Attachment 1CVIA— U S —MAIL
Richard K. Payne
16216 Kennedy Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
' s
AUG 18 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
1960 The Alameda, Swm 200 San Jose, CA 95126 n (408) 261.4252 n (408) 2614292
Y
April 26, 2013
Re: KROUSKUP / QUAIL HILL ROAD
Dear Mr. Payne:
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, or
the market for sale and that there is a possibility 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 believe
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 following use
restrictions intended to preserve the character and physical
integrity of the road and thereby protect the investment
made in the road and minimize its future maintenance cost.
Pullged . The road's use shall be limited, to the extent possible, to
ht- weight, rubber -tired passenger vehicles and light trucks
d for the provision of residential services.
f..
Richard K. Payne
April 26, 2013
Page 2 of 2
10. Owners of property contiguous to the road shall
maintain 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 repair 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. l-1
Very truly
RRR:jc
cc: Client
Helen Pastorino
5: \CL \R \KR0USKUP \PAYNE 4- 26- 2013.DOCX
ya Suq ,
P _!p
4`
a
d8tl5 J. CRAIG
RORERT
Billing Date:
File:
Sabrina Dong
1476 Norman Drive
Sunnyvale, CA 94087
LICENSEb LAND SURVEYOR
966 Elsie Mae Drive, Boulder Creek, CA 95006
(831) 359 -1750
(408) 884 -3791
EMAIL: robertjamescraiq@ao1.co m
July 23, 2015
C -15098
Invoice
Re: 15925 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos
Prepare color coded easement map
RECEWED
AU6 U / ?alp
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Feeper agreement ................. ............................... ........................$300.00
BalanceDue .............. ............................... ... ........................$300.00
IT 9
9/23/15 PC Staff Report
f
ie q ®q
fl Cee.•'
u Po
h
7 /Z7- /s
%.3 /.3
g ^ r• . * A��t' 8'i • e ',, is a
I
WS
i 4
ie q ®q
fl Cee.•'
u Po
h
7 /Z7- /s
%.3 /.3
g ^ r• . * A��t' 8'i • e ',, is a
I
WS
i 4
a �� 1\
3 c®t
o�
<
4
J
V
F
Y
O
U
J
U
Q
z
0
N
N
s
U
6
O
( pl n
W U3
g
Z n
� O
0
h
q\
\
)94'o
�1
w ; 2
all z ml
NI �
1! 1 m
1 Q
1
1 le'Iti2
®i
1
Q �
1
� b �
Q� o al
1
1
i
a
J a
V
6
d �
,E2
,
1
1
I
1
J
J�
YIJ
N
F-
Z
T
r
Cal
V)I
1
(rem)
(203,3a) 73.12
DA
G
w r-
CHp RINCONACA
w
E.LN.
1
z
� U
o �
Rai
(a()
20
182J0 ry1aiT fl09t7-
(2Mn) 162
o
(
EFHORT ROAD
®i
1
Q �
1
� b �
Q� o al
1
1
i
a
J a
V
6
d �
,E2
,
1
1
I
1
J
J�
YIJ
N
F-
Z
r G
r
U ' N
Q (
O g
0
oIn
m �
I
l is.iai
m
N
m
_ W
H g M
O � �
Z � U
b �
8 wP
This map /plat is being furnished as an aid in locating the herein described Land in relation to adjoining streets, natural boundaries and other la
Except to the extent a policy of title insurance is expressly modified by endorsement, if any, the Company does not insure dimensions, distance
�rcnono ch n.m Fh o.en..
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description
For APN /Parcai ID(s)' 527 -02 -007
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS, COUNTY OF
SANTA CLARA, STATE 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, 1955 IN 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 890
47' 30" WEST 184.86 FEET AND NORTH 77° 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 AL TO MOGENS OLESEN ET UX BY
DEED DATED OCTOBER 8, 1954 AND RECORDED DECEMBER 1, 1954 IN BOOK 3021 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS, PAGE 571 SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; THENCE ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID
PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED IRON PIPE AT THE NORTHWES E O N
RLY 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
HE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 40 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY; THENCE ALONG THE N
NORTHERLY LANE OF
T
SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO CLAUDE M. WALK ET UX, AND ALONG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF
SAID 40 30" EAST 74.53 FOOT FIEET TO p 7
O 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 ALONG THE EASTERLY LINES OF SAID PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO
CLAUDE M. WALK ET UX, SOUTH 130 18'30" WEST 245.14 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AND SOUTH 150 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 440 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° 07' EAST 86.84 FEET TO AN IRON PIPE AND NORTH
120 59' EAST 371.32 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, BEING A PORTION OF LOT 1,
AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THE M.S. GARDNER ESTATE, BEING A PART OF THE
RANCHO RINCONADA DE LOS GATOS, WHICH MAP IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE RECORDER OF
THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN BOOK C OF MAPS, PAGE 39, AND A PORTION
OF SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH RANGE 1 WEST, MOUNT DIABLO BASE AND MERIDIAN AND
PAYNE, IN OK 70 OF MAPS, PAGE 29, RECORD CLARA RA COUNTY RE
YNE, WHICH MAP IS ON BOOK CORDS.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION CONVEYED TO TOWN OF LOS GATOS, BY DEED RECORDED
OCTOBER 13, 1964 IN BOOK 6698 OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 486.
PARCEL TWO:
A NON - EXCLUSIVE EASEMENTS FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS AND FOR THE INSTALLATION AND
Printed: 09. 17.14 0 08:34AM by MW
CLTA Tltle Report Form - Modified (11.17 06) 3 CA--- SPS- 1 - 14 -FWPS- 2989140314
SCA00024D2.doc / Updated: 02.03.14
Title No.: FWPS - 2989140314 -KMB
EXHIBIT II "
Legal Description
(continued)
MAINTENANCE OF PUBLIC UTILITIES OVER AND ALONG THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCELS OF
I-AR
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, 1924 IN 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 1.4364 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,
1948 IN 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. 170 05'W. FROM THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID
1.4384 ACRE PARCEL OF LAND,
PARCEL B: Y;_
BEGINNING ATA NORTHWESTERLY CORNER REFERRED TO AS THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING IN N
THE DEED FROM BOB HARRIS ET UX TO PERLEY B. PAYNE ET UX RECORDED JANUARY 21, 1955 I
BOOK 3064 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 568, SANTA CLARA COUNTY RECORDS, THENCE N. 17° N E.
30.00 FEET; THENCE N. 180 33'50" W. 28.30 FEET; THENCE S. 720 55'E. 56.49 FEET; THENCE S. 170 05' W.
53,00 FEET; AND THENCE N. 720 55 W. 40.00 FEET TO SAID TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL C: r,
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 21,1955 IN BOOK 3064 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, PAGE 568, SANTA
CLARA COUNTY RECORDS; RUNNING THENCE ALONG THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL
OF LAND N. 17° 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 8. 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. 750 01' E. 40.00 FEET FROM THE MOST
WESTERLY 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. 750 01' W- 70.00 FEET.
CLTA Title Report Form - Modified (11 17,06)
SCA0002402.doo / Updated: 07.31.13 4 Printed 09.17.14 @ 08 34A by MW
CA ---- SPS- 1 -14 -F WPS- 2989140314
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
REDENBACHER & BRD1
Omces In Son Francisco and Seotts Battey
Gary Redenbaebep
Wortley
August 17, 2015
Michael Vierhus Architect
14407 Big Basin Way, #H
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: APN527 -01 -007
15925 Quail Hill Road, Los Gatos
Dear Mr. Vierhus,
RECEIVED
AUG 18 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
1 am a real estate attorney and have in excess of 20 years experience with easements. I have
been asked by Sabrina Dong for an opinion on whether the property abo ve e njo Ys a n 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 is the grant deed recorded as document 22295696, recorded
July gr 2013, Official Records of Santa Clara County. That document describes an easement
for ingress and egress 20 feet wide 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 D on the
grant deed.
There is a question as to whether the width of this easement is correctly expressed and reserved.
T note that an earlier deed provided to me and recorded in Book 4067, page 280, recorded may 5,
1958, Official Records of Santa Clara County, while describing the course of the easement, does
not mention a width. Without doing an exhaustive check of the titles of both 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, evert 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. Although I have not done an exhaustive analysis of the elements for a
prescriptive right, my preliminary evaluation strongly suggests that the eleme
Prescriptive right exists regardless of the express easement. nts for a
The location of an easement created by an express grant can be altered, or its size or use
enlarged, by Prescription: Scott v. Herfry
Timber Co. v. Emm 1 196 Cal. 666, 669, 239 P. 314 (1925); Kerr Land t%
erson, 233 Cal. App: 2d 200, 228, 43 Cat. Rptr. 333 (1 st Dist. 1965); Ocean
Shore R. Co. v. Doelger, 127 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 dominant tenement, but the route
Man: F-0-%X"1134
Smtb Vaaey. CA .45067
09 -6821
�....e: 5401 Scmb Veaey Dr.
GarYQe aedBrawnLcw.cam
www.BedarowyLaw.eom
9/23/15 PC Staff Report
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 actually used outside
of the area conveyed. Xobas v. Allison, 146 Cal. App. 2d 716, 720, 304 P.2d 163 (4t1t Dist.
1956)
Moreover, the courts have been loathe to elim an e a e in balancing of Rather, eequiti s. In a
argument on the rights of the parties, they generally • gage continued use of a driveway that has
case such as this, I have never heard of a court denying meng it is inconceivable that a
been there for many Years. Beyond the prescriptive rights argu
court would not interpret the right of ingress and ment that the easement does not xist because of
allow a vehicle to freely pass. Hence, any argu
a discrepancy in the width is without merit.
Sincerely,
t Z"O'
r
August 13, 2015
Marni Moseley
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
John F. Livingstone, AICP
2575 Hill Park Drive
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 476 -6366 cell RECEIVED
JohnFLivingstone@gmaii.com
Subject: Proposed new house at 15925 Quail Hill Road
Dear Ms. Moseley:
AUG 7 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.
Buildinq 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
FXHIBtT 1 1
9/23/15 PC Staff Report
code enforcement complaints about garbage around the structure. It would be our preference to see
the structure demolished and incorporated into the new home with a separate but safe entrance. The
unusual'design of the unit would not be consistent in design or quality of any new structures being
built in the Town.
Parking
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.
29.10.060. that states "Off- street parking spaces shall not 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 this as the front yard but do feel if the Town goes in this direction; the
project should be redesigned accordingly.
Landscaping
Please explain how the project meets Town Code Sec. 29.10.055. - Landscape required. "Any
required front yard or 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 buildings as you ha%
defined it. The carport is structurally attached to the main house and should not be remodeled an,
reattached to the new house.
Existing 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 reattached to the remodeled carport, the plan is not consistent with Town Codes. Please
provide a written explanation walking me through the Nonconforming section of the Town Code.
Guest House Floor Area
In my experience, all structures on a site are added to the overall floor area and a floor plan provided.
I would like the Town 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, 1 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.
Fire suppression
We are concerned that the project will require holding tanks and compressors to gain adequate water
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 find 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) 476 -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
Towle of Los GATos
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354 -6872 FAX (408) 354 -7593
RE: 15925 Quail Hill development concerns
Mr. Livingstone,
CHIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
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 applicant 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 corner, 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- confonning whether this is the front yard
or the side yard. Section of 29,10.245 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.
INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887
C.1
4
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 confirmed 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.
10) 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
ce
Marni F. Moseley
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\I-ettm \15925 Qmil Hil- reWnseAm
TOWN or 1,013 GATOS
CIVIC CENTER • 110 EAST MAIN STRIZLT s P.O. ROX 949 • LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95031
SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT PERMIT
GRANTED TO:PERLEY AND DIANE PAYNE
PROPERTY OWNER AT; 15925 {?LAIN. HILL. ROAD
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 3,% OF THE LOS GATOS ZONING ORDINANCE, APPROVAL IS GRANTED
SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS FOR AN EXISTING SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED AT, AND
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
APIJ 4 527-04W
t
THIS APPROVAL IS SUBJECT TO THE COMETION OF CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THIS PERMIT
AS REQUIRED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL=AND THE TOWN .OF- LOS GATOS, FAILURE Tn rtmo
ANY M T11PQF rntinTrimto en .u...
ANTE ISSUED: MARCH 26, 1986
All CONDITIONS MUST BE CwLETED'Wft9iN 30 DAYS UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE,
I' rt• I� _
AFFIDAVIT FILED WITH PLANNING DIRECTORI 4/4/86
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTION FILED WITH PLANNING DIRECTOR 4 /4/86
APPROPRIATE BUILDING PERMITS FILED WITH BUILDING OFFICIAL
N/h
FINAL APPROVAL: _14A4186
1
t 1
• i i
pl_nNNIND OEPAftT ?LSNT
(408) 354 -6072
ttarch "c6, 19116
Perley & Diane Payne
15925 Quail Hill Road
Los Oatos, Cn 95030
RC:: ib925 Quail 11111 Road /nPNt527-02 -001
Secondary Dwelling Unit Permit
0
Oval. Pruporty Omer'
A Secondary Dwelllml Unit Permit uill ba approved and i951-led for
when the follostiny condit.inne aru completed.
1. (:umpletion of tho eocloaad Oced 1?v5( 1:tion including U "!
signaturoa of <11) Property ounprs and a ropy of the property deed.
Tbf.E; deed r striction must he not,)l -ized and filed with the 1'1a0ning
Dirpr.tor by no later than thirty (30) days after the dote of thie
notice.
2. Completion of the enclosed affidavit includinq the signature of the
otaner residing principally on the property, and filed uith the
Planning Dirertor by no later 01111 thirty 00) day, aftor the date
of this, notice.
t: :�7.lure_tr,. cntnal.e.ie_..�n�• nr thras:_ t; nndxiiwn : >.by_.tht:i,r._eQ:ipes�li.vL trl•;r�,...Utay.l:e:,wl.Y
in..thu_cavw,atitIn of yulu . tis!r.nnsiar.� Duelliun.ilni.t .Cacmit.
At such time when all r•aquir•ed cUMlilten,- are romplote•d to the i,iiisfat.lien of
tlta Planning Director and the 8ttildiny Official of the Town of 1 u.; Dalos, a
Permit with final date of approval will be issued.
Cer._Ghailter._3 46..nf... the.. Lai..( iains.. Zoniag- OrdilnunreL.. ihila Al? ruxal.e:iY..bO...<jpenalt(1
tu._ills .. 1'. lannintl_ Cowmis5aan_. ulthin_tell..1141_dax <a._t�i_k. Suan�u.
If ynu have any questiansi regarding this matter, pleasE- contact Ki.rk•Heinrirhs of
this office between the hours of i:00 and 5:00 p.m.
very truly yours„
i
LEE E. BOWMAN
Planning Director
LEB1KH:c1
Sanitation District tot 100 Sunnyoaks Avenue, CaTwbolli CA 96008
N
March 25, 1986
TOWN of LOS GATOS
P.O. BOX 949
LAS GATOS, CALIFORNIA 95031
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Perley Payne
15925 Quail Hill
Los Gatos, California 95030
RE: Secondary Unit, 15925 Quail Bill, Los Gatos
In response to your application, an inspection was made to determine
requirements for approval of an existing secondary dwelling unit as
provided in Section 3.96.010 of the Town Zoning Ordinance.
Attached is the Building Department's report Indicating code corrections
required for approval. Most correction work will require permits from
the Building Department; application for permits may be made through that
Department. Further, all corrections will require a final inspection.
Any interested person may appeal to the Board of Appeals from any decision
of the Building Official. A request for an appeal must be made in writing
to the Town Clerk within thirty days.
In addition, it Is required that a deed restriction and /or affidavit be
recorded with the County Assessor concerning owner 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,
&&-,, W cta—,—
Archie Watson
Building Official
AW:sam
cc: Kirk Neinrichs, Planning Department
Enci.
TOWN or LOS GATOS
INSPECTION REPORT
Address: 15925 Quail Nill, Los Gatos
Date: March 24, 1986
By: Archie Watson
Bniiding Official
BUILDING DEPAR'iMENT
Inspection of the second unit located at the above address
determined that no corrective work is required.
' John F. Livingstone, AICP
2575 Hill Park Drive
San Jose, CA 95124
(408) 476 -6366 cell
JohnFLivingstone @gmail. com
August 18, 2015
Marni Moseley
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Proposed new house at 15925 Quail Hill Road
Dear Ms. Moseley:
RECEIVED
AUG 1'8 2015
-fOVVN OF LOS S
PLANNING DIV S ON
Thank you for your prompt reply to my August 13, 2015 letter. Unfortunately your August 17, 015
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 applicant 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 building permit for the secondary unit? The attachments sent are planning documents.
I am looking for a standard building permit with as built plans.
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
3. Development shall have adequate fire access (also see Chapter //I section C. and Chapter Vll
section b.2.). 4. A dependable and adequate water supply for fire protection and suppressi —
purposes, as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department, shall be provided for
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 Uniform Fire Code shall be implemented ar
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.
Parkins: (�
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
abutting a street. spaces shall not be located in any required yard
Landsa.
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.
LotLot Fronkm
CQ
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.
cxistina Carport/Nonconformina 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 Desi n:
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 Acc. buildings integrated w/topo + 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
area for caretaker unit The
900 sgrft S4. d Architecturally compatibledw /main structu structure c Maximum floor
Fire suppression
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 requirements.
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:
Consulting 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: Laurel Prevetti, Community Development Director
Michael Machado, Building Official
Fletcher Parsons, Town Engineer
Fire District
September 2, 2015
John Livingstone
2575 Hill Park Drive
San Jose CA 95124
Towle of Los GATos
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CMC CENTER
PLANNING DIVISION 110 E. MAIN STREET
(408) 354 -6872 FAX (408) 354 -7593 Los GATos, CA 95030
RE: 15925 Quail Hill (August 18, 2015 letter)
Mr. Livingstone,
Thank you for your additional questions, staff s 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, staff has 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 staff's 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
staff's 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.
INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887
ILO
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 turn
around for any of the properties on Quail Hill Road.
10) 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,
Marni F. Moseley
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
NADEV\Mami\L Um \15925 Quail Hil- response -2.doc
rd
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMFNT
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
' 1
APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF
OA IITRF.!'Tnte
PLEASE TYPE or PRINT NEATLY
1,1116 undmrsigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ��H
DEPARTMENT1DIIiECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT RE. SOS
COMMITTEE as follows;
�9Tp
DATE OF DECISION: DRC Public Hearing - AuguSt 18, 2015
PROJECTAPPLICATION: Architecture and site Application S -14 -027
LOCATION: 15925 Quail Hill Road (APN 52.7 -02 -007)
LOS Gatos, CA 95432
LIST REASONS WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD BE 41RANT1711-
no legal easement supporting the required access. E....i.�,. may. 1130
$)Application S -14 -027 is incomplete.
IMPORTANT:
1. APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF MAILING OF WRITTEN
NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION.
2. THE APPEAL SHALL BE SET FOR THEFIRST REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WHICH THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PERMIT, MORE
THAN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MAY HEAR THE MATTER ANEW AND RENDER A NEW D IN THE MATTER..
4. YOU WILL HE NOTIFIED, IN WRITING, OF THE APPEAL DATE
4. CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER INDETERMINE WHAT MA REQUIRED TO BE
SUBMITTED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
PRINT NAME Brad W. Krousldup SIGNATURE
DATE August 20, 2015 ADDRESS Quail Hill Ro d
PHONE 408 - 605 -0113 Los Gatos, CA 95032
DATE OPPLANNINO COMMISSION HEARING: OFFICE USE ONLY
COMMISSION ACTION: 1. DATE:
2.
3. DATE:
3' DATE:
PLAPPEAL $ 181.00 Residential
PLAPPEAL $ 725.00 Commercial
PLAPPEAL S 74.00TmAppeals
N:OEV70RMSWIAnninrV01$�16 PD, Alll Cob.MCOa
is
ul'*0c
EXHIBIT 1 2
9/23/15 PC Staff Report
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Exhibit 13 is included in the
Town Council Staff Report
in
ATTACHMENT 3
Additional materials submitted by the
Appellant, received August 15, 2015
(82 pages)
EXHIBIT 13
9/23/15 PC Staff Report
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank