Attachment 4FILING FEES
Town of Los Gatos
Office of the Town Clerk
110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030 $370.00 (PLAPPEAL) Residential
$1,487.00 (PLAPPEAL), per
Commercial Multi-family or
Tentative Map Appeal APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
TRANSCRIPTION $500 (PL TRANS) I, the undersigned , do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning Commission as
follows: (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NEATLY)
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION f I-q -f ""
NOV 11 2016
PROJECT I APPLICATION NO:
ADDRESS LOCA~ DEPARTMENT
Pursuant to the Town Code , the Town Council may only grant an appeal of a Planning Commission decision in most matters ifthe
Council finds that one of three (3) reasons exist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Council members . Therefore,
please specify how one of those reasons exists in the appeal :
I. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because
-----------------~
2. There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is
______________________ (please attach the new information if possible): OR
3. The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council : ___________________________________ _
IF MORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
I. Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes. A SS00.00 deposit is required at the time of filing.
2. Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee .
Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the I 0th day following the decision. If the 10th day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
3.
4.
5.
6.
may be filed on the workday immediately following the 10th day, usually a Monday.
The Town Clerk will set the hearing within 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision {Town Ordinance No.
1967).
An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only must be filed within the time limit specified in
the Zoning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from other appeals.
Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council. .
If the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information, the application will usually be returned to the Planning
Commission for reconsideration.
PRINT NAME' I/At y ..J<:l (O;: \: \ (\'\>' SIGNATURE ,-~?7'{__)
DATE : \\ '~ ·-\ G \ ADDRESS: -~· .. ~·~--
1..1,.0 e •-1,;o 6 -'I. :rt I / 'f-0 c lover M.d 1\-t PHONE :
***OFFICIAL USE ONLY*** U-.5 C9R7'ZJ5, <?JT C(-S-..32.__
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING :
Pending Planning Department Confirmation
DA TE TO SEND PUBLICATION: -------
CONFIRMATION LEITER SENT : Date:
TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY:
DATE OF PUBLICATION :
71(Jl f2016
ATTACHMENT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Thursday November 17, 2016
Town of Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Project/Application s-16-011
16362 Hilow Road
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision November 9th
RECEIVED
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
NOV 18 2016
CLERK DEPARTMENT
On November 9, 2016 the Planning Commission voted to deny the motion that
was remanded to them by the Town Council. The approved September 20th
Town Council motion read as follows :
"Motion by Council Member Marcia Jensen to grant the appeal but remand
the matter to the Planning Commission per Attachment 6 to formalize those
issues that have been raised by the applicant, i.e. retain the trees, screen
the windows, ensure the drainage is correct, and consider reducing the size
of the cellar and the size of the garage. Seconded by Mayor Barbara Spector."
We are appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to deny and are
asking the Town Council to grant our appeal based on the fact that the Planning
Commission erred and abused its discretion in this matter for the following
three reasons:
1. Planning Commission did not follow the direction of Town Council to
"formalize those issues that have been raised by the applicant".
The following issues and changes were presented to the Planning Commission as
requested by the Town Council. However, the Planning Commission did not .
"formalize these issues" but rather regressed back to their original decision without
acknowledging these issues were addressed and changes made.
Changes and issues presented to the Planning Commission:
A . Reduced size of the garage and cellar:
The Town Council requested that we "consider reducing the size of the cellar
and the size of the garage". To that end we have amended our plan to include
a 200 sq . ft reduction in the garage and a 200 sq. ft reduction in the cellar.
The garage is now set back approx. 1 O ft from the front of the house as shown
in the new rendering. The cellar has now been reduced to approx.1600 sq. ft.
B . Retained the two large trees in front and raise bathroom window
and glass change:
As stated in the amendment, we will keep the two trees in the front yard to
further help the screening. We are also adding new large trees to the front.
(see rendering) We have also made changes to mitigate the neighbors'
privacy concerns by raising the bathroom window sill, and using obscure glass.
\ ot h
C. Ensure drainage Is correct:
We presented a new revised civil drainage plan dated 9/23/16. This plan
was reviewed and approved by public works. Also during the Town Council
meeting on September 20, 2016, the soils engineer, Joel Baldwin was in
attendance and spoke regarding any soil and water drainage issues and
assured Council that any of these water concerns brought up from two
neighbors were not founded by any facts regarding this project, but stemmed
from other factors on their properties.
2. Plan ning Commission abused its discretion by ignoring the new
i nformation provided them through watching and/or reading the Sept. 20th
Town Council meeting wher e several new clarifications wer e made
undermi n i ng t he basis of t he i r original deci sion t o deny the project.
Some of these i ncl ude:
A . Usi ng 2,2,5 as a guideline, not a rule.
In the first Planning Commission meeting, Commissioners were conflicted
using the 2 ,2,5 as a governing rule. This issue was discussed at length in the
Town Council meeting and as stated by Council member Jensen, 2,2,5 was
not meant to be a "rule " rather one of many guidelines.
B . Homes In County are to be Incl uded In neighborhood evaluations.
In the first Planning Commission meeting, several Commissioners were not
including the two story house next door in the 2,2,5 guideline because it
resides in County. This was also addressed in the Town Council meeting and
as was stated by councilman Rennie, all homes are generally included the
2,2,5 scenario ... even County.
C. The street Is In a unique position to have two-story homes.
During the Town Council meeting, several additional insights were uncovered
including the fact that Hilow is on course to become a new safe school
route-another reason to have 2-story homes on the street so that yards
can be as large as possible for children to play safely.
3. Pl anning Commissi on erred by stating In their denial motion that t h ey
"cannot make It compl y" In regards to mass and scale and Incompatibility.
Their motion to deny included the following references in the LG Residential Design
Gu idelines book which can be refuted as follows :
In his motion to deny, Commissioner Kane referred to the Los Gatos Residential
Design Guidelines, specifically :
Section 1 .4 (1st bullet) "Homes will respect the scale and character of
their immediate neighborhoods"
Scale. The proposed home is shorter than the two story home directly to the
left and the above ground square footage is also smaller than the single story
home next door to the right. The first story of the proposed home is set back
-2-
8ft. from the side property lines and the 2nd story is set back 16 feet.
This was intentionally designed to reduce the look of scale and get away from
a box-like mass. Character.The character and style of this home is classic
craftsman style which compliments the majority of new construction homes
on Hilow and surrounding streets . Pages of photos showing examples of
compatible homes on Hilow and surrounding streets have been included
in prior documentation and presentations . These are available upon request.
Section 1.2 (3rd bullet) "Ensure that new development is compatible
with its surrounding neighborhood."
(As a side note , The Commissioner referenced the 4th bullet i n the meeting, but we
are assuming he meant the 3rd bullet as the 4th would have little of no relevance
to the point he was making.)
The term "compatible" can be interrupted a hundred different ways. The
crucial point is the DRC found the project to be compatible and so did the
Town Council with proposed changes in it's moti on.
It is interesting to note that Robert Shultlz , the Town Attorney, spoke up
at this stage encouraging the Comm issioners to "look carefully at the
language in 1.6.on page 11." Then he quoted directly from the guideline ...
"Common sense should be used when applying the diagram below to a
specific site context. There are several factors in determining an immediate
neighborhood when this diagram may not be applicable. These factors
include, but are not limited to, location and visibility of the building (e .g .
terrain of the lots, lots with multiple frontages and diversity in parcel size.'?
Common sense. I believe the Town Attorney was trying to send a message ... perhaps
vocalizing the general frustration being felt regarding this process . This property
was purchased one year ago and this will be the 3rd meeting in Town Hall over
a 6 month period of time. It seems to have moved from dealing with an appeal
of a neighbor to a tug-of-war between the Town Council and Planning Commission .
I am requesting that the Town Council approve and support the appeal and let this
project move forward . This new home complies with all the policies and guidelines
of the Town of Los Gatos and will be a great asset to the neighborhood and
community.
Thank you for your time.
-3-
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank