
would be preferred. He would like to present some options.
DRC Minutes
August 18 ,2015
Page 2
Marni Moseley , Associate Planner, stated that the Development Review Committee (DRC)
hearing is to take comments on a proposed project. It would not be appropriate for the DRC to
review plans that are not part of a proposed project. She added that when they met in May,
staff suggested they put their concerns in writing and no comments were received .
Robert Schultz, Town A ttorney, stated that the Town does not represent any individual interest
but simply reviews and proposals for compliance with the Town Code Standards .
John Liv ingstone, Consultant, presented a response letter to Marni Moseley, in response to his
first letter of concerns. He is most concerned about the Fire Department conditions. He also
questioned the lack of Building permit for the secondary unit and the safe condition of the unit.
Marni Mose ley state that when the secondary unit permit was approved in 1986, a safety
inspection was perfo rmed.
Sabrina Dong stated that she was also concerned about the safety of the unit and had two
separate structural engineers assess the structural integrity of the unit and that they both
independently concluded that the unit is structurally sound.
Dana Krouskup commented that she is most concerned about construction traffic access.
Brad Krouskup added that he feels that the proposal is not consistent with the Hillside Specific
Plan.
Marni Mos el ey read Condition of Approval No. 46, which addresses the emergency access
easement.
5 . Public hearing closed.
6. Marni Moseley moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations :
FINDINGS
Required f"mding for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 : New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures.
Required f"mdings for demolition:
As required by Section 29.10 .09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family
residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house. will be replaced.
2. The structure has no historic significance.
DRC Minutes
August 18,2015
Page 3
3 . The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure due to its current
condition; and
4. The economic utility of the structure is limited due to its condition.
Required Compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines .
Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the site is developed as a single
family residence on an existing parcel. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria
included in the plan.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of applications:
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an architecture
and site application were all made in reviewing this project.
7 . Doug Harding seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8 . Appeal rights were cited.
ITEM2 : 17061 Wild Way
Architecture and Site Application S-15-055
Requesting approval to demolish a single-family residence, remove large protected
trees, and construct a new single-family residence with reduced setbacks on a non-
conforming property zoned R-1 :20. APN 424-30-087.
PROPERTY OWNER: Wild Way LLC
APPLICANT: Tony Jeans
PROJECT PLANNER: Jennifer Savage
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing .
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
Tony Jeans first went to the Planning Commission requesting a reduced front setback of 25
feet. The Planning Commission wanted him to hold to the required 30 feet setback. He
redesigned the house to move it back, reduced the footprint in order to save trees , retained the
architectural style but reduced the mass by lowering the plate lines a little. He worked with the
neighbor to address her concerns and offered the option of providing a gate in the common
fence due to tight access conditions.
DRC Minutes
August 18,2015
Page 4
As a result of these modifications, the Planning Division was able to place the application on
the Development Review Committee agenda and the proposal was now in compliance with the
Town Code and the Residential Design Guidelines .
4 . Members of the public were not present:
5. Public hearing closed .
6. Doug Harding moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations:
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
• The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section I5303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
Required fmding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
• As required by Section 29.1 0.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single-family
residence:
I . The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be replaced .
2. The existing structures have no architectural or historical significance, and are in poor
condition.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was not considered.
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes not
in hillside residential areas.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
Required considerations in review of requests for reduced setbacks on non-conforming lots:
• As required by Section 29 .I 0.265 of the Town Code, it is determined that the reduced side
setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood.
DRC Minutes
August 18 ,2015
Page 5
7. Mark Glendinning seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8. Appeal rights were cited.
ITEM 3: 202 Lu Ray Drive
Architecture and Site Application S-15-024
Requesting approval of a technical demolition of an existing single-family
residence and construction of a new single-family residence on property zoned R-
1: 10. APN 523-24-034.
PROPERTY OWNER: Joseph Calvey
APPLICANT: Jessica Aviles
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Puga
1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
4. Members of the public were not present:
Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshal, clarified that since the addition resulted in a house less
than 3600 square feet, fire sprinklers were not required .
5. Public hearing closed .
6 . Mike Weisz moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the
following findings and considerations:
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
• The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
Required finding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
• As required by Section 29.1 0 .09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single-family
residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be replaced.
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it exists; and
4 . While the majority of the structure will be maintained, the scope of the proposed remodel
requires removal of more than 50% of the existing wall area ; which will result in a technical
demolition.
DRC Minutes
August 18, 20 15
Page 6
Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project is in ~ompliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes not
in hillside residential areas.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
7. Doug Harding seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8. Appeal rights were cited.
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:00 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review
Committee is the following Tuesday.
N :\DEV\DRC\Min 2015\8-18-15.doc
RE\.OR.DING REQUESTED BY :
Old Republic Title Company
Order No.: 0631011561-LN
APN: 527-02-001
When Recorded Mail Document and Tax Statements to:
Brad Krouskup & Dana Krouskup
15921 Quail Hill Road
Los p a tos, Ca., 9503 2
DOCUMENT: z {. ,8580
U ~lUll IIIII II I!U
REGINA ALCO ME NDRAS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RE CO RDE R
Reco rded at t he request of
Old Rep ubli c Title Co mpan y
Fees ... .
Taxes .. .
Copi e s ..
AMT PAID
Pages : 3
25 .00
3080 .00
3 105 .00
ROE ~ 806
1/23/2009
8 :00 AM
____________________ _._ _____ SPACE ABOVE THIS UNE IS FOR RECORDER'S USE ____ _
Grant Deed
The undersigned grantor(s) declare(s):
Documentary Transfer Ta x is $3,080 .00.
(X) computed on full value of property conveyed, or
( ) computed on full value less of liens and encumbrances remaining at time of sale. AUG 11 2015
( ) Unincorporated area: (X) City of Los Gatos
TO'v\'N OF LOS GATf"'3
FOR A VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, PLANNING DIVISJO ...
Joni I. Curtis, as Trustee of the JC 2007 Residence Trust, dated January 31, 2007 and Eric B. Curtis, as Trustee of the EC 2007
Residence Trust, dated January 31, 2007
hereby GRANT(S) to
Brad W. KAou~ku~ and Dana B. Krouskup, Trustees of The Krouskup 2001 Living Trus~ dated · 11t15t20U1
that property in City of Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, State of California, described as:
See "Exhibit A" attached hereto and made a part hereof.
Date: January 20, 2009
State of California
County of Santa Clara
I 7 ·t c () A--v ( 0 vvt '"1-{ d <._ On ...-1/ -0 r before me, a
Notary Public, personally appeared Eric B. Curtis and Joni I. Curtis, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the
person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument .the person(s), or the entity upon
behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and co rre ct.
WITNESS my hand an\ o tcial seal.
~···tlllte~~GEC!f~;r~e~IE mV I I ~II£!fii~ICII
Signature ; ~~· ~::; •• 01-\VID M. ZIEL : ~; ~ COM M NO 1780801 ij
Name David M. 1 • Nv!AKY r'LH:lLIC CALIFORN IA ~
(typed or printed) (Area; ciai-M'taMi'~&II)ITA CLARA 1
.. ,. •·•. CUMM EXPIRES NOV 18 ,2011 g £bo u~~~~UG OD~~BDD DU~C~~auu~~U ~~U JJuuJJJU ~D0
Grant Deed MAl L TAX STATEMENTS AS DIRECTED ABOVE EXHIBIT 8
(-(
ORDER NO.: 0631011561-LN
EXHIBIT A
The land referred to is situated in the County of Santa Clara , City of Los Gatos, State of
California, and is described as follows :
PARCEL ONE:
A portion of Lot 1, as shown on that certain Map entitled "Map of the M.S . Gardner Estate,
being part of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos", filed November 23, 1887, in Book "C" of
Maps, Page 39 and also being Parcel B, Map of Record of Survey, which Map was filed for
record in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara, State of California, on June
13, 1956 in Book 70 of Maps at Page 29, described as follows :
Beginning at the most Southerly corner of the parcel of land conveyed to Perley B. Payne, et ux,
by Deed recorded January 21, 1955 in Book 3064 of Official Records, Page 568; thence North
1 5° 01' West along the Southwesterly line of said Parcel 340 .82 feet to the most Westerly
corner thereof; thence North 17° 08' East along the Northwesterly line of said Parcel 102.51
feet to an iron pipe at the most Westerly corner of the parcel of land conveyed to Claude M.
Walk, et ux, by Deed recorded March 4, 1957 in Book 3743 of Official Records, Page 60; thence
along the Southerly line of said Walk parcel of land the following courses and distances, South
72° 52 ' East 80 .00 feet North 61° 42' East 21.60 feet; North 27° 10' East 35.53 feet; South 75°
01' East 97.03 feet to the Southeasterly corner of the said Walk parcel ; thence South 44° 01'
East 58 .53 feet to an i ron pipe; thence South 75° 01 ' East 70 .00 feet to an iron pipe on the
Easterly line of the said Payne parcel of land; thence South 7° 02' West along said Easterly line
to the point of beginning.
PARCEL TWO :
A non-exclusive easements for ingress and egress and the installation and maintenance of
public utilities over a portion of Lot 1, Map of the M.S. Gardner Estate, being part of the Rancho
Rinconada De Los Gatos, described as follows:
(a) A strip of land 43 feet wide the Southeasterly line of which is descri bed as follows :
Beginning at a po int on the Easterly line of the 0.617 of an acre parcel of land conveyed
to F.C. Cushman by Deed recorded May 2, 1924 in Book 86 of Official Records, Page 63;
distant thereon South 18° 18' 30" West 20.00 feet from the Westerly corner of the
1.4384 acre parcel of land described in the Deed to Gino A. Pasquali, et ux, recorded
May 25, 1948 in Book 1621 of Official Records, Page 47; thence South 72° 55' East
parallel with the Southwesterly line of said 1.4384 acre parcel of land 437.61 feet to a
point in a line drawn South 17° OS' West from the Southeasterly corner of said 1.4384
acre parcel.
(b) Beginning at the true point of beginning of the parcel of land described in the Deed to
Claude M. Wal k, et ux, recorded March 4, 1957 in Book 3743 of Official Records, Page
60; thence North 17° 05 ' East 30 .00 feet; thence North 18° 33' 50" West 28 .30 feet;
thence South 72° 55' East 56.49 feet; thence South 17° OS' West 53 .00 feet; and thence
North 73° 55' West 40.00 feet to said true point of beg inning.
Pag e 1 of 2
(
(c) The most Northwesterly 40 feet of the parcel of land conveyed to Claude M. Walk, et ux,
recorded March 4, 1957, Book 3743 of Official Records, Page 60, bejng the most
Northwesterly 40 feet of Parcel "C" as shown on Map of Record of Survey recorded
June 13, 1956, Book 70 of Maps, Page 29.
PARCEL THREE:
An easement for the installation and maintenance of water pipe line within a portion of Lot 1,
Map of the M.S . Gardner Estate, being part of the Rancho Rinconada De Los Gatos, being that
portion of the following described 10 foot strip of land lying within the lands of the grantors in
the Deed from Mogens Olesen, et ux, to Claude M. Walk, et al, recorded May 9, 1957 in Book
3794 of Official Records, Page 196.
A strip of land 10 feet wide the centerline of which is described as follows:
Commencing at the intersection of the center line of Short Road and Shannon Road; thence
Northeasterly along the center line of Short Road, North 18° 16' East (said bearing taken for
purposes of this description) a distance of 272.50 feet; thence South 72 ° 17' 30" East 20.00
feet to the actual point of beginning on the Westerly line of the lands of John P. Urzi, acquired
by Deed recorded December 30, 1954 in Book 3050 of Official Records, Page 340; thence South
72° 17' 30". East 465.00 feet; thence South 74° 49' 30" East 170.00 feet to the end of the
aforementioned center line.
APN: 527-02-001
A525-15-022
Page 2 of 2
@ 3
l ....•
. ~... ...
0
<
0
1::::
I
~
N~WTE: Ease ments decic tecl he~~o ·1 <liC i)rovid ed as a c o nrtes ~
.lnly and no rep re sentation is inade as to the ac cur ac y or
complet en ess thefetJ'e Th 'Co~-Jn; as srnCSJo:~o -liab il ity..,to.
:mv loss oc cur ing by reason o, re lia nce thereon. It rs
-ec ommendc d tha• " s u rJC }' be obtai ned f rom a license d .
orof essi on al to determ in e actual loc ation s.
0 /
tr~
1-
0::
0
:I: N
(/) ,.
1 ;
II -
1"•100 '
. -
.. ('
~ran{ il_etb :Jpfnt t!tena ·nc!'
. . . . ' ~ . I . . ·~. . . . .
:do ~GRANTro · · Harvey _D~Bose and
. . . .·
. ·. J.p11a ,F~ye Boss, his k1fe 1
·· . ......-:-~--··-... -
',J3egin.o1,._pg ·at· the moot . Sou.therly ·corner ·Of . that cer.·tain pa~cel· "Of ·land ....
... conveyed . by Harris, et .ux, ·to Perley B.Parne·;. et U:J!:1 by _Deed _dated
·January 21, 19.S.S ·and recorded · January 21, 19.5.5 rn .Book J064 .. of Off.1c1al
Records; ·page ·56B;._thence N.:7.S 0 .01' w. along the Southwesterly lhie-· -,.
of -sai_d p~rcel of :·land 340.82 feet to ·the mQst Westerly corner . thereof;
thence U ~-17° · 08 1 ·E. _e],ong the Northwesterly Une of._ s?1d · p~rcel of _
lan_i!..:_l02 • .51 -fe~t t .o an iron pipe .at the most: Westf;lrly corner _of _that.
cert3in · par.cel of 1end-:Qonveyed by Perley B.Payne, _ e .t ux to Claua~ ··
M.. Walk , Et ux, '.by J?.eed .dated Y.arch.1J; 1957 and recorded Harch :4,· ·1957 .
in Book . J74J -of. Off1.c1~·b . Records, page 60;_ thence along the Southerly .~--··
line of said Walk ·parcel · or l~d the following courses and ,distances ~
---:s-:; 72° .f52'~E~ 80 0-QO fee"t; ll. 61 -0 42 1 ·E; 21;,60 feet; _N. 27° l0 1 .·E. 3,5.53
Teet;·. s. ?5° 01 1 E.· 97~03 feet to · the SoutheaAterly corner of. the .sa
lialk !J3rcel of land;· therice s. 44° 01 1 ·E• 2§j·53 feet to . ail .iron pipe; .
thence s . 75° 01 1 E. 70.00 feet to an __ iron pipe on the Easterly Hne of
1:he said .Payne parcel ·of lana; the~cecs.· ?0 -02! t-:. alon~;·said Easterly .
line "to the. poi,rit. of; be-ginrting and .being a _portion of LOt 1 · as shoWn on .
. that;·~erto1ri ~lap entitl~d.l. "Map of theSl.ibdl'v1s1on ·or "'"the JI.~. Gsrdner Estate,
'. being ps~t of the . Rancho . Hinconad~· de Los Gatos• 1 and wh1~h Nap was . '. · .
, filed · for recorq.ln the · office . of. the Reoorder · .of. the Coun_tY. ·of -~·Clara,
Stat~· of Cal-ifornia, ·on : November 2.3, .1887 1n Book ·•c•--of Joiaps, page 39,
-·.FJnd Ei_ portion. of--_the. land der.cr1be_d in .the Deed fro!!l Bob .:Harrls, et ux, ·
to Perl~y. ·B. P~y'ne ~ . e~ .. \.lX; .. ~e_t~iui,Q..gve __ ,.e_nt.19ne.!l ._an.!l _.l?h.9l~ P~!:c:_~l .:B . · .
on ' the· ·Hap . of r .ecord o()t:-sui!lte-y,. recorped in . Eook · 7(). · of··i·laps; pace-29;·-santa ·.
Clara ··CQunty Records~· . • . _ · . · · · . . · · ·
.·,
· ~gether w1·th . ~d -aa ··appurt~ri~t to the :ab:ove · desci-il)ed pa_rcel of land,
non-exC:1us1ve -.·eas·~r:!entE; for .111gress and ~egress and ·for · the · 1nEt!illation
. s.n.d .maintenance :of ~public . utili tie.~ over · ~a, along . ·the following .described
narcei."s ··c,r·-l.and·: : ·· . ·._. . · -· -. ·· .. · :. -.: ."·. ··. · -' ·. ·, ·
'. · :·:·. 01_).-A •.st.ri:{ of..~rid 43.:feet .wid~:!· thk. S?~t~westerly l1n(f_~f .'wh1ch .is
· -·descr1bed-·as ·rollo~s: Beginning at :a point on the.E~sterly •l1ne .of that _
_ ._.-certain ·o~91?. ot . an l:icre . pa.r9~~-:9f .land. coJ1veyeii by _Fay _Tupper._a:id· sarah -·
_ :+'uppe:-;, l:lus_band ·and .wife~-~o ·F.'C.Cusi).man · by :Deed 'dated ·Aprn JO, ).9~4 · · ·
_ and--recorped--tiay-2 '~9"?4-:·in , B_ook :_86 ~of _Pfflcial ~ecorcls ,: ,page 6J ~--Sar}ta .
:. C~ar.a . Cotmty Records; .distant·. thereon s. ·18°1{3 1 ;ou w. 20;oo· ·f~et from the·
_· .most ·Wes.terly .corner ·of ' that· C~l't91n 1. 4)84 acre · psr<;:el Of·· land: descri bEid ..
·ln th,e ~fiaed ~roin :L~A-. ;aei.d~ et .. ux, _ to · ~ino ·A-~ ?a squall,-et ux,. dated, Z.I~y J,{;
-·-19.48 apd-_recor,<ie_d _ _l1ay ·25·, :1948 !~~ok 1621 of Of"fici<l~· . .B~cords , · pag~ 47",-.
~ant~ -~l;;a · c.oun~·y · ~eco"ras:;: tl1~n~e ·par~l-lel with · th~ :southweE~er·}·Y · u~~ of ·
·s}:ii"d 1 _.4)84 ;ICI'e ·-p9rC.~l of land S._ 72° .55 1 ·. :C:, 4J_7.6l: feet· to __ a point in -
_a line di'n:..'"Tl s~·179 05 1 ·-;..•. fr.":Ji: the Sotith~;ieterly corn~J'·of se..1d··l.4J_84 . ·
.acre.' uercel of land· •.. ··-, . .· ··. . . . . . . . · .
. :,_ . ·(b")', oeg1n_ping fit : the true point Qf ·_b e ginning ·Of the pat-c~l of ;!.and ·
described in ·-the .Deed . fron · ~er-ley B.Payne,. et ux to Claude M ... alk, .et tix, _ ·
dat!.>.d I·:arch _4~ .195'7 . iufi'! rec_orded _M~rch .~,_l957 'in L;!o?k J?~J . or Of~lchl a~_corns .
. nt p:l£;13 <'lo; thence H-.-17° 05' E. )0_.00 feet; thence ,l. 18 _JJ 50 _\-1_ •. 28~0d ____ _
feet ·; thence S , 72° ·.s.s• E •. 56,-49 feet; ·thence ·s. ·}-~,_()5 1 W, !).1_.00 f~_et; .....
.,...:..~-~hexico . l/,. ?2 _0 55 1 ·,r. 4o ·;-oo . feet to sale tru'J . point or . beglr\nint;:.:; . :
: · ·. · . · ·(c) .. The mo'st---Jlorth·,o~esterly 40 feet of th~t certain parcel,o~ lund ·
'· CCI!}Veyed by Perley-E.P3;,rn_e et u~.to Claude -I-1. i'ialk et ux d.ated ·},a.ch 4,
. · .. ,J957~ .recorded I'!a~9h" 4,· 1~57 ln . VoL ·J74J · Off.lcial ~~cords, J;>e~e -.6_0 •. . . .· ' j . . . ( . . . -·. '.. . . . . -· . ' . ~-. ·. Al-~-~ 't~ee_the~, "'-f.th :an -. apptirterl~t .. easecien~ f~p ·-t~e 1nsta,llat1on and·.
0
I
· ., ·,,maintenance. of-a w9ter pine line over ,. along and .under that portlo~·.of th-:
· roi lo·,o~_ine :Mr-crir ed 10. foot strip ~ying _w1th1 n t~e; lands of. the Grantors .
· in · the Deed· fro:n ·~io t;ens Ole s en et u.x, to. Claude ·f',.l-l~lk, et u.x and Pe.rley t;.
, Payne, et U{-; dated Hsy 5 1 1957 an~ r~corcJed ~jay 9, '195,7 'Jn Book 3794 o{
. __ ~<?f_f_l_c 1a~ R <JCorr1~ ,_: pa ~~ 196; _ . ·_ }__1(_ __ \._.. · . ____ ~--~---· __ ·._c.;_ .
I . -.
J ,
. '
, , : . I . . .
. A. strip of lBJ;ld 10 . fe -_ fn width~ ·5 feet on each s1de. of :' cnt~r .u pu
'rnore pa~.t1cularly des~r·ibea ·.~s ro~lows : _·. . ' . . ~ . Commepc1~E at : the intersection of · the .center line of Short .Road and. = . ~hahrion ·Road; thane~ Nor,-theS:eterly along the oenter l.~ne ·?f.. ~hor.t Boad , .~ , .t_i ~_.J,8° 16•. E·~ "(sq1d bearing ~taken .fQr .purposes 1 of .th.1s ~4escr1pt1on) · : ... §5
• :a :distan9e · of .272 .-:so : teet; ·thence .s •. ?2°;,17 1 )O ~· E. 20 .{)0 1 fe':lt ·t:o ~~~ .. , .-:.1
point : of. ·}?egirln1.ngon -.The W~sterlyUn.e1 '01'' 'bhe la.nds .~f ·John · P .. ~rz1, .· .
· ·a .cquired .by· -Deed, .rerit;>r~ed De·cembe~. J.O, .. 19~r. ~n ·'Book: J050 .. of 0 Off~c.ia; · · .· · ·.' ~-:
Records ;' !)age )40, Santa. Clars .County Hecord!l; thenoe. s. J2 .17 30 .E ~ ..... _ .
. 46.5.00 Ce~~; 'the~o.e s. 74° 49' ·30" E o'l-?0.00 feet to ·the e~d of. the .afo~e-~·. ·
roentloned ~center line ; all within the Co~ty ·of Banta ~lara, State o~ r--
C:ll1forn1(,l ;.·
· B ~serv1ng from the · parcel ~f ·.iand f1r,;tly.. ·herein descriced -rights ~f. w."':f ·.
' for rt1gress and ·egress . an(\ for lnsta~let1on and mainten9.Jl043 -of-. P';lb~lc .. utilities
_ ,pver, along, .Ulider. ADd !J.CrO.f!S the property. her .~i:nRfter d,escr1bed .: . · Tl.i~ Southwesterly and Sputheaster1Y. lines of which . are . ~ore part:;lculerly
· .. de s cribed as follows: ·.: · . . . .
. . (a)' Beginning at-8. point · on the Southt-lesterly l1ne of that· certain ·.
;parcel o_f land·desc.rlbed .1n ·the Deed.frol'l .B9b.'Harr1s,=:et wt~·tO Perley a·.
~ayne-, · et u~, ·by Deed·.dated JBJluary' 21, 1955 an'd recorded ·Jan. 21. 19.55
lif 3ook . J()64 of, Offl~lal Hecor·as ,. pag~ _56&, S~ta Clara .County Records,
distant . ~he~E.>~n . s •. 75°.01 1 E. 40 .oo feet from the mos.t ~-les.terl·y . corner ·
o~s <Ud p3rcel .. of land; ·t .hence r\innlng along· the Southwesterly· ·l~e of sald·.
Fayne parcel ·.pf lands .. 75°· 9l'. E ~ 1)0,.00 feet;-thence running 1.n .6 .direct
· ·· llne N0 r .theasterly. to the . North14esterly· terminus of . that line .. in 'tthe · -
pa;rcel.· of .land 'firstly. heJ;,'e.in above descrl ~d ·having. a :·(?ourse a!ld diSt3;!lce·
'.: l>f· S. 75° 011 E. 70•00 fe~t •. ·. · -.. :· · '. ·· . : ' :--
-,; (b). Also a··strip .of lend 40 .feet .wide, the Northwesterly line of which
1s d~scr1bed as ro;l.lows:· . Beg.innlng a,·t -fhe most westerly . corner · of the·.:: ·
lands ·'firstly herein descrH>ed.,· thence .along the)-lorthwesterly . 1-lne of s a id ·:·"·
.lan~s N. 17Q 08~ ·E . 102.51 feet to the Northeasterly Hne of .sald lands.·
; .. Th~·:rf~~~~· ·h~;~~~'·reae~y~d .tlr e ·t·~ run w1th\u~d .be app~~te}1~t · t .o· ~·h~ r.e.~a~!l-
1ng lan1.s <?~ Grantor.s~-····.·-. _ . _.,· ... :_: · .·· · : . . · · · . · · ·· ·
'Tnls. ccin.veyanoe<1e .·made ~nd acc;~ptea, ~~bjec.t to . the ~following ·aond.l t!ons:
· ·. · (:1.) That any .r.esident~al-·l!tructur~ erected ·:shall contain .not . less
... ,than; ;1.5,00 squ~e :feet . of living area· {2)' :that. no l).ve . s .toc~ shall · be. ·i<ept
or ma1nt91n~d on · the property .he.-e1n conveyed;·except household pets in a
reasonable ·nuriper. . · ... ; -.: __ :__: ·.. · .. -. . .. : .: .
· ... -.-... -. .
. -~---... -· .
. :...__.;'" .. ·.·.·. ~~0~~=)' 8 •
..... . ·! . -··4..·.·-···-
. _ .. ·.:. -~ . .
~"hoF.CUrro&N J· .. ··I '.·· · ;, · .... ~:.·:.-.:· ··.: .· ..... -;.. ·
COUNIYoFSANTAo.AiA ...... ·. . · . . ... , . . •. , .· . <={P~·~ :~ .. :: '· .. ·:_ ·: -
• · ·Onthi• ·:f5th -.". cb·,'ot .'Ao~ll . .-m B.bcforu:>e •. F .~T.Jilltop;. :~·-, ,:. . ..-.-,:.: .. .
~.Nco;,MIKitl .~f~~~aM.~~.~Irap~ .. r~rley n.i>ayne ~~~ Di~n~·.~~t~lli t~L~~ .... ·
.\' ·.-~><~~,.om ·~-~~.~-.~!~. . ~hey.· n.a.w~·~:
·!'
. ·. ·. ·-.;·_
.': ·~/
.:-. . ::;· . . .. .. ··: .
·.;. ·. · ..
: ~ . '. . .. :· : i · ..
' .. , .-.:..
'.
• ,.:_.· 1 ••• ·....:.....--..o....,.,,.-. ·.,l-
' I '
·' . , .
'-I . . ~ -.-;--··,L '.
. -
I .
I ._.· .
i
' . '":' ·-·
-~------·, .. . ··:-·"
I .
. I
(Ji.!\f..lv
N.IO V'JO"£ ~7.
o.SJ.-1-Acre$
PARCEL "C.
U5.14'
PARCEL :4• o.~7'A~res <::.
r.JJ.J7'
S.J:t.•§g·w.
8A515 OF BEARINGS ~ NOTES
llOAb
The kilri179 ol Ill~ wesferlij liM (N ?"'O.Z '£) o! Porcel Z ol /he tleed from
Wl//;s E lllel~n U Corre to Tli~sL. ; The«<orio C..SIClrrum, recC~rded;n
&k /56R ()I? til .A:J9e 19~. So!7/0 C/om Cou!7IIJ l?ecord.s, wos used OS 117e
basis of' l;eod/J(;s
All d1sloncr:s Qn(/ dimetJSIO/lS are shown in feel q/7(/ tleclm&l!S t/Jereol
·e lt?dicoles Iron ~pe RJund
o f,?a'icotes /r!Jn Pipe5et
QBCOQD OJi' Sli.Q1Y£Y
OF LAND OF
PEl/LEY PAYNE
BEING A PORTION OF THE
M. 5 . GARJ)NER ESTATE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
CALIFORNIA
SCALE; r ·JO()' NOI/£MBERJ.955
ENGIN££!('5 . C£RT/r!CATE
'!, E. E. 8rpo'IJ~. bt;reP.fJ. cedlflJ (his !~be i:J trve and correct mop ol a svrn:q
mode /Jij me dvrmg Odo.ber; /9.?.5; af /he r~(jilesf of Per/elf Pol.jne.
~~~
COUNTY ENGINEER:S CEI?T/r(CATE
This mop h(l5 /Jilen e.i'oinlned. in comp/Jance milt /he pnJrisions ol.5ecliM
8766 olilieBvsinesspncl Pro/fissions Crx/e O'nd ltJul?d »lisfacl_on; ·
LEONA RO 8(J5f/IY EtL;Coqnlg fii;;R~r
COIJNTY REC()RfJER:S CER/ffi.ICATP
Ftle /YO. . 12"ZtZ16 fe~Paid
Filed ol /he req(Jesl of££. BrzJ at.3:ggp ontlleLJ!Itdaq f'"-==--
!.956. in Qpok.;J.i.o/IY/gps o/ Poqe . · Sonia C/cJro CtJI!I'Jflj ~
SYL Q TOLLY. Counlql?ectJrder
Resolution ollhf Or;ord o/ Svpert'l.Sors qJ!PrOniJ(} MoA rea:;rd&d. ../t~ne ~~ '.9S6
!?ecort:lers Rle Na 1221275:. .
---~~-----~--------~---·-·-··---
' .~ :
0 w > -w
0 w
~
\.C)
t::)
C'-1 ...... ......
C!:)
:::::::>
<C
(f)z oo ~-(!)!a
(f)~ oo
....I(!)
u..z o;z
~s g o.
0
~
~ -l~
.... * E o
.9
5 "' V'_B
{
I~ ~
RECEIVED
AUG 18 Z015
ROSSI , H\AME-RSLOUGH REISCHL a CHUCK
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
. ' 1960 ~Alameda, Suite 200 Sanjo~. CA 95 126 !' (408) 261-4252 F (408) 261-4292
VIA U.S. MAIL
Richard K. Payne
16216 Kennedy Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re : KROU S KUP / QUAIL HILL ROAD
Dear Mr. Payne:
April 26, 2013
We represent Brad and Dana Krouskup, the owners of 15921 Quail Hill Road . It
is our understanding that you, and possibly other family members, own the property
located at 15925 Quail Hill Road .
We have been informed by our clients that your property is, or shortly will be, on
the market for sale and that there is a possibi lity that if it is sold a buyer may pursue
significant reconstruction (or construction) of existing improvements on the property.
With the expectation of potential construction on your property, we have been asked to
agree and opine on the Agreement for the Use and Maintenance of Quail Hill Road
recorded as Document No . 12192126 at N112PAGE2016 on November 3, 1993. Certain
provisions in that agreement would prevent the use of any type of large construction
vehicles on the existing Quail Hill Road Easement and, as a consequence, I be lieve
access to construction on your property would be through Drysdale Drive where your
property has frontage on a public street.
The provisions in the agreement that I believe are controlling are and state as
follows :
2 . The private road commonly known as Quail Hill Road
shall be maintained to a reasonable standard as necessary
to provide two-way access for passenger vehicles, service
vehicles and emergency vehicles. It is not intended for any
commercial purpose .
7. Parties to this agreement also agree to the fo ll owing use
restrictions intended to preserve the character and physi cal
integrity of the road and thereby protect the investment
made in the road and minimize its future maintenance cost.
[
8. The road 's use shall be li mited, to the extent poss ib le, to
light-wei ght, rubbe r -ti red passenger vehicles and light trucks
used for the provis ion of residential services .
( (
Richard K. Payne
April 26, 2013
Page 2 of 2
10 . Owners of property contiguous to the road shall
ma intain their property in such a manner so as to protect
the road improvements and to provide for the free passage
of vehicles . This is to include, but not be limited to,
trimming vegetation, controlling drainage, cleaning the
pavement and maintaining necessary subjacent support to
the roadway .
12 . No use shall be made of the road which knowingly
damages the roadway pavement or appurtenances or
adjacent private property.
13. The installation, use, or maintenance of private or
public utilities within the easement and above, on or under
the roadway shall, to the greatest extent possible, not
damage or impair the roadway, pavement or appurtenances.
If any such damage should occur, it will be the responsibility
of the property owner or owners causing such utility
installation, use or maintenance to repa i r or cause to be
repaired the damage or impairment on a timely basis and in
a good and workmanlike manner, equal to or better in
strength and durability than the original roadway.
As a courtesy, we are providing a copy to whom we understand is your real
estate agent, Helen Pastorino. Helen is a very, very capable agent, a client of our firm
for a number of years, and someone who will be able to provide credible and
knowledgeable information to you with regard to the issues articulated above.
Should you require any additional information or wish to discuss this matter
further please advise.
RRR:jc
cc: Client
Helen Pastorino
S :\CL\R\KROUSKUP\PAYNE 4-26-2013.DOCX
Billing Date:
File:
Sabrina Dong
1476 Norman Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
ROBERT J. CRAIG
LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR
966 Elsie Mae Drive, Boulder Creek, CA 95006
(831) 359-1750
( 408) 884-3791
EMAIL : robert jamescraig@aol .com
Invoice
July 23 ,2015
C-15098
Re: 15925 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos
Prepare color coded easement map
RECEIVED
AUG U I 701~
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Fee per agreement. ....................................................................... $300.00
Balance Due .............................................................................. $300.00
'EXHIBIT 9
4··· t,~
t:~r . . ~ . .... !
t
L
-"'ff#J'L...----~BJ_.f. 71' ' S HO£T 7?-·--;o;:::;-.-------
o.94 Acres
PARCEL ·c·
.. s
~ .....
A PN 521-02 ... oo1
PARCEL )t.. tJ.~7 Aere5
,. ' .. I : I • & .'f
p 'l .. \v· -: . /11 . '\:.) J\····'· ..... c • ..
---·-----·-·-·----·----
EJ
E@
z
"" 0 ...
....
<(
(.)
>-....
z
::>
0
0
<(
"" <(
.....
0
<( ....
z
<( .,
"" 0 ., ., ... ., .,
<(
>-....
z
::> E.t.-N · 0
<.>
...
0
...
0 ... ...
0
.'c.,
~
({~~ ,, e .. ~ \ ~'=~~
\
\
182
ROAD
\
~ w z
u <
5
~ a:: 0 1&.1 ..J z
0 z a:
~ <l
~ C)
u;
:E
C> ...,
I
::E
I
(.)
:::)
~
I
::E
I g
~i ~~
~1
1!1 ul .12
'~ !" ~ ij ~ ~
···--
This map/plat is bei ng furnished as an aid in locating the herein described Land in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries and other Ia
Except to the extent a policy of title i nsurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any, the Company does not Insure d imensions, distance
::art'"a~no t::h"''•'"" t-hor-o""'
Fo r APN/ParceiiD(s): 527-02-007
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA, STAT E OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
PARCEL ONE:
BEGINNING AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY
BOB HARRIS ET UX TO PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX BY DEED DATED JANUARY 21 , 1955 AND RECORDED
JANUARY 21 , 19551N BOOK 3064 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 568, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS
AND IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF A 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY KNOWN AS SHADY LANE; THENCE ALONG
THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO PERLEY B . PAYNE ET UX NORTH 89°
47' 30"WEST 184.86 FEET AND NORTH 7r 11' 30" WEST 37.13 FEET TO THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER
OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND BY PERLEY D. PAYNE ET UX, AND THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF THAT
CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY PAULINE S . REID ET ALTO MOGENS OLESEN ET UX BY
DEED DATED OCTOBER 8 , 1954 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 19541N BOOK 3021 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS, PAGE 571 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO MOGENS OLESEN ET UX; SOUTH 10 ° 27' 30" EAST 40.93 FEET TO AN
IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED BY
PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX TO CLAUDE M. WALK ET UX BY DEED DATED MARCH 4, 1957 AND RECORDED
MARCH 4, 19571N BOOK 3743 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 60, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, IN
THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF
SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO CLAUDE M. WALK ET UX, AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
SAID 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY , SOUTH 77o 1 1' 30" EAST 39.97 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AND SOUTH 89° 47'
30" EAST 74.53 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND
CONVEYED TO CLAUDE M. WALK ET UX, THENCE LEAVING THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 40 FOOT
RIGHT OF WAY AND RUNNING ALO NG THE EASTERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO
CLAUDE M . WALK ET UX, SOUTH 13° 18 ' 30" WEST 245.14 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AND SOUTH 15° 37'
WEST 115.00 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND
CONVEYED TO CLAUDE M. WALK, ET UX IN THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND
CONVEYED BY PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX TO HARVEY D. ROSS ET UX, BY DEED DATED APRIL 25, 1958
AND RECORDED MAY 5, 1958 IN BOOK 4067 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS , PAGE 280, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
RECORDS, THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO HARVEY
D. ROSS ET UX SOUTH 44° 01 ' EAST 58.53 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AND SOUTH 75° 01' EAST 70.00 FEET
TO AN IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO
HARVEY D. ROSS ET UX. IN THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO PERLEY B.
PAYNE ET UX ABOVE REFERRED TO; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND
CONVEYED TO PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX NORTH 7 o 07' EAST 86.84 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AND NORTH
12° 59' EAST 371 .32 FEET, MORE OR LESS , TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING A PORT·ION OF LOT 1,
AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THE M .S . GARDNER ESTATE, BEING A PART OF THE
RANCHO RI NCONADA DE LOS GATOS, WHICH MAP IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE R E CORDER OF
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN BOOK C OF MAPS, PAGE 39, A N D A PORTION
OF SECTIO N 14, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH RANGE 1 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE A ND MERI DIAN AND
INCLUDING THEREIN PARCEL A AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF RECORD OF SURVEY OF LAND OF PERLEY
PAYNE, WHICH MAP IS ON FILE IN BOOK 70 OF MAPS, PAGE 29, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS, BY DEED RECORDED
OCTOBER 13, 19641 N BOOK 6698 OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 486.
PARCEL TWO:
A NON-EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS A ND EGRESS AN D FOR THE INSTAL LATION AND
CLTA T itle Report Form-Mod ifi ed (11.17 .06)
SCA0002402 .d oc I Updated : 02.03 .14 3
Printed: 09.17 .14@ 08:34AM byMW
CA-SPS-1-14-FWP5-29891 403 14
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
(continued)
Title No .: FWPS-2989140314-KMB
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OVER AND ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS OF
LAND:
PARCEL A :
A STRIP OF LAND 43 FEET WIDE THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE EASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN 0.617 OF AN ACRE PARCEL OF
LAND CONVEYED BY FAY TUPPER AND SARA L TUPPER, HUSBAND AND WIFE, TO F.C. CUSHMAN BY
DEED DATED APRIL 30, 1924, RECORDED MAY 2, 19241N BOOK 86 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS , PAGE 63 ,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; DISTANT THEREON S. 18° 18' 30" W . 20 .00 FEET FROM THE MOST
WESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN 1.4384 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN THE DEED
FROM L.A. REID ET UX, TO GINO A. PASQUALI ET UX DATED MAY 17 ,1948 AND RECORDED MAY 25 ,
19481N BOOK 1621 OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 47, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE
PARALLEL WITH THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID 1.4384 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND, S. 72° 55' E.
437 .61 FEET TO A POINT IN A LINE DRAWN S. 17° 05' W . FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID
1.4384 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND .
PARCEL B:
BEGINNING AT A NORTHWESTERLY CORNER REFERRED TO AS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING IN
THE DEED FROM BOB HARRIS ET UX TO PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX RECORDED JANUARY 21, 19551N
BOOK 3064 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 568, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS , THENCE N. 17° 05' E.
30 .00 FEET; THENCE N. 18° 33' 50" W. 28.30 FEET; THENCE S. 72o 55' E. 56.49 FEET; THENCE S. 17° 05' W.
53,00 FEET; AND THENCE N. 72o 55 W . 40.00 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCELC:
A STRIP OF LAND 40 FEET WIDE THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF WHICH IS MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS :
BEGINNING AT THE MOST WESTERLY CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND AND DESCRIBED
IN THE DEED FROM BOB HARRIS ET UX TO PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX BY DEED DATED JANUARY 21,
1955 AND RECORDED JANUARY 21,19551N BOOK 3064 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 568 , SANTA
CLARA COUNTY RECORDS ; RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL
OF LAND N . 17o 08 ' E. 127.51 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE SET AT THE NORTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID
PARCEL OF LAND .
PARCEL D:
A STRIP OF LAND 20 FEET WIDE THE SOUTHWESTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY LINES OF WHICH ARE
MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND
DESCRIBED IN THE DEED FROM BOB HARRIS , ET UX TO PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX BY DEED DATED
JANUARY 21 , 1955 AND RECORDED JANUARY 21 . 1955 IN BOOK 3064 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 568 ,
SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS , DISTANT THEREON S. 75° 01' E. 40 .00 FEET FROM THE MOST
WESTER LY CORNER OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND; THENCE RUNNING ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY
LINE OF SAID PAYNE PARCEL , S. 75° 01 ' E. 130.00 FEET; THENCE RUNNING IN A DIRECT LINE
NORTHEASTERLY TO THE NORTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT LINE IN THE PARCEL OF LAND
FIRSTLY HEREINABOVE DESCRIBED HAVING A COURSE AND DISTANCE OF N. 75° 01' W . 70 .00 FEET.
CLTA T IUe Report Form· Modified (11 .17.06)
SCA0002402 .doc I Updated: 07 .31.13 4
Printed: 09 .17.14@ 08:34AM by MW
CA··-SPS-1-14-FWPS-2989140314
REDENBACHER & BROWN, LLP
Ofllc:csln Saa F rancisco and Scotts Va lley
Gary Rcdcnbacbcr
Allomey
Michael Vierhus Architect
14407 Big Basin Way, #H
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: APN 527-02-007
August 17,2015
15925 Quail Hill Road. Los Gatos
Dear Mr. Vierhus,
RECEIVED
AUG 18 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I am a real estate attorney and have in excess of20 years experience with easements. I have
been asked by Sabrina Dong for an opinion on whether the property above enjoys an easement
for ingress and egress across APN 527-02-001 , 15921 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos.
It is very clear from the recorded documents provided to me that such an easement for ingress
and egress exists. One such deed i s the grant deed recorded as document 22295696, recorded
July 10, 2013, Official Records of Santa Clam County. That document describes an easement
for ingress and egress 20 feet w ide that runs along the Southwesterly line of what is APN 527-
02-001 for 130 feet and then turning Northeasterly to APN 527-02-007. This latter part of the
easement essentially bisects APN 527-02-001. This easement is expressed as Parcel Don the
grant deed.
There is a question as to whether the width of this easement is correctly expressed and reserved.
l note that an earlier deed provided to me and recorded in Book 4067, page 280, recorded May 5,
1958, Official Records ofSanta Clara County, while describing the course oftbe easemen~ does
not mention a width. Without doing an exhaustive check of the titles ofboth parcels, I cannot
reconcile the discrepancy between the two deeds, but it doesn't matter. Since a driveway already
exists that follows and approximates the course description, and, I am told, has existed for well
in excess of 5 years, even if there was not a recorded document granting a right of ingress and
egress, APN 527-02-007 would almost certainly have a prescriptive easement equivalent to the
now existing driveway. A lthough I have not done an exhaustive analysis of the elements for a
prescriptive right, my preliminary evaluation strongly suggests that the elements for a
prescriptive right exists regardless of th e express easement.
The location of an easement created by an express grant can be al tered, or its size or use
enlarged, by prescription. Scott v. Henry, 196 Cal. 666, 669,239 P. 314 (1925); Kerr Land &
Timber Co . v. Emmerson, 233 Cal. App. 2d 200, 228, 43 Cal. Rptr. 333 {1 st Dist. 1965); Ocea n
Shore R. Co . v. Doelger, 121 Cal. App. 2d 392, 400, 274 P.2d 23 (1st Dist. 1954). For example,
if a roadway easement is properly granted to the owner of the d ominant tenement, but the route
Mall: P.O. Box 661 34
Scott! Vallq, CA ""67
(931) 43J.88ll
office: 541U Scott! VaUry Dr.
Guy@RcdBrownLaw.eem
www.IUdBrowaLaw.com
EXHIBIT 1 0
, ··~ ..,. ...
actually used lies partly outside the granted location, when the use continues for the required
period of time, an easement can be acquired by prescription over the route actuaUy used outside
of the area conveyed. Robas v. Allison, 146 Cal. App. 2d 716, 720, 304 P.2d 163 (4th Dist.
1956)
Moreover, the courts have been loathe to eliminate an express easement. Rather, if there is an
argument on the rights of the parties, they generally engage in a balancing of the equities. In a
case such as this, I have never heard of a court denying the continued use of a driveway that has
been there for many years. Beyond the prescriptive rights argument, it is inconceivable that a
court would not interpret the right of ingress and egress as not requiring a minimum width to
allow a vehicle to freely pass. Hence, any argument that the easement does not exist because of
a discrepancy in the width is without merit.
August 13, 2015
Marni Moseley
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
I -.
l
John F. Livingstone, AICP
2575 Hill Park Drive
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 476-6366 cell
JohnFLivingstone@gmail .com
Subject: Proposed new house at 15925 Quail Hill Road
Dear Ms. Moseley:
RECEIVED
AUG 1 3 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
As you know I am working with Brad and Dana Krouskup who live at 15921 Quail Rd ., which is next
door to the above project. In last Tuesday's DRC meeting the Krouskup 's discussed some of their
concerns with the project as it is currently proposed . These concerns include: (1) access to the
proposed new development, (2) parking and vehicle circulation, (3) emergency access, (4) location of
the proposed new development and it's setback from their home, (5) overall height of the new
development, (6) the absence of any landscaping in what the Town has determined to be the front
yard area.
The following are a list of concerns we would like the Town to respond to in writing.
Process
We are concerned that the above project came before the DRC for approval twice without a staff
report making specific findings on how the project meets the Town Code, General and Specific Plans
and any associated project conditions. At the last DRC held July 21, 2015, Mr. Krouskup handed out
copies of information that has not been included into the project file for public review. The same
documents have been submitted again at the August 11, 2015 DRC meeting for the public file . We
found that the Engineering file has documents not contained in the planning file such as the
Geotechnical report. The plans in the planning public file should represent the project which is being
approved. The current plans show existing exterior elevations and existing walls that may remain .
This is very confusing for anyone reviewing the plans and could lead someone to think that this is a
remodel. A new house should show new floor plans and elevations only. This is often done under
the false premise that you will gain a tax benefit.
Building Department
The proposed project includes maintaining the existing secondary dwelling unit. We noted in the
planning file that the secondary unit was approved with conditions. We would like confirmation that
the conditions were completed and obtain a copy of the building permit. Since the Krouskup 's live in
close proximity to the unit, they would like assurance that the structure meets all code requirements
and is not a hazard to the hillside area . We also have concerns that there is no access to the
structure located on a steep hillside that meets basic building safety requirements . The three story
structure is perched on telephone poles and appears to be in disrepair. There have been previous
EXHIBIT 11
r
\ r
code enforcement complaints about garbage around the structure. It would be our preference to see
the structure d ~molished and incorporated into the new home with a separate but safe entrance. The
unusual 'd E!'sign of the unit would not be consistent in design or quality of any new structures being
built in the Town .
Pa rk ing
The current plans show almost the entire front yard of the project paved and identifies four parking
spaces in · the front yard area . Please explain how the proposed plan meets Town Code Sec.
29 .1 0 .060. that states "Off-street parking spaces shall riot be located in any required yard abutting a
street." If the parking spaces are removed the project would not meet the General Plan policy TRA-
13 .2 that states the project "Provide an adequate number of parking spaces in all new development."
In this case the applicant is proposing to demolish the entire structure and pool and start with a clean
slate . I feel the project could be redesigned to have landscaping in the front yard and meet the Town
parking code. I don't endorse th is as the front yard but do feel if the To~n goes in this direction; the
project shou l d be redesigned accordingly. ·
Landscaping
Please explain how the project meets Town Code Sec . 29.10 .055. -Landscape required. "Any
required front yard o r any other required yard abutting a street must be landscaped ."
Lot Frontage
Please explain how the lot frontage has been determined . The lot would appear to meet the definition
of a rectangle lot although the project architect has submitted plans showing the lot frontage to be
Quail Hill Road and a very unique determination that a portion of that frontage is actually side yard .
This type of unique yard area determination is typically used for pie shaped lots. In addition, by
determining that Quail Hill is the front of the lot, it makes the existing carport a nonconforming
structure not consistent with the Town Code Sec. Sec. 29.40 .015 . -Accessory build ings as you have
defined it. The carport is st ructurally attached to the ma in house and should not be remode led and
reattached to the new house .
Ex isting Carport
The current plans propose keeping the existing carport which is located in the front yard of the
proposed plan . The Carport is actually attached to the main structure through the same piece of
lumber that is part of the main house rafter. With the main house being completely demolished and
then reattache~ to the remodeled carport, the plan is not cc;>nsistent with Town Codes. Please
provide a written explanation walking me through the Nonconf?rining s.ection of the Town Code.
Guest House F loor Area
In my experience, all $tructures on a site are added to the overall floor area and a floor plan provided.
I would like the T owri Staff to deem the project as incomplete until a proper floor plan of the structure
has been illustrated on the submitted plan set. In addition, I feel it is important to look at all existing
structures on the property and how they relate to the design of the proposed new house and
recommend that elevations of the existing guest house be provided and part of the public review.
F ire suppression
We are concerned that the project will require holding tanks and compressors to gain adequate wate r
pressure for the fire suppression system. The holding tanks should be identified on the plans. We
feel the project should be incomplete until the required access and turn around for the fire apparatus
is approved and illustrated on the plan sheet. To date the project has not been approved by the fire
district.
Site Access
As a certified planner, I feel staff should investigate all possible building alternatives to fihd the best
project for the community. At the July DRC meeting, I asked about the possibility of provided direct
access from Drysdale Drive which is a public street. I was advised by both the planning and
engineering staff that this was impossible . I was not able to find any studies on the subject in the
Town files . I feel this access is possible and should be investigated by staff and the applicant. We
have contracted with a local Architect whose initial drawings support this possibility. As you know the
proposed access travels through a maze of easements that we believe are inaccurately shown on the
proposed plans. We have provided specific documentation that there is no 20 foot wide easement
leading to the proposed home. No documents have been provided to date that establish the 20 foot
wide section of the easement leading directly to the proposed home. This is just one of the reasons
to investigate using Drysdale Drive, not to mention the design issues already mentioned and
emergency services .
Site Plan
A plan sheet should be provided illustrating the drainage plan for the parking area . The plans should
identify any solar or photovoltaic panels for the new house being proposed in order to meet the
Hillside Development Standards green guide lines.
I'm looking forward to working with you and the rest of the Town Staff to achieve the best possible
project that meets the high quality standards of the Town of Los Gatos . In order for the proposed new
development to meet basic, reasonable standards and planning principals, not to mention the support
of my client , the project will require a significant redesign .
Please feel free to call me at ( 408) 4 76-6366.
Thank you,
John F. Livingstone, AICP
cc: Laurel Prevetti, Community Development Director
Michael Machado, Building Official
Fletcher Parsons , Town Engineer
Fire District
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
August 17 , 2015
John Livingstone
2575 Hill Park Drive
San Jose CA 95124
ToWN oF Los GAros
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 FAX (408) 354-7593
RE: 15925 Quail Hill development concerns
Mr. Livingstone,
CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAI N STRE ET
Los GATOS, CA 95030
Thank you for providing us with your client's concerns regarding their neighbor's development
application. Many of the items have been discussed at prior meetings but I am including them below
for the record.
1) Process: The application was reviewed by staff and scheduled for public hearing based on
the completeness of the application. The application was continued from the July 21,2015
meeting to allow the applicant to provide further documentation by their licensed
professionals in regards to the location of the easements onsite, referenced within their title
report. The item was considered at the August 11, 2015 DRC meeting and continued again
at your client's request in order to allow further time for the title companies to investigate
discrepancies between reports which were provided by your clients at that meeting. The
information had not been provided by your clients to either staff or the applicant prior to this
meeting. Both Planning and Engineering maintain public files for development applications.
2) Building Department: As discussed, the second unit is existing and is not under the scope
of the proposed application. No changes are proposed or required for the legal second unit.
Copies of the approved application and building inspection report are attached. As shown
the stated conditions of approval were later removed based on state law.
3) Parking: As discussed, the plans propose to retain the existing parking and only a slight
increase to the existing paving configuration. The required parking is located in the existing
garage/carport which will be retained and modified within allowable standards. The
additional . parking spaces shown in front of the residence are a guideline of the Hillside
Specific Plan and are not required parking spaces. Therefore they are permitted in the front
setback. The proposed plan complies with all perking requirements of the Town Code.
4) Landscaping: The applicant will be providing and maintaining appropriate landscaping in
the required front yard in areas not dedicated or required for ingress egress and as such would
comply with the Code section specified .
5) Lot Frontage: Prior to development of the architectural plans the app licant conferred with
the Town and the setbacks are labeled as directed by staff. However, even if the required
front yard continued to the southeast property comer, all proposed improvements are located
more than 30 feet from the south property line and would therefore conform to front yard or
side yard setbacks. The carport/garage is legal non-conforming whether this is the front yard
or the side yard. Section of29.1 0.245 permit the proposed modifications.
6) Existing Carport: The applicant is proposing to retain the existing carport/garage and to
provide a conforming breezeway (Section 29 .10.020) from the detached structure to the
residence. This complies with Section 29.40 .015.
I NC ORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887
7) Guest House Floor Area: The applicant has verified that the ceiling height of the loft area is
less than the 7' required by building code (7 feet) for habitable space, and therefore only the
footprint as provided qualifies as floor area. The unit may be maintained as is until a life and
safety issue is reported and confirmed.
8) Fire Suppression: As discussed; the Fire Department is not requiring water storage tanks
for the proposed development, In addition, they have confinned that a fire turnaround will
not be required.
9) Site Access: As discussed; both the applicant and staff have considered the possibilities for
alternative means of accessing the site, even prior to purchasing the property, Ms . Dong came
and discussed the potential options with staff. Due to the natural grades along the Drysdale
and Shady Lane frontages , and the natural condition of the hillside, development of a new
access in these areas would not conform to Town Standards and Guidelines. As a result staff
would not support a development plan that requires significant grading, retaining walls, and
development outside the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) when a legal
functioning access is currently in place. All documents provided by both your clients and the
applicant clearly show legal ingress/egress and utility rights over your client's property.
Even without a defined width, the rights for access exist.
1 0) Site Plan: The proposed development plans include a preliminary grading and drainage plan
for the proposed development (sheet 2 of 2 by Alpha Land Surveys Inc). The Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines do not require solar installations for this type of
development, if any are proposed in the future they will be reviewed based on current
standards and regulations at that time. Based on State law, the Town cannot require a
discretionary process for solar installations, and would therefore not be considered as part of
this application process .
Sincerely, ·r M::;~
Associate Planner
MFM:MW:sr
Cc: Sabrina Dong, 15925 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos CA 95032
Brad Krouskup, 15921 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos CA 95032
N:\DEV\Mami\Letters\15925 Quail Hil·response .doc
I
I • TOWN of l.OS GATOS
CIVIC ct:NTER • 110 t:AST MAIN STIU:t:T • P.O. BOX 949 • lOS GATOS, CAI.It'ORNIA 95031
SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT PERMIT
GRANTED TO: PERLEY AND DIANE PAYNE ____ _
PROPERTY ~ER AT: 15925 QUAIL. HILl . ROI\0 ____ _
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3 ,% OF THE LOS GATOS ZONl~ ORDlMNCE, APPROVAL IS GRANTED
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOR AN EXJSTJt\'G SECONDARY 111'/ELUNG UNIT LOCATED AT, AND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOi/S :
APN II 527-02-ft~
I .· .
THIS APPRCWAL IS SUBJECT TO THE Ca-1PLEllON a= CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO llUS P~IT
AS REOOIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFJCJAL>AND · TilE TO,..-N . Of-. LOS GATOS, .EAIWRE T~fWJ'.E
NN Of IHESE CONP JTJONS WITHIN THEIR ; RESftECTlVE Ilt-1.E...f.Blt1~.L...f1t\j'_RJ;.$!J1.T..l.fi_llif.
Rl;'IOCATION OF Tti.E SECOODAAY I:MELLJOO '·utUll..EBMJI,
MTE ISSUED: t-1ARCH_2_. G"'-, _1_98_& ___ _
NL CONDITIONS l-UST BE CC1·1PLETEDiWITHIN 30 DAYS UNLESS SPECIFIB> OTHERWISE,
~.E.
AFFIDAVIT FILED WITH PLANNU~r DIRECTOO.·
0 './
DECLARATION OF RESTR~CTJON. F.lLED .~~~.~~~~ ~1~ECTOR
• • ••• ' • ·' l •
APPROPRIATE BUILDI~ P~ITS 'FILED w·rrH BUtlDit(;' ·oFFICIAL _jJJA_ __
~ INAL APPROVAL: _!!A~L8=6'--------
clL0~ llNG OFFICIAL ----
: •I •,
. ,. . . ...
r · .... · ·· ......
• ot1 I ••' ~· .. .. .. .... : . .( .: . . .: .... \ .";_ .. . . . (~ ... .
/ .• -·; :.. .. ,., 'i
··:····· ~,. :· ....... .
I .
Uarch et,, l 1Jr16
f>crlcy & Ohne f'ayfln
159?.G Quail llill Ro<>d
Lor. 0<\tos, en f,,!i030
(
PLANNING OEPAftni..C:HT
<408) J.Gcl-697?.
RE: 1592fi Quail lti 11 Ro«d/OPHt5?.7-0?.-001
Secondi\I'Y D"u~lling Unit. Por-rni t
'
n St!Cond.\I'Y Ouclllnq UnH permit uilliH? <wrrovml anrt isc:.ut~d for
utwn tht' f(•l lmtin•J r:ond i t.in,,~ •• wn eo.np 1 etmf.
' I
. ' .\ :
·-4: I :\;· , . .J ~; .'~ ,t,: .... ....... ~.
1. Cwnp}(~tion oi tlw t!IH:lofind lh:mf H(!f;tf'iction i .nc\udin!J l.ht~
·si!JI'h\tllf'~r. nf llll prora~r·ty oww•·s and •' COJlY of the pr·oper•ty d1 ~mt.
lhi~ dr!(~ll r·t~~;tl"idinll mtwi. h~ nnt<~dxed "nd filed tlith tth• PlMnfn!f
IHrf!l:to'' hy no l.\t€?r t.hi'n t.hidy <!30) d.ws dt•~•· thr.> tJ,)h• of thi<:
not i ct•.
r~. Cn:nph!tion of tim tmtlost!d ''ffidavi t inr.ludj.n9 the ~;ignaturc? of thr!
oun~r· r~sidin!J princir'•'lly Ol\ thn property, .,nd fi lt~d ui th (h(~
PlMmin!J Oirc rl'w hy no l,,tor th.'n thi.rty <=JO) d,wc, ,,ftnr the oi\t.(!
of thi.!i notice.
b"IDJH'I~ ... to . Clllilt~l.t~.tc .. ~'.1\'r U ( \ht!~tLI.:I11HtHiUIH>..UY..J.ht:ll~-t:C:!il~l'(.; \i \'I! . .U.I·~i :~, . .\tli)Y .. n~r,ul t
io ... tluu:cvucu.ti.uo u1 )'u\tr. !ir~c:mu.t~11:~· Ou!!lli.wt..Uni.t .e~r:rui .t.
t\t SUCh till\(.> \lh£!0 4tl l'f~<(Ulf'(J(1 COIIIfiliCIIIC ,H'(~ r.mnplL'tf.•cJ to thP. i>.lli~;f.\l .linn of
tlw Phnnin9 Dir·uctor· \\lld t.lw 8ui1.din•J flffic:i.,l of lhP TmJ•l nf lu ~; o.,tu·.•• •'
pet•mH \~ith fillc'\l d<dH of ,,pprovc\1 ufll l.w L~;sumJ.
P..~r. .. ch~w.tcc .. 3 ... 9.6 .. oL 1hu.J.o:; .. Grlios .. Zoni09 _Or.din"nr.c J. •• ihi.~ _aeer.oY.a l .. mar. .. bn ... ,w.naa lml
.to .. tbc .. l'.limn iou _cmomi fis ian _ui :th in_.ten .. 110Ld":iu .. uf _ i:isuMntc.
If you h.we i\nY questiom; I'I!!Jar·ding thi!:; •n~Her, plca~e contt\d Ki.r•k•llnirwic:hs of
this office l.lutw~en tht~ hours of . 1:00 ''"d S:OO p.tn.
Vary trulY yourr.,
L \<: . I ;1 .... -... ---~
LEE E. OOWHnN
P lanl\ in g 0 i rf'ctor•
··LEO :t<U;cl ·
<:c:: Sarii h.Hon bhltricf t il,. 100 Sunnyoake Ayenue, Ca~bell, CA 95008
. . -\
,
March 25, 1986
Perley Payne
15925 Quail IH 11
TOWN of LOS GATOS
P.O. BOX949
LOS GATOS, CAI.IFORNIA 95031
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Los Gatos, Cal Jfornla 95030
RE: Secondary Unit, 15925 Quail Hill, Los Gatos
In response to your application, an Inspection ,.,as made to determine
requirements f'lr approval of an existing secondary dwelling unit as
provided In Sect lon 3.96.010 of the Town Zoning Ordinance.
Attached Is the Building Department 's report Indicating code corrections
required f~r approval. Host correction work will require permits from
the Building Department; application for permits mily be made through that
Department. Further, all corrections 1-1ill require a final Inspection.
Any Interested person rnay appeal to the Roard of Appeals from any decision
of the Building Official. A request for an appeal must be made In writing
to the To\'in Clerk \'t!thln thirty days.
In addition, it Is required that a deed restrlctlo~ and/or affidavit be
recorded wl th the County Assessor concerning Ol'lner occupancy of one of
the dwelling units on the property . Once building permit requirements
have been finalized, see Kirk Heinrichs In the Planning Department.
Sincerely,
~vJJ::::__
Archie Watson
Building Official
AW: sam
cc : Kirk Helnrli~s, P la nnln~ Department
Encl.
. ·:.:
~,:· /:: : ., . ' . •. . . . . . . . ·. . . . . . . . ... . ,
~~,~~-~~i;:;',-;,: .. :·, .. : ..... ·.:-.. ~-.:· << .. ~::.:~: !;~:;_:,-·, .. ::. ·• : .. :·;: ;-r;:.:. L\:::;i~;;~:~;-"\~, :· .,·-l .
'. ' '. . . . ··= .; ,:~ : .· :
... . .
• , .• .-: ••• 1:' • !:.: ............. .-'.. ...... : :. _: . ; .. ."·.:·_~/ .. ~::\:·.~-~ ·: .. ; .. ':::; ... -~:\i.;': <·~\·::-~_: .. \-.. ,• .. ~ .... -~ ".:: : .. :·::
~ :
·. ·, ...
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
INSPECTION RErORT
Address : 15925 Quail IIIII, Los Gatos
Date: March 2~. 1986
By: Archlr. Watson
8td1dlng Offlcl<ll
BUILDlNG OEPAk~HENT
Inspection of the second unit located at the <lbovc address
determined that no corrective v-tork Is required.
. .
~~-·~l il··~·,-~~i·~·.·~·~i·~,~-:.~~~,~~~~~~~~-~~~.--.~.:~:.; .• ~~-~--=~~··········~~·~··~-~~;~j·;~\~~~~.:~0~i~i~:~;~;~{~~~~~;~:·~\;~·~Jl4 %sG~k 4 :.
I
August 18, 2015
Marni Moseley
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
John F. Livingstone, AICP
2575 Hill Pari< Drive
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 476-6366 cell
JohnFLivingstone@gmail.com
Subject: Proposed new house at 15925 Quail Hill Road
Dear Ms . Moseley:
RECEIVED
AUG 7 8 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLA NNING DIVISION
Thank you for your prompt reply to my August 13 , 2015 letter. Unfortunately your August 17 , 2015
letter does not adequately address the items listed in my letter. If you would please provide written
clarification of the below concerns it would be appreciated.
Process:
1. Will the Town be preparing a staff report making specific findings on how the project meets the
Town Code , General and Specific Plans and any associated project conditions as required in the
Hillside Specific as noted below?
E. Required findings In addition to the considerations for architecture and site approval provided in
the Town=s Zoning Regulations, the decision making body shall also find that the proposed project
meets or exceeds the objectives and requirements of the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines and shall provide supportive evidence to justify making such findings.
2. Will the Town require the appl icant to update the plans? The plans in the planning public file
should represent the project which is being approved. The current plans show existing exterior
elevations and existing walls that may remain. This is very confusing for anyone reviewing the
plans and could lead someone to think that this is a remodel. A new house should show new floor
plans and elevations only. This is often done under the false premise that you will gain a tax
benefit.
Building Permits:
3. Is there a build ing permit for the secondary unit? T he attachments sent are planning documents.
I am looking for a standard building permit with as built plans .
r ' Hillside Development Standards and Gu idelines
3 . Development shall have adequate fire access (also see Chapter Ill section C and Chapter VII
section b.2.). 4. A dependable and adequate water supply for fire protection and suppression
purposes, as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, shall be provided for all
properties. If no public hydrant is available, there shall be an on-site water supply in a storage facility
with an appropriate outlet valve in close proximity to an accessible hard road surface. 5. Water for fire
suppression shall be available and labeled before any framing may begin. 6. Above ground water
tanks shall not be located in required setback areas ..
Hillside Specific Plan
15. On-Site Parking and Turnaround Areas:Parking and maneuvering areas for emergency vehicles
should be provided as required by the Central Fire District. In addition to those parking spaces in
garages or carports, not less than four on-site parking spaces shall be provided where roadways are
not designed to permit parking. Driveways may be used to provide this parking, except where all or a
substantial part of any residence is in excess of one hundred fifty (150) feet from a safe and
adequate access road.
2. Fire Protection.· a . Adequate water supply for fire protection and suppression purposes as required
by the Uniform Fire Code shall be required for all properties being developed. If no public hydrant
is readily available, then there shall be an on-site water supply in a storage facility with the
appropriate outlet valve no less than six to eight feet from an accessible hard surface road. The
specific size of such a facility shall be based upon the number of dwelling units and be determined
by the Central Fire District. b . Minimum fire protection standards for building construction in
hazardous areas as established in Appendix E of the Un iform Fire Code shall be implemented and
reviewed at the Architectural and Site Review level.
Site Access
10 . Please explain how the proposed project meets the following .
Hillside Specific Plan
2 . Private Roads Versus Public Roads: a . An adequate system of publicly owned and maintained roads
is the best means of providing adequate access to all properties. Access by private road shall not be
allowed unless fundamental to a special approved design concept unless full provisions for
construction and maintenance of the private road system have been approved and unless it is
consistent with neighborhood circulation.
6. Two Means of Access: a. As a guide to developing a circulation plan, two means of access shall be
provided to all areas. If dual access is NOT available, the land use intensity shall be limited in
accordance with the access provided.b . Secondary access shall be sought for existing dead end
streets. c . The second means of access shall not encourage through traffic to nonresidents and could
be limited to emergency access only. d. Where single access roads exist, acceptable provisions shall
be made for emergency access. Emergency access roads shall be designed to assure passability,
however, the design shall prevent unauthorized non-emergency through access.
16. Proof of Access Rights:Documentation of proof of private access rights must be provided by the
developer at the initial project review stage .
Park ing:
4 . Please clarify the section you are referencing in the Hillside Specific Plan that allows an exception
to the below zoning ordinance requirement?
Town Code Sec. 29 .10.060. Off-street parking spaces shall not be located in any required yard
abutting a street.
La ndscaping :
5. Please explain how the project will be meeting the below landscape requirements? Will the
project be deemed complete without a landscape plan? Will the plan include landscaping along
the public street Drysdale Drive?
Town Code Sec. 29 .10.055. -Landscape required. "Any required front yard or any other required
yard abutting a street must be landscaped."
Hillside Development and Guidelines 2. A landscape plan shall be provided and will be reviewed by
the Town 's Landscape Consultant with input from the Fire Department.
Lot Frontage:
6. Please explain how the lot frontage has been determined by the Community Development
Director? This type of unique yard area determination is typically used for pie shaped lots . What
criteria was used to support this determination? It would appear this was an effort to reduce the
nonconformity of the carport setback by having a portion of it fall in a side yard .
Existing Carport/Nonconforming Structure:
7. Please clarify which section of 29 .10.245 you are using to allow the existing carport; that is
structurally attached to the main residence , to remain?
Guest House Floor Area and Design :
8. How does the secondary unit comply with the Hillside Compliance check list below? Will you be
requiring a separate plan page illustrating the existing secondary unit elevations and floor plan to
allow public review of how the new house will be architecturally compatible with the existing unit?
E Accessory building, pools and sports courts S1 Accessory building have the same setbacks as
main building S2 Ace. buildings integrated wltopo +use similar forms, colors, materials S3 No sports
courts or pools on slopes greater than 30 percent S4 New caretaker units allowed when in
compliance with the following : S4.a Necessary/desirable to provide maint. or services to
property/facilities S4 .b The lot is large enough to support second living structure S4 .c Maximum floor
area for caretaker unit-900 sq ft S4.d Architecturally compatible wlmain structure .
Fi re suppression:
9. To date the project has not been approved by the fire district. We are concerned that the Fire
District has not adequately reviewed the plans in relation to the below requi rements .
(
18. Access Roads:Access roads as used herein are defined as roads connecting a parcel of land
being considered for development to the nearest improved public road. Access roads shall meet the
following development standards:
Consu lt ing Architect :
11 . As referred to in the last DRC meeting we would like to have a copy of the report prepared by the
consulting architect.
Thank you ,
John F. Livingstone, AICP
cc: Lau rel Prevetti, Community Development Director
Michael Machado, Building Official
Fletcher Parsons , Town Engi neer
Fire District
September 2, 2015
John Livingstone
2515 Hill Park Drive
San Jose CA 95124
ToWN oF Los GAros
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DMSION
(408) 354-6872 FAX (408) 354-7593
RE: 15925 Quail Hill (August 18, 2015 letter)
Mr. Livingstone,
Crv1c CENTER
110 E. M AJN STRE ET
Los GATos, CA 950 30
Thank you for your additional questions, staffs responses to your questions are below:
1) Staff Report: While staff does not prepare a detailed staff report for items that are
considered by the Development Review Committee (DRC). The findings and conditions of
approval are prepared for the meeting and staff has shared both of these with you as
requested.
2) Update of Plans: As discussed, the applicant is proposing to retain portions of the residence
and the proposed plans are consistent with the applicant's proposed scope of work. It is never
discouraged for applicant's to provide existing elevations as part of the background
information for new residences. Similar to an existing site plan; the existing elevations are
relevant in the analysis that is completed by staff.
3) Second Unit: As discussed, staffhas provided the documentation in regards to the existing
second unit. The Town does not have any documentation as to the actual construction of the
structure. No changes to the second unit are proposed or required as part of the application.
4) Parking: As discussed, the additional parking shown in front of the residence is not required
parking per Town Code Standards. The Hillside Specific Plan (HSP) requires an additional
four parking spaces be provided onsite when street parking is not feasible or available,
however the HSP specifically states as part of that requirement that they may be provided in
the driveway (which is permitted in the required setbacks).
5) Landscaping: The applicant is not proposing significant landscaping changes to the
property and therefore a landscaping plan was not considered or required for this application .
Town Code does require that the front yard be landscaped, however the area required for
parking access is exempt. When appropriate staff requires pavers or a decorative paving
solution be provided when paving is proposed to significantly increase, be highly visible, or
inconsistent with the neighborhood. Staff does not consider the proposed project to fall into
any of these three categories.
6) Lot Frontage: Please refer to staffs letter dated August 17, 2015 on this matter.
7) Existing Carport: The carport/garage is being attached to the residence by way of a
conforming breezeway, exactly the same as was used on Mr. Krouskup 's property when it
was remodeled similarly to the applicant's in 2004. According to Town Code (as clarified in
staffs letter from August 17 , 2015) a breezeway connects an accessory structure to another
structure, and does not deem the structures as attached.
8 ) Guest House: As previously stated above , the second unit is not part of the proposed
application. No modifications are required .
I NCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887
9) Fire Suppression: As previously provided, the fire dept. has conditionally approved the
application. There are no outstanding fire issues. If you have questions regarding this you
may contact the fire dept. directly. A fire hydrant is located within a sufficient distance from
the subject property, and the fire dept. has not historically and will not require a formal tum
around for any of the properties on Quail Hill Road.
1 0) Site Access: The applicant provided a current title report which documented the legal
ingress/egress easement accessing the property. The use of the site as a single family
residence will not change with the proposed application. Therefore the application conforms
with the referenced sections of the HSP .
11) Consulting architect: Staff has provided the requested report.
Sincerely, ~11 ~J/---·
Mami F. Moseley (j
Associate Planner
MFM:MW:sr
Cc: Sabrina Dong, 15925 Quail Hill Road , Los Gatos CA 95032
Brad Krouskup , 15921 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos CA 95032
N :\DEV\Marni\Letters\ 15925 Quail Hil-response-2 .doc
DATE OF DECISION:
PROJECT/APPLICATION :
LOCATION:
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
IJO E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOP
OR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMIT E
DRC Public Hearing -August 18, 2015
Architecture and Site Application S -14 -027
1 5925 Quail Hill Road (APN 527-02-007)
Los Gatos, CA 95032
LIST REASONS WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED:
1)Signi£icant negative impact on our adjoining property.
21Proposed new development does not complY with Hillside Development Standards
3lProposed new development does not comply with Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan
41Prooosed new development relies on ing r ess/egress across our adjoining propert y. There is
no legal easement supporting the required access.
S)Application S-14-027 is incomplete .
IMPORTANT:
I . APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN ( 1 0) DAYS AFTER THEDA TE OF MAILING OF WRITTEN
NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION.
2. THE APPEAL SHALL BE SET FOR THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WinCH THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PERMIT, MORE
TIIAN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL . THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MAY HEAR THE MATTER ANEW AND RENDER A NEW DE IN THE MA ITER.
3. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED, IN WRITING, OF THE APPEAL DATE.
4 . CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER TO DETERMTNE WHAT MA
SUBMITTED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING .
RETURN
PRINT NAME ____::;;B..:;;r....:.a""d::,_;,.:....:...........:..::~=-=-:..:...:.:.._
DATE August 2 0, 2 015 ADDRESS
PHONE 408-605-0113 Los Gatos, CA 95032
OFFICE USE QNL Y
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING:
COMMISSION ACTION : I . DATE: ________________ __
2.
3.
PLAPPEAL
PLAPPEAL
PLAPPEAL
N:•DEVIFORMS\l'l> .. io;I201S ·I6 Fonus\API'<lll Cl>ll·DRC.docx
DATE: DATE:------------------
$ 181.00 Residential
$ 725.00 Commercial
$ 74 .00 Tree Appeals
Ml'2015
_EXHIBIT 1 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank