Los Gatos City Council
April 5, 2022

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Proposed Military Equipment Use Ordinance
DATE: April 5, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

Each year the governing body must review the annual report and determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth above and vote on whether to renew it, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071 (e)(2).

Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department held a community outreach meeting to discuss AB 481 via zoom on March 29, 2022. Five members of the public and members of the press attended, asked questions, and provided comments. Comments continue to be welcome on the proposed Ordinance. The proposed Ordinance, LGMSPD Policy 704, and the detailed list of existing military equipment are posted on the Police Department website.

CONCLUSION:

It is recommended that the Town Council introduce the Ordinance to approve and adopt the Military Equipment Use Policy including the Los Gatos Police Department’s Policy 704.

ALTERNATIVES:

If this ordinance is not approved, Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department will cease the use of equipment designated by AB 481 as military equipment on April 30, 2022. Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department will be required to redesign policies, procedures, and operations for critical incident response. This would include the Department’s ability to provide and receive mutual aid, address an immediate threat, or have a more expansive de-escalation option.

Public safety may be negatively impacted with diminished access to the resources currently in the Police Department’s inventory. For these reasons, staff is not recommending this alternative.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact in adopting this ordinance and the military equipment use policy.

Attachments:

1. Ordinance

2. LGMSPD Lexipol Policy 704 (Exhibit A to the Ordinance in Attachment 1)

3. AB 481 Defined list of Military Equipment in LGMSPD Possession (Inventory).

4. Assembly Bill 481

ATTACHMENT 1
ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS , STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE III TO CHAPTER 21 TO THE TOWN CODE GOVERNING THE USE

OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT
WHEREAS, on September 30, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 481, (creating Government Code Section 7070, et seq.) relating to the use of military equipment by law enforcement agencies; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill No. 481 (“AB 481”), requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body, by an ordinance adopting a “military equipment” use policy, at a regular meeting held pursuant to open meeting laws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The term “military equipment” is defined in California Government Code section 7070; and WHEREAS, AB 481 allows the governing body of a Town to approve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it makes specified determinations; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Military Equipment Use Policy”); and WHEREAS, the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy was published on the Los Gatos Police Department’s internet website on March 3, 2022, more than 30 days before the Military Equipment Use Policy was considered at a public hearing before the Town Council on April 5, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Military Equipment Use Policy meets the requirements of California Government Code section 7070, subdivision (d).

NOW THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION I: That a new Article III is added to Chapter 21 (entitled “Police”) of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos to read as follows:

CHAPTER 21, ARTICLE III. - MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY.

Sec. 21.30.010 – Findings and Purpose.
(a) The Town Council has made the following determinations:

ATTACHMENT 1
(1) The military equipment inventoried and presented to the Town Council is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety; and
(2) The Military Equipment Use Policy (“Policy”) will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and (3) The military equipment identified in the Military Equipment Use Policy is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of Officer and civilian safety; and
(4) Prior military equipment use complied with the applicable Equipment Use Policy (which included equipment now defined as military equipment) that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying Military Equipment Use Policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
(b) The Police Department has submitted a proposed Policy to the Town Council and has made those documents available on the Police Department’s website for at least 30 days prior to the public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (c) The Policy was considered by the Town Council as an agenda item in an open session of a regular meeting, noticed in accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, at which public comment was permitted.
(d) The Policy shall be made publicly available on the Police Department’s website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(e) The Police Department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the Town Council, containing the information required in Government Code Section 7072, and the Town Council shall determine whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for approval set forth in (a)(1)-(4) above. (f) The Town Council shall review this ordinance, and vote on whether to renew it, on an annual basis at a regular meeting, in accordance with Government Code Section 7071(e)(2)
(g) The Town Council approves the use of the Policy and finds that it satisfies the requirements of Government Code Section 7070(d).”
SECTION II. CEQA FINDINGS. This Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines because it has no potential to result in physical change in the environment, directly or indirectly. This Ordinance is also exempt under CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment.

ATTACHMENT 1
SECTION III. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or its application to other persons and circumstances. The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof despite the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional and, to that end, the provisions hereof are hereby declared to be severable.

SECTION IV. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. This Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on the 5th day of April 2022 and adopted by the following vote as an ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos on the 19th day of April 2022. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after it is adopted. In lieu of publication of the full text of the ordinance within fifteen (15) days after its passage a summary of the ordinance may be published at least five (5) days prior to and fifteen (15) days after adoption by the Town Council and a certified copy shall be posted in the office of the Town Clerk, pursuant to GC 36933(c)(1).

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the ______ day of ________ 2022, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES
NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINING:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATED:__________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: __________________

Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/29, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 1
Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
704.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for the approval, acquisition, and reporting requirements of military equipment (Government Code § 7070; Government Code § 7071; Government Code § 7072).
704.1.1 DEFINITIONS
Definitions related to this policy include (Government Code § 7070):

Governing body – The Los Gatos Town Council is the elected body.

Military equipment – Includes but is not limited to the following:
• Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. • Mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers. • High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), two-and-one-half-ton trucks, five-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. • Tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants. • Command and control vehicles that are either built or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. • Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. • Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are explosive in nature. This does not include a handheld, one-person ram.
• Firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or greater, excluding standard-issue shotguns and standard-issue shotgun ammunition.
• Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber, including firearms and accessories identified as assault weapons in Penal Code § 30510 and Penal Code § 30515, with the exception of standard-issue firearms.
• Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles. • Noise-flash diversionary devices and explosive breaching tools. • Munitions containing tear gas or OC, excluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
• TASER® Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and long-range acoustic devices (LRADs).
• Kinetic energy weapons and munitions.
• Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.

ATTACHMENT 2
Policy
704

Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/29, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 2
704.2 POLICY
It is the policy of the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department that members of this department comply with the provisions of Government Code § 7071 with respect to military equipment. 704.3 MILITARY EQUIPMENT COORDINATOR
The Chief of Police should designate a member of this department to act as the military equipment coordinator. The responsibilities of the military equipment coordinator include but are not limited to:
(a) Acting as liaison to the governing body for matters related to the requirements of this policy.
(b) Identifying department equipment that qualifies as military equipment in the current possession of the Department, or the equipment the Department intends to acquire that requires approval by the governing body.
(c) Conducting an inventory of all military equipment at least annually. (d) Collaborating with any allied agency that may use military equipment within the jurisdiction of Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department (Government Code § 7071).
(e) Preparing for, scheduling, and coordinating the annual community engagement meeting to include:

1. Publicizing the details of the meeting.

2. Preparing for public questions regarding the department’s funding, acquisition, and use of equipment.
(f) Preparing the annual military equipment report for submission to the Chief of Police and ensuring that the report is made available on the department website (Government Code § 7072).
(g) Establishing the procedure for a person to register a complaint or concern, or how that person may submit a question about the use of a type of military equipment, and how the Department will respond in a timely manner.
704.4 MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY
The following constitutes a list of qualifying equipment for the Department:
[Insert attachment here]
704.5 APPROVAL
The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall obtain approval from the governing body by way of an ordinance adopting the military equipment policy. As part of the approval process, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall ensure the proposed military equipment policy is submitted to the governing body and is available on the department website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue (Government Code § 7071). The military equipment policy must be approved by the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following (Government Code § 7071):

Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department Policy Manual
Military Equipment
Copyright Lexipol, LLC 2022/03/29, All Rights Reserved.

Published with permission by Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department
***DRAFT*** Military Equipment - 3
(a) Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to 10 USC § 2576a. (b) Seeking funds for military equipment, including but not limited to applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
(c) Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
(d) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the jurisdiction of this department. (e) Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body.
(f) Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of military equipment.
(g) Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided above. 704.6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy. 704.7 ANNUAL REPORT
Upon approval of a military equipment policy, the Chief of Police or the authorized designee should submit a military equipment report to the governing body for each type of military equipment approved within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use (Government Code § 7072).

The Chief of Police or the authorized designee should also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on the department website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The report shall include all information required by Government Code § 7072 for the preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment in department inventory. 704.8 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing the annual report, the Department shall hold at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting, at which the Department should discuss the report and respond to public questions regarding the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment.

ATTACHMENT 3

MILITARY EQUIPMENT INVENTORY

1. Robot (Category 1)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

This equipment is a battery powered, remote operated device. Equipped with two cameras and two-way radio capabilities. This equipment is for (potential) use during high-risk incidents. Use is limited to members of the Departments Crisis Response Unit.

Incidents that may qualify for its use include, but are not limited to, a high-risk warrant service, barricaded subject, and hostage negotiation/rescue. Before entering a structure, particularly in a tactically compromised and dangerous situation, knowledge of a subject’s location is very important, and the robot can provide that without placing anyone at risk. Cameras can also help determine if a subject is armed and if there are other subjects inside that need assistance. The two-way speakers can be used to deescalate and determine resistance level.

I. Robotex Avatar Tactical Robot, cost: $12,389.21 quantity: 1. b. Purpose:

To be used to remotely gain visual/audio data, deliver Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT) phone, disrupt packages, and clear buildings.
c. Authorized Use:

Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the robot. Use is established by the Incident Commander. All other applicable LGMSPD policies remain in effect, to include, but not limited to, LGMSPD Policy 309 – Search and Seizure, LGPD Policy 404 – Crisis Response Unit (CRU) Team. d. Expected Lifespan:
10-15 years
e. Fiscal Impact:

No known annual maintenance cost.

ATTACHMENT 3

2. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (Category 1)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

The Skydio 2 pro is a small non- commercial grade UAV. This UAV is a battery powered, remote operated device. Controller: Apple I pad. The controller allows the operators to control UAV and view live feed from UAV-mounted camera. Camera: Sony IMX577 camera. The camera provides operators ability to switch between standard Flight time of approximately 25-30 minutes per battery, depending on weather and flight conditions. The UAV has also proven to be useful to public safety agencies in firefighting, search and rescue, pre-operational surveillance, and other tactical situations where aerial views enhance the safety and efficiency of law enforcement and fire personnel.

I. Skydio 2 Pro unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), cost: $6,902.35 quantity: 1. b. Purpose:

To be deployed when its view would assist officers or incident commanders with the following situations, which include but are not limited to:

I. major collision investigations.

II. search for missing persons.

III. natural disaster management.

IV. crime scene photography.

V. CRU, tactical or other public safety and life preservation missions.

VI. In response to specific requests from local, state or federal fire authorities for fire response and/or prevention.
c. Authorized Use:

Only assigned operators who have completed the required training shall be permitted to operate the Skydio 2 pro during approved missions. All other applicable LGMSPD policies remain in effect, to include, but not limited to, LGMSPD Policy 309 – Search and Seizure, LGMSPD Policy 314 – Missing Persons, LGMSPD Policy 608 – Unmanned Aerial System Operations, LGMSPD Policy 404 – Crisis Response Unit (CRU).
d. Expected Lifespan:
5 years
e. Fiscal Impact:

No known annual maintenance cost.

ATTACHMENT 3

3. Specialized Firearms and Ammunition (Equipment Category 10) a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

The Carbine Rifle is a firearm, capable of accurately stopping an armed subject at various distances. The Carbine Rifle is a lightweight, air-cooled, gas operated, magazine fed, shoulder fired weapon, designed for semi-automatic & selective fire. The Carbine Rifle does not have an expiration and will need to be serviced or replaced when the rifle fails or breaks. The .223 / 5.56 cartridge is used as a lethal option designed to stop a violent encounter. The projectile is capable of penetrating soft body armor being worn by armed subjects.

I. Colt AR-15/M4, Lewis Machine & Tool AR-15, and Aero Precision AR-15, cost: $49,060, quantity:44
The Speer .223 Remington, 62 grain, GDSP cartridge is the primary duty ammunition deployed during potential lethal encounters.

II. Speer .223 Remington, 62 grain GDSP cartridge, cost: $4,780.16, quantity: 8,000.

The Federal .223 Remington, 55 grain cartridge is the primary training ammunition for the Department.

III. Federal .223 Remington, 55 grain cartridge, cost: $6,956.64, quantity: 16,000.

The Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department Crisis Response Unit (CRU) was formed in 1985, in response to very dangerous or violent tactical encounters. The Sniper element deploys with precision rifles, which enables the stopping of an armed subject at a safe distance. The Sniper Rifle does not have an expiration and will need to be serviced or replaced when the Rifle fails or breaks. The .308 Winchester cartridge: is a rimless, bottlenecked rifle cartridge. The .308 WIN. cartridge is used as a lethal option designed to stop a violent encounter. The projectile is capable of penetrating soft body armor being worn by armed subjects.

IV. Aero Precision 308 Rifle, cost: $5,362.80, quantity: 2.

The Federal .308 WIN., 168 grain tactical tip, cartridge is ammunition deployed during potential lethal encounters at longer distances. The 168-grain projectile maintains accuracy, while resulting in higher impact velocities, less drop, less wind drift, and more energy on target.

V. Federal .308 WIN., 168 grain tactical tip, cost: $1,716.00, quantity: 2,000.

ATTACHMENT 3
The Federal .308 WIN., 168 grain tactical bonded cartridge is ammunition deployed during potential lethal encounters, when shooting through barriers. The 168-grain Tactical Bonded projectile is capable of accurately striking targets behind an angled window or windshield, without the risk of unpredictable bullet deflection. Conventional bullets break apart or fragment when penetrating glass, which does not allow an accurate hit.

VI. Federal .308 WIN., 168 grain tactical bonded cartridge, cost: $1,520.00, quantity:
1,000.
b. Purpose:

To be used as precision weapons to address a threat with more precision and/or greater distances than a handgun, if present and feasible. c. Authorized Use:

Only members that are POST certified are authorized to use a rifle. All other applicable LGMSPD policies remain in effect, to include, but not limited to, LGMSPD Policy 300 – Use of Force, LGMSPD Policy 305 – Firearms Training and Qualifications, LGMSPD Policy 404 – Crisis Response Unit (CRU) d. Expected Lifespan:

I. Carbine Rifle – No expiration
II. The Speer .223 Remington, 62 grain, – No expiration III. The Federal .223 Remington, 55 grain, – No expiration IV. Sniper Rifles – No expiration
V. The Federal .308 WIN. Tactical Tip, 168 grain – No expiration VI. The Federal .308 WIN Tactical Bonded Tip, 168 Grain- No expiration e. Fiscal Impact:

I. Carbine Rifle – Annual cost between $0-$3,000
II. The Speer .223 Remington, 62 grain- Annual cost between $0-$6,000.

III. The Federal .223 Remington, 55 grain – Annual cost between $0 -$9,000.

IV. Sniper Rifle – Annual cost between $0-unknown for maintenance.

V. The Federal .308 WIN. Tactical Tip, 168 grain – Annual cost between $0 - $2,000.

VI. The Federal .308 WIN Tactical Bonded Tip, 168 Grain-Annual cost between $0-$2000.

ATTACHMENT 3

4. Flashbangs (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

A Noise Flash Diversionary Devices (NFDD) is a device that creates a bright flash and loud sound to temporarily divert the attention of subjects in the immediate area. NFDD are used to distract and temporarily incapacitate dangerous suspects by overwhelming their senses of vision and hearing. The distraction allows officers to seize a moment of opportunity to take control of high-risk situations. Def Tech 11 Gr mini NFDD emits a loud “bang” and a flash of light
I. Def Tech 11 Gr mini NFDD, cost: $2,612.50, quantity: 50 b. Purpose:

To produce atmospheric over-pressure and brilliant white light and, as a result, can cause short-term (6 - 8 seconds) physiological/psychological sensory deprivation to give officers a tactical advantage.
c. Authorized Use:

Diversionary Devices shall only be used:

I. By CRU officers who have been trained in their proper use.

II. In hostage and barricaded subject situations.

III. In high-risk warrant (search/arrest) services where there may be extreme hazards to officers.

IV. During other high-risk situations where their use would enhance officer safety.

V. During training exercises.

All other applicable LGMSPD policies remain in effect, to include, but not limited to, LGMSPD Policy 300 – Use of Force, LGMSPD Policy 404 – Crisis Response Unit. d. Expected Lifespan:

Def Tech 11-gram mini NFDD – 5 years
e. Fiscal Impact:

Def Tech 11 Gram mini NFDD – Annual cost between $0 - $2,612.50

ATTACHMENT 3

5. Tear Gas (Category 12)
a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

Chemical agent munitions, which are commonly referred to as “tear gas,” are used by the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department as a non-lethal tool to disperse rioting subjects and on barricaded suspects. The Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department uses chemical agents which are used by law enforcement across the United States: CS (2-Chlorobenzylidenemalononitrile)and OC (Oleoresin Capsicum)CS is an irritating agent and lachrymator (irritates the eyes and causes tears to flow). CS has been medically tested in the UK and US, specifically by the U.S. Army. There are no known allergic reactions to CS. OC was de-regulated in California in 1996, is endorsed by the FBI, and is available to civilians to legally possess (2.5oz or less). OC is an inflammatory agent which causes involuntary closure of eyes (open in 2-5 minutes) and respiratory inflammation (subsides in approximately 2 minutes).

I. Def Tech handheld OC/CS canisters, model #1050 Cost: $ 361.50, quantity: 6 b. Purpose:

To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable. Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:

I. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals.

II. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.

III. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained.

IV. Potentially vicious animals.

V. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.
c. Authorized Use:

Only officers who have received POST certification in the use of chemical agents are authorized to use chemical agents. All other applicable LGMSPD policies remain in effect, to include, but not limited to, LGMSPD Policy 300 – Use of Force, LGMSPD Policy 404 – Crisis Response Unit (CRU).
d. Expected Lifespan:

Def Tech handheld OC/CS canisters, model #1050 – 5 years e. Fiscal Impact:

Def Tech handheld OC/CS canisters, model #1050 – estimated between $0 and $450 annually

ATTACHMENT 3

6. Projectile Launch platforms and associated munitions (Category 14) a. Description, quantity, capabilities, and purchase cost:

The Lewis Machine & Tool Launcher is not a firearm, but a Less-Lethal systems that uses smokeless powder to deliver 40MM projectiles from a safe distance. The Less-Lethal launcher is capable of launching 40MM munitions at a subject up to 25 yards. The LessLethal launcher is a single launcher, which allows the Officer to assess after every spent munition. Less-Lethal launcher does not have an expiration and will need to be serviced or replaced when the launcher fails or breaks. The 40MM munition is a Direct Impact Spin Stabilized Smokeless Sponge Munition. The Sponge Baton and Impact OC munition is used as a Less-Lethal weapon designed to de-escalate a potentially violent encounter.

Liquid Ferret Barricade munition are a less lethal 40mm round that is used to penetrate barriers such as windows, hollow core doors, wallboard, and thin plywood.

I. Lewis Machine & Tool Launcher, cost: $4,514.55. quantity: 5 II. Def Tech 40mm Direct Impact Sponge #6325, cost: $360.00 quantity: 20 III. Def Tech 40mm Direct Impact OC #6320LE, cost: $315.00, quantity: 15 IV. Def Tech 40mm CS liquid ferret rounds, model #1262, cost: $72.00, quantity: 3 V. Def Tech 40mm CS powder rounds, model #1292, cost: $ 120.00, quantity: 5 b. Purpose:

To limit the escalation of conflict where employment of lethal force is prohibited or undesirable.
c. Authorized Use:

Situations for use of the less lethal weapon systems may include, but are not limited to:

I. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals.

II. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents.

III. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained.

IV. Potentially vicious animals.

V. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.

All other applicable LGMSPD policies remain in effect, to include, but not limited to, LGMSPD Policy 300 – Use of Force.
d. Expected Lifespan:

I. 40mm Launcher: No expiration

ATTACHMENT 3
II. 40mm Sponge Round: 5 years
III. 40mm OC: 5 years
IV.40mm CS liquid ferret rounds: 5years
V. 40mm CS powder: 5 years
e. Fiscal Impact:

I. 40mm Launcher: estimated between $0 and $5,000.00 annually II. 40mm Sponge Round: estimated between $0 and $500.00 annually III. 40mm Direct Impact OC: estimate between $0 and $300.00 annually IV. 40mm CS liquid ferret rounds: estimate between $0 and $360.00 annually V. 40mm CS powder rounds: estimate between $0 and $360.00

ATTACHMENT 4

PREPARED BY: Jennifer Armer, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Finance Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/05/2022
ITEM NO: 14
DATE: March 31, 2022
TO: Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Discuss and Provide Direction Regarding Fiscal Analysis of the Draft 2040 General Plan.

RECOMMENDATION:

Discuss and provide direction regarding fiscal analysis of the Draft 2040 General Plan.

BACKGROUND:

At the January 25, 2022 Town Council Strategic Priorities meeting, two Council Members requested an agenda item to discuss and provide direction regarding fiscal analysis for the Draft 2040 General Plan.

DISCUSSION:

In response to the request for a discussion of fiscal analysis for the Draft 2040 General Plan, Town staff asked Applied Development Economics to prepare a memo describing the different fiscal analysis options available for consideration with a General Plan update, including a summary of the analysis already completed during the development of the Draft 2040 General Plan. The resulting memo is included as Attachment 1.

This agenda item provides an opportunity for the Council to review the information provided in Attachment 1 and discuss if further information is needed.

Given the continued interest in this topic, staff plans to recommend an additional implementation program for the Draft 2040 General Plan to review fiscal impacts related to the Land Use Element every five years.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Draft 2040 General Plan Fiscal Analysis
DATE: March 31, 2022
CONCLUSION:

The fiscal analysis that was included in the December 2019 Land Use Alternatives Report is standard practice for a General Plan update process for a municipality where future development will predominately be infill development.

Staff looks forward to Town Council discussion regarding fiscal analysis of the Draft 2040 General Plan.

Per State law, the Town Council cannot act on the draft General Plan until environmental review is completed and until the Town Council receives a recommendation from its Planning Commission.

NEXT STEPS:

The next steps in the General Plan update process include:
 Planning Commission meeting to discuss and make a recommendation on the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) via teleconference at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 13, 2022.
 Town Council consideration of the Draft 2040 General Plan and Final EIR, following a recommendation from the Planning Commission.

COORDINATION:

This report has been coordinated with the Town Manager’s Office and Town Attorney’s Office.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

A Draft EIR analyzed the Draft 2040 General Plan as required. Preparation of a Final EIR has been completed and provided for consideration by the Planning Commission and Town Council along with the Draft 2040 General Plan.

Attachment:

1. Fiscal Analysis Options Memo

1The following dwelling totals include net new dwelling units and 475 pending and approved units. 3527 Mt. Diablo Blvd. #248, Lafayette, CA 94549 ◼ Tel 925.934.8712 www.adeusa.com MEMO
TO: Jim Harnish
Brent Gibbons
FROM: Doug Svensson, AICP
DATE: March 22, 2022
SUBJECT: Additional Fiscal Analysis Options for the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan
The Town of Los Gatos has requested a scope and cost for additional fiscal analysis of the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan. The level of analysis completed to date (Land Use Alternatives Report, December 2019), which is described briefly below, is generally considered adequate for most General Plan update studies. The completed alternatives analysis evaluated the relative performance of the alternatives in terms of their cost/revenue impact to the Town. The fiscal analysis indicated that residential uses generally require a higher level of municipal services than do non-residential land uses, which typically generate a fiscal surplus for most California cities. Los Gatos is no different in this regard.

The analysis indicated that as the number of residential units included in each alternative goes up, the added service costs begin to reduce the net benefit gained from the fixed amount of commercial development included in the alternatives. The tipping point between an overall positive vs. negative fiscal result is between Alternative C at 2,3031 Dwelling Units (DUs) and Alternative D at 3,176 DUs1.

In the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan, 3,2381 DUs would be permitted, which is more units than Alternative D in the fiscal analysis. With the addition of ADUs, and the absence of any increased increments of commercial development, the overall fiscal impact would be expected to be negative.

A more detail analysis will not change this basic conclusion. However, there are options for additional analysis that could refine the estimate of the actual fiscal impact of the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan, such as considering the time frame for buildout of the General Plan and also addressing facilities improvements needed to support growth. We outline these options below.

Fiscal Analysis Completed to Date. ADE prepared a fiscal analysis of the four initial land use alternatives (attached to this scope of work). As part of this work, we constructed a fiscal model for the Los Gatos General Fund that includes all revenues and service cost categories funded through that part of the Town’s budget. The model is detailed in terms of the cost and revenue categories, but the ATTACHMENT 1

A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 2 analysis is done for full buildout of each alternative at one point in time, and does not consider the effects of inflation, which may affect Town revenue and costs differently.

In addition, the cost analysis uses an average cost methodology which assumes all development over the long term has the effect of raising costs for Town services due to increasing demand. It does not account for cases in which the existing service capacity of the Town could absorb demand from growth in the short term without increasing costs, if any such cases exist.

Finally, the analysis does not address the cost of increasing facilities and infrastructure capacities. The assumption here is that new development would bear those costs through impact fees or developer exactions, but it is possible there could be indirect capital costs that are not captured through those types of funding mechanisms.

Option 1: Update the Existing Analysis for the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan. The analysis options described below address these types of concerns, but there is also the possibility of simply updating the existing analysis to current budgetary and market conditions and using it to analyze the new growth increment in the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan. The original work was conducted about two years ago, prior to the pandemic. One concern, which must be addressed in all the options, is how much the Town’s current budget is affected by the recession that accompanied the pandemic. A similar concern exists for real estate conditions in terms of the housing prices used in the analysis. It may be necessary to work with Town staff to derive a likely long term cost/revenue scenario that draws from pre-pandemic service levels and projects a budget forward when economic conditions return to “normal.”
The following additional tasks would be needed:
▪ Update the fiscal model to “likely” long term budget levels. ▪ Confirm Town service standards and determine what capacity exists currently, if any, to serve an expanded service population consistent with the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan. ▪ Program the Draft 2040 General Plan Land Use Plan into the fiscal model, including updating projected real estate values.
▪ Prepare a new report with the results of the analysis and a complete methodology section.

Additional Cost: 32 hours @200 = $6,400
Expenses: $600 for real estate data
Total: $7,000
Option 2: Analyze General Plan Buildout Over Time. This analysis would use the updated fiscal model developed for Option 1, but would project the phasing of development in Los Gatos over the 20-year buildout timeframe and analyze fiscal impacts on a year by year basis. This approach would add the following features to the analysis:

A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 3 ▪ More detailed discussion with Town Departments about the existing capacity to absorb growth in the short term before additional staff or facilities are needed to support continuing growth.

The analysis would also identify the growth thresholds for each service that would trigger the need for personnel and equipment expansions over time.
▪ The analysis would apply inflation factors to both revenues and costs, including estimates of how the Proposition 13 restrictions on assessed value increases would affect property tax revenues over time. In our experience, cities often experience cost inflation in “chunks” as new labor agreements are negotiated and new staff or facilities are added, whereas revenue inflation follows closer to the CPI and sometimes lags the cost inflation for extended periods. ▪ The analysis would show the cost/revenue trend year by year over the 20-year buildout period and calculate the present value of the cumulative net revenue or cost over that period.

This option would cost an additional $3,200 over Option 1, for a total cost of $10,200.

Option 3: Expand the Analysis Beyond the General Fund. Most fiscal studies focus on the General Fund because the key concern is whether general tax revenues in the future will be adequate to cover increasing service costs. The Town has less control over the annual amounts of general tax revenues (sales tax, property tax, transient occupancy tax) because they are subject to market forces and it is difficult to change the tax rates. Therefore, changes in land use are more important to long term increases in these revenues. Other funds in the Town budget, such as special revenue funds and enterprise funds, typically have dedicated funding sources, which can either be raised by Town Council action or are based on state funding formulas that are not affected as much by the type of land use changes included in a General Plan update.

However, there are cases where cities are concerned whether, for example, state gas taxes or water and sewer charges will keep up with operations and maintenance costs. The fiscal model used in Options 1 and 2 above could be expanded to include budgetary funds outside the General Fund. We anticipate this would add about $1,600 to $2,400 to the cost of the analysis, depending on the extent of the model expansion and which funds are added.

Option 3: Infrastructure Financing. In cases where General Plan updates also include detailed analysis of long-term infrastructure and facilities expansion requirements, ADE is sometimes requested to address the financing options for capital improvements or to identify if gaps in funding may exist. Such analysis may include a preliminary impact fee nexus study or a land-based debt capacity analysis to determine bonding capacity to fund future improvements. One caveat here is that ADE is not staffed to prepare facilities cost estimates, but rather we rely on estimates prepared by traffic engineers or civil engineers who are typically part of the General Plan update team.

The costs for such analysis can vary widely depending on the level of information available to work with and the type of analysis needed. A general financing discussion can sometimes be completed for $5,000 to $10,000, but a full development impact fee nexus study would cost about $15,000. This analysis could be combined with either Option 1 or 2 above.

A p p l i e d D e v e l o p m e n t E c o n o m i c s | P a g e 4 For all options, attendance at public meetings is additional, depending on the level of effort needed to prepare a presentation and the number of meetings required.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Fiscal Health
It is important to ensure that the future land use mix supports a healthy fiscal foundation for the Town. As discussed in the Background Report, different land uses generate different levels of revenue (taxes) and require different levels of costs (municipal services). Each of the land use alternatives has been evaluated to determine the cost/revenue balance at buildout of the land uses. The results are summarized in Table 5-4. The detailed methodology for this analysis is provided in Chapter 6: Alternatives Methodology.

Table 5-4: Comparison of Fiscal Impacts of the Alternatives on Annual Operating Revenues and Costs
Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D
Annual Revenues $4,320,000 $5,796,000 $6,564,000 $8,378,000 Annual Costs $3,710,000 $5,280,000 $6,264,000 $8,413,000 Net Fiscal Impact $610,000 $516,000 $300,000 ($35,000)
Residential Net Impact $190,000 $96,000 ($121,000) ($455,000) Non-residential Net Impact $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 $420,000 Source: ADE, Inc. Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.

The figures in the Table 5-4 reflect the annual impact of the incremental growth in residential and non-residential land uses in each land use alternative. The figures depicted in Table 5-4 are not the total estimated Town General Fund budget at buildout, but only the incremental change generated by new development. The non-residential development is the same for each alternative, so the variations in performance among the alternatives is due solely to the changes in residential development.

In general, the more the development in the land use alternative, the higher the annual revenues would be. However, lower density housing units (LowDensity Residential) typically have a higher market value than higher-density units, so the amount of property tax revenues, and to some degree taxable household spending that generates sales tax, is dependent on the mix of unit types in each land use alternative.

In contrast, municipal costs are largely driven by the increase in population.

For purposes of the land use alternatives analysis, all housing unit types are assumed to have the same average household size. Therefore, the bottomline cost/revenue balance for each alternative reflects the ratio of aggregate home values and household incomes to the population it creates.

Alternative A results in the highest net fiscal benefit, at about $610,000 annually. As noted in the housing affordability analysis, this alternative has the lowest number of BMP housing units and the mix of market rate units is more balanced between single family and multi-family. Generally, as the number of residential units goes up in each alternative, the fiscal benefit decreases, and Alternative D actually shows a small negative fiscal impact. The mix of units in Alternative B produces a positive fiscal benefit of $516,000 overall. Alternative C has an overall positive fiscal benefit of $300,000 per year, but the residential component generates a negative fiscal impact of -$121,000 per year.

The fiscal health results should be viewed as a relative comparison among the land use alternatives and considered a best-case scenario over the long run. In the 2040 Background Report, the fiscal analysis of existing land uses showed that residential uses require more in-service cost than they generate in Town revenues. However, that is due to the fact that existing taxable assessed values are depressed due to the limitations imposed by Proposition 13. In the current real estate market, residential prices for new single family housing are high enough to generate sufficient tax revenues to support current levels of Town services, although multi-family assessed values still produce a negative fiscal impact. Over time, the revenue generating potential of the development may decline as Proposition 13 limits the escalation of assessed values compared to the inflation of municipal service costs.

December 2019
25

A
This appendix provides
a description of the
methodology used to
determine total housing,
and population for each
land use alternative,
followed by a description
of the methodology used
in the fiscal analysis.

Development Capacity
Methodology
This section provides a description of the methodology used to determine total housing, population, and employment capacity for each of the land use alternatives.

The purpose of this methodology is to support a “development capacity” analysis of the Town’s Planning Area under each of the four alternatives. Development capacity, as used in this report, is an estimate of the total housing units, population, and non-residential building square footage calculated based on a set of development assumptions and calculations. It is important to note that a development capacity analysis reflects a theoretical buildout of the available vacant land and parcels with redevelopment potential that are within the Planning Area. It is unlikely that all of the calculated potential development will be realized by 2040. In this analysis, four basic land use alternatives were prepared. The Low Growth Alternative reflects the Town’s existing General Plan relative to development density and intensity.

Alternatives B, C, and D represent increasing density and intensity, increasing as you move from the lower to the higher alternative.
 Alternative A, Low Growth
 Alternative B, Medium Growth
 Alternative C, Medium High Growth
 Alternative D, High Growth
The following discussion provides an overview of the steps involved in producing the development capacity analysis.

A
B
C
D
Appendix:

Alternatives Methodology
41

Step 1: Scope of Analysis
The land use alternatives included in this evaluation were developed based on recommendations from the General Plan Update Advisory Committee (GPAC).

Following GPACs recommendation, the Consultants identified five land use designations that could have potential for future development and should be evaluated in this analysis. The development capacity analysis focused on development within these designations:
 Low-Density Residential (LDR)
 Medium-Density Residential (MDR)
 High-Density Residential (HDR)
 Neighborhood Commercial (NC)
 Mixed-Use Commercial (MU)
Areas not included in the analysis are those designated Hillside Residential, Mobile Home Park, Office Professional, Service Commercial, Central Business District (downtown), Light Industrial, Public, and Open Space.

To determine development potential, the development capacity analysis looked at development of existing vacant parcels as well as the redevelopment and/or intensification of some areas that contain development currently within the five identified land use designations.

Step 2: Vacant Land
To identify vacant parcels in each of the five land use designations being analyzed, parcel data from the Santa Clara County Assessor’s Office was used.

Using the geographic information system (GIS) data provided by the Assessor, parcels with a tax use code of “Vacant” were identified. These sites were then visually reviewed against aerial photography to confirm that the site was truly vacant. Once verified, the attributes of the vacant land GIS data were exported into an Excel spreadsheet for the analysis.

Step 3: Opportunity Areas
In addition to analyzing vacant parcels, the development capacity analysis also examined the redevelopment potential of locations with existing development.

Within these developed areas, locations that could support more intensive uses were identified based on location, access, infrastructure, roadway capacity, and surrounding land uses. These locations were identified and defined as “Opportunity Areas.” Parcels within designated Opportunity Areas (OA) are assumed to have a higher potential redevelopment percentage and the ability to support increased density ranges (and higher maximum building heights) for residential and increased intensity for non-residential uses, expressed by increasing the allowed floor area ratio (FAR).

If a parcel is designated Neighborhood Commercial or Mixed-Use Commerical, it was assumed that square footage of existing commercial uses would remain (as currently built or as a replacement) and residential will be added to the site, therefore, there will be no net commercial loss as part of the redevelopment assumptions.

Step 4: Redevelopment
The analysis also evaluated the potential for existing developed areas to redevelop (e.g., remove an existing home and replace it with more units, such as a duplex or triplex), or increase the use of a parcel (e.g., adding additional units on a parcel with an existing home). This potential, expressed as a percentage of the total area evaluated was applied to areas both inside and outside the Opportunity Areas identified.

Step 5: Development Assumptions
All parcels inside and outside the Opportunity Areas, including vacant parcels, were assigned a set of development assumptions that were specific to the four land use alternatives. The following tables show the development assumptions for redevelopment, density, typical density, and FAR for each alternative. On each table, the following headings are shown:
 Redevelopment Percent. This column states what percentage of the total area under each land use designation is assumed to be redeveloped within the 2040 planning period. The percentage shown provides numbers of parcels outside the Opportunity Areas (Outside OA) and those inside the Opportunity Areas (Inside OA).

Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 42

Land Use Designation
Alternative A: Low Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC) Typical Density (DU/AC) FAR Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA LDR 5% 5% 0 to 5 5 to 12 4 10 0.25
MDR 5% 10% 5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.5
HDR 10% 10% 12 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
NC 5% 5% 0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5
MU 5% 5% 0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.5
Land Use Designation
Alternative B: Medium Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC) Typical Density (DU/AC) FAR Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA LDR 5% 5% 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.25
MDR 10% 10% 12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75
HDR 10% 10% 20 to 30 20 to 30 26 26 1
NC 10% 10% 0 to 20 10 to 20 18 18 0.75
MU 10% 15% 0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
Land Use Designation
Alternative C: Medium-High Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC) Typical Density (DU/AC) FAR Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA LDR 5% 10% 5 to 12 8 to 16 10 14 0.5
MDR 10% 10% 12 to 20 14 to 24 16 20 0.75
HDR 15% 15% 20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.25
NC 10% 15% 0 to 20 20 to 30 18 26 0.75
MU 10% 20% 0 to 20 30 to 40 18 26 1
Land Use Designation
Alternative D: High Growth
Redevelopment Percent Density Range (DU/AC) Typical Density (DU/AC) FAR Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA Outside OA Inside OA LDR 10% 15% 5 to 12 12 to 20 10 16 0.75
MDR 15% 15% 14 to 24 14 to 24 20 20 1
HDR 15% 20% 20 to 30 30 to 40 26 36 1.5
NC 15% 15% 20 to 30 20 to 30 26 26 1
MU 15% 20% 30 to 40 30 to 40 36 36 1.5
 Density Range (DU/AC). This column states the
density range for residential that was assumed
for each alternative. Density is expressed as the
number of dwelling units per acre (DU/AC).
 Typical Density. For development, on average,
maximum density/intensity is not usually
obtained. For the analysis, a density that
estimates the “typical” density was developed.

Typical density was based on previous Town
projects that were of similar size and scope
to potential development in the land use
alternatives. This is the number that is used in the
analysis for residential development.
 FAR. Floor Area Ratio is a measure of intensity
that is used to define the total building area
allowed on a site. See page 4 for further
information on FAR.

Structure height varies between each of the four land
use alternatives depending on the specific land use
designation and FAR. The potential maximum allowed
height for the five land use designations in Alternative A is two stories, Alternative B is three to four stories, Alternative C is four stories, and Alternative D is five stories. A visual example of potential developments
at these height intervals is provided in the Community
Character and Urban Form section on pages 34, 35, 37,
and 38.

December 2019
43

Step 6: Residential Potential
After applying the development assumptions for each of the four land use alternatives, the potential number of new housing units and population were calculated. The number of new housing units in each alternative was calculated by multiplying the typical density by the number of acres of each parcel being analyzed. For example, if a parcel was one acre in size and the typical density was 12 DU/AC, then the total potential housing units would be 12 units.

When calculating the population, the estimated number of persons per household for Los Gatos (based on data from the California Department of Finance), which is 2.4 persons per unit, was multiplied by the number of units projected. The following is a summary of the net new housing units and population for each alternative.

Alternative A:

Low Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
681 1,634
Alternative B:

Medium Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
1,416 3,398
Alternative C:

Medium-High Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
1,828 4,387
Alternative D:

High Growth
Net New
Housing Units Population
2,701 6,482
Step 7: Pending and Approved Projects
In addition to the net new housing units and population figures (from Step 6), new housing units, population, jobs, and non-residential square footage based on pending and approved Town projects were also added to the total potential.

Town staff provided the Consultants a list Town approved and pending projects earlier in 2019 to inform this process.

Calculating new population for pending and approved projects used the same process for calculating the net new population. Non-residential square footage was provided by Town staff on a project by project basis. To estimate the number of jobs for non-residential projects, the Consultants used an employee per square footage assumption based on current best practice (see below) and divided the non-residential square footage per project by the employee assumption. For example, if the assumption is 500 square feet per employee for commercial and a commercial project has 10,000 square feet of retail, the estimated number of jobs for that use would be 20 jobs. Below is a summary of the net new housing units, population, jobs, and non-residential square footage for the Town identified pending and approved projects.

Employee Per Square Foot Assumptions
Office Retail Institutional Industrial
350 500 700 1,000
Pending and
Approved Town
Projects
Net New
Housing Units Population Jobs Non-Residential
Square Footage
475 1,140 1,280 671,768
Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 44

Step 8: Results
After calculating the net new figures from the pending and approved projects, the Consultants added them to the existing (2018) Los Gatos housing units, population, and jobs totals, as well as the net new totals for each of the four land use alternatives. These combined totals provide a snapshot of the Townwide buildout of parcels within the five land use designations selected for analysis by the GPAC. The following is a summary of the Townwide net new population, housing units, and jobs by land use alternative.

Category Existing
(2018)** Alt A* Alt B* Alt C* Alt D*
Population 30,250 33,024 34,788 35,777 37,872
Jobs 20,650 21,930 21,930 21,930 21,930
Housing Units 13,069 14,225 14,960 15,372 16,245
Notes:
*Totals include the pending and approved projects
**Existing data is from the American Community Survey, 2018 December 2019
45

Fiscal Analysis Methodology
The fiscal analysis of the land use alternatives is based on estimates derived from the Town FY 2019-2020 General Fund budget and the analysis of how different land uses affect Town service cost and tax revenues, as described in the Los Gatos Today Chapter of the General Plan Background Report published in March 2019. This section describes these calculations in more detail.

The analysis allocates major revenues such as the property tax, sales tax and transient occupancy tax (TOT) to land uses based on estimated socioeconomic characteristics of the land uses and the legislative tax formulas. Other revenues and most service costs are allocated based on per capita formulas using the existing budget data and population and employment levels in Los Gatos. Each section below describes the major assumptions and data sources used for each revenue and cost category.

Property Tax
Property tax is based on projected market values for future development shown in the table to the right (Projected Assessed Values by Land Use). The Consultants researched prices for real estate sales transactions over the past two years in Los Gatos. During that time, there were approximately 440 sales transactions for properties in the land use types and density ranges and included in the General Plan alternatives.

While property owners pay a total base property tax of one percent of assessed value, the Town receives an estimated 9.3 percent of this revenue. The remaining property tax revenue is distributed to the County and various other taxing agencies, most notably local school districts, in the area.

In addition to the base property tax, the Town receives property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees directly from the state. These revenues are based on annual increases in assessed value in each Town and are equal to nearly 21.8 percent of base tax revenues for Los Gatos.

Projected Assessed Values by Land Use
Land Use Assessed Value
Residential Per Unit
Single Family (Density)
(4 du/ac) $2,254,000
(10 du/ac) $2,031,000
(14 du/ac) $1,660,000
(16 du/ac) $1,511,000
Multi-Family
(18 du/ac) $1,343,000
(20 du/ac) $1,048,000
(26 du/ac) $1,165,000
(36 du/ac) $910,000
BMP Units
Low Income $385,000
Moderate Income $510,000
Non-Residential Per Sq. Ft.

Commercial $1,086
Industrial $200
Office $556
Institutional $189
Source: ADE,2019, based on property transaction data for 2017-2019 reported by CoreLogic ListSource.

Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 46

Sales Tax
The Town receives 1.125 percent of taxable sales that occur within the Town limits. In the Background Report, the Consultants estimated that approximately 25 percent of total retail demand leaves Los Gatos as households and businesses shop at other retail centers in the regional market area.

Based on the projected home prices and rent levels for the housing units in the land use alternatives, the Consultants estimated household income levels and calculated the amount of taxable retail sales from each income segment shown in the table below (Estimated Household Incomes and Sales Tax Generation Rates).

Estimated Household Incomes and Sales Tax Generation Rates Residential
Land Use
Categories
Sales Price
Homeowners Renters
Spent in Los
Gatos
Sales Tax per
Household Household
Income
Retail Sales %
of Income Taxable Sales
Renter
Household
Income
Retail Sales Taxable Sales
Single Family
(4 du/ac) $2,254,000 $498,200 21.0% 65.7% 75.0% $580
(10 du/ac) $2,031,000 $448,900 21.0% 65.7% 75.0% $523
(14 du/ac) $1,660,000 $366,900 21.0% 65.7% 75.0% $427
(16 du/ac) $1,511,000 $334,000 21.0% 65.7% 75.0% $389
Multi-Family
(18 du/ac) $1,343,000 $296,800 21.0% 65.7% $88,209 34.0% 85.0% 75.0% $241 (20 du/ac) $1,048,000 $231,600 21.0% 65.7% $88,209 34.0% 85.0% 75.0% $226 (26 du/ac) $1,165,000 $257,500 21.0% 65.7% $88,209 34.0% 84.0% 75.0% $230 (36 du/ac) $910,000 $201,100 21.0% 65.7% $88,209 34.0% 84.0% 75.0% $217 BMP Low $385,000 $85,050 29.8% 69.5% $85,050 34.7% 84.0% 75.0% $197 BMP Moderate $510,000 $112,700 28.8% 69.1% $112,700 34.7% 84.0% 75.0% $260 Source: ADE, 2019. Homeowner incomes based on qualifying income for 30 year mortgage at 3.9% with 10% down payment and housing costs, including taxes and insurance, at 33% of income. Rents assumed to average $2,575 per month. The sales tax per household assumes 80% renters and 20% homeowners for the multi-family units.

For non-residential projects in the land use alternatives, the sales tax generation rates are based on the analysis of existing sales tax in the Background Report.

In the fiscal calculations, the sales tax attributed to retail/commercial excludes sales tax generated by Los Gatos households. This was done to avoid double counting household revenues. The remaining taxable sales from retail/ commercial are generated by non-Los Gatos households, visitor spending, and business to business transactions. Office, industrial, and institutional taxable sales are point of sale transactions at those places of business.

December 2019
47

Other Revenues and Costs
Other revenues and the Town service costs are projected on a per capita basis. Residents in Town generate twice the service demand per person as do the jobs supported
by businesses in Town. This rule of thumb was developed through a fiscal impact methodology based on the data
that nighttime residents are present at least 16 hours in a 24-hour day while those that commute into Town for
employment only occupy 8-hour shifts. With the 2019
population in Los Gatos of 30,988 and an estimated job
base of 19,667 jobs, this results in about 74.8 percent of Town service costs allocated to residential uses and

23.7 percent to non-residential uses. The remaining

1.5 percent are allocated to visitors based on the number of hotel rooms in Town. These percentages and the
resulting per capita revenue and cost factors are shown in the table on the right (Per Capita Cost and Revenue Factors by Major Land Use).

Intergovernmental revenues, including the gas tax, tend to be allocated based on residential population only. General Government Costs are not allocated on a per capita basis but are applied as an overhead charge to other costs for each land use. General Government includes the Town
management functions, finance, human resources, Town
Clerk, Town Attorney, and other similar functions. Overall, these services represent about 20 percent of the total
General Fund expenditures for Los Gatos.

The detailed fiscal projections for each alternative are shown in the tables on the following pages.

Per Capita Cost and Revenue Factors by Major Land Use
Budget Category
Residential Business
Percent
Allocation
Per Capita
Factor
Percent
Allocation
Per Capita
Factor
Revenues
Franchise Fees 76% $60.51 24% $29.66
Other taxes 76% $34.46 24% $16.89
Intergovernmental 100% $31.57 0% $0.00
Town Services 76% $106.54 24% $52.22
Fines and Forfeitures 75% $11.68 24% $5.84
Other Revenues 76% $8.77 24% $4.30
Debt Service Reimbursements 76% $0.00 24% $0.00
Transfers in 76% $13.26 24% $6.50
Expenditures
Community Development 76% $141.78 24% $69.50
Library 76% $72.24 24% $35.41
Parks and Public Works 75% $60.63 24% $30.31
Debt Payments 76% $0.00 24% $0.00
Transfers Out 76% $190.83 24% $93.54
Franchise Fees 76% $60.51 24% $29.66
Other taxes 76% $34.46 24% $16.89
Source: ADE, 2019.

Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 48

Alternative A
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional

REVENUES
Property Tax $1,858,702 $599,216 $772,109 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467 Property Tax in lieu of VLF $497,736 $160,462 $206,761 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732 Sales Tax $720,812 $169,312 $184,914 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524 Franchise Fees $207,580 $56,645 $111,101 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $118,206 $32,256 $63,266 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176 Licenses and Permits $285,597 $77,934 $152,858 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426 Intergovernmental $87,501 $29,548 $57,954 $0 $0 $0 $0
Town Services $365,454 $99,726 $195,599 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545 Fines and Forfeitures $40,213 $10,931 $21,440 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61 Interest Earnings and Rents $62,721 $18,513 $26,613 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153 Other Revenues $30,072 $8,206 $16,095 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45 Transfers in $45,470 $12,408 $24,337 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68 TOTAL REVENUES $4,320,066 $1,275,158 $1,833,048 $921,048 $84,785 $195,521 $10,507

EXPENDITURES
General Government $629,157 $167,134 $327,811 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836 Community Development $505,602 $132,714 $260,301 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726 Police Dept. $1,463,870 $382,651 $750,519 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707 Library $247,812 $67,623 $132,634 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370 Parks and Public Works $208,775 $56,753 $111,313 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316 Transfers Out $654,620 $178,634 $350,367 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,709,836 $985,509 $1,932,945 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932 TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS $610,230 $289,649 ($99,897) $388,691 ($17,697) $43,910 $5,575 Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative A
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.

December 2019
49

Alternative B
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional

REVENUES
Property Tax $2,478,760 $484,371 $1,507,012 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467 Property Tax in lieu of VLF $663,780 $129,708 $403,558 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732 Sales Tax $867,758 $141,992 $359,178 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524 Franchise Fees $297,814 $42,335 $215,646 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $169,590 $24,107 $122,799 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176 Licenses and Permits $409,745 $58,246 $296,694 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426 Intergovernmental $134,570 $22,083 $112,487 $0 $0 $0 $0 Town Services $524,315 $74,532 $379,654 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545 Fines and Forfeitures $57,626 $8,170 $41,615 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61 Interest Earnings and Rents $84,157 $14,746 $51,816 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153 Other Revenues $43,145 $6,133 $31,241 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45 Transfers in $65,236 $9,273 $47,237 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68 TOTAL REVENUES $5,796,495 $1,015,697 $3,568,937 $921,048 $84,785 $195,521 $10,507

EXPENDITURES
General Government $895,398 $124,911 $636,275 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836 Community Development $717,013 $99,187 $505,239 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726 Police Dept. $2,073,425 $285,982 $1,456,743 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707 Library $355,534 $50,540 $257,440 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370 Parks and Public Works $299,181 $42,415 $216,056 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316 Transfers Out $939,181 $133,506 $680,055 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $5,279,731 $736,541 $3,751,809 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932 TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS $516,764 $279,157 ($182,872) $388,691 ($17,697) $43,910 $5,575 Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative B
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.

Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 50

Alternative C
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional

REVENUES
Property Tax $2,741,725 $558,345 $1,696,003 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467 Property Tax in lieu of VLF $734,198 $149,517 $454,167 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732 Sales Tax $963,242 $162,463 $434,192 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524 Franchise Fees $354,403 $48,013 $266,556 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $201,814 $27,341 $151,790 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176 Licenses and Permits $487,603 $66,059 $366,739 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426 Intergovernmental $164,088 $25,045 $139,043 $0 $0 $0 $0 Town Services $623,943 $84,529 $469,284 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545 Fines and Forfeitures $68,546 $9,266 $51,440 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61 Interest Earnings and Rents $95,298 $16,914 $60,789 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153 Other Revenues $51,343 $6,956 $38,616 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45 Transfers in $77,632 $10,517 $58,389 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68 TOTAL REVENUES $6,563,834 $1,164,965 $4,187,009 $921,048 $87,785 $195,521 $10,507

EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,062,367 $141,666 $786,490 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836 Community Development $849,596 $112,491 $624,518 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726 Police Dept. $2,455,699 $324,342 $1,800,658 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707 Library $423,091 $57,319 $318,218 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370 Parks and Public Works $355,878 $48,105 $267,064 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316 Transfers Out $1,117,639 $151,413 $840,606 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $6,264,270 $835,336 $4,637,553 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932 TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS $299,565 $329,629 ($450,544) $388,691 ($17,697) $43,910 $5,575 Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative C
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.

December 2019
51

Alternative D
Total Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Office Institutional

REVENUES
Property Tax $3,419,046 $744,996 $2,186,673 $391,559 $29,284 $60,067 $6,467 Property Tax in lieu of VLF $915,576 $199,500 $585,563 $104,854 $7,842 $16,085 $1,732 Sales Tax $1,178,463 $213,283 $598,593 $290,125 $11,293 $64,645 $524 Franchise Fees $477,885 $75,883 $362,169 $23,001 $6,671 $9,852 $310 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other taxes $272,131 $43,211 $206,236 $13,098 $3,799 $5,610 $176 Licenses and Permits $657,495 $104,403 $498,287 $31,646 $9,179 $13,555 $426 Intergovernmental $228,500 $39,583 $188,917 $0 $0 $0 $0 Town Services $841,339 $133,595 $637,614 $40,494 $11,745 $17,345 $545 Fines and Forfeitures $92,376 $14,644 $69,891 $4,528 $1,313 $1,939 $61 Interest Earnings and Rents $121,642 $23,534 $80,524 $13,372 $1,231 $2,839 $153 Other Revenues $69,232 $10,993 $52,468 $3,332 $966 $1,427 $45 Transfers in $104,680 $16,622 $79,333 $5,038 $1,461 $2,158 $68 TOTAL REVENUES $8,378,365 $1,620,237 $5,546,267 $921,048 $84,785 $195,521 $10,507

EXPENDITURES
General Government $1,426,709 $223,897 $1,068,600 $90,283 $17,380 $25,712 $836 Community Development $1,138,904 $177,787 $848,529 $80,834 $12,504 $18,523 $726 Police Dept. $3,289,855 $512,610 $2,446,546 $237,738 $36,776 $54,478 $1,707 Library $570,505 $90,590 $432,361 $27,459 $7,964 $11,761 $370 Parks and Public Works $479,596 $76,028 $362,859 $23,507 $6,818 $10,068 $316 Transfers Out $1,507,050 $239,303 $1,142,128 $72,536 $21,039 $31,069 $977 TOTAL EXPENDITURES $8,412,619 $1,320,214 $6,301,023 $532,357 $102,482 $151,612 $4,932 TOTAL BUDGET NET (DEFICIT)/ SURPLUS ($34,253) $300,023 ($754,755) $388,691 ($17,697) $43,910 $5,575 Detailed Fiscal Projections: Alternative D
Note: figures may not exactly add due to rounding.

Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2040 | Land Use Alternatives Report 52

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/05/2022
ITEM NO: 15
DATE: March 31, 2022
TO: Town Council
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision Approving a Request for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio Standards with Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 118 Olive Street. APN 410-15-022. Architecture and Site Application S-21-013. PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and Meredith Reichert.

APPLICANT: Jay Plett, Architect.

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny the appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving a request for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence to exceed floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side yard setbacks on nonconforming property zoned R-1D, located at 118 Olive Street.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is located on the north side of Olive Street, approximately 138 feet from the intersection with San Benito Avenue (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1). The subject property is approximately 3,680 square feet and is nonconforming as to size, where 5,000 square feet is required for a parcel in the R-1D zone.

On May 10, 2021, the applicant submitted an Architecture and Site application for a substantial remodel and second-story addition to the existing single-family residence. While processing the application, the applicant determined that full demolition of the existing residence was needed to accomplish the project. The design of the proposed residence did not change once full demolition of the existing residence was proposed.

On October 21, 2021, the application was deemed complete for processing. Project signage

PAGE 2 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):
and story poles were installed on the subject property and certified by a licensed civil engineer on November 1, 2021. On December 22, 2021, notice cards were mailed to surrounding property owners and occupants as required by the Town Code.

On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the application and continued the matter to February 9, 2022 (Attachments 1 through 3). The Planning Commission directed the applicant to:
 Continue neighbor outreach efforts and contact neighbors that expressed concerns; and  Provide a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence.

On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the application, including the applicant’s summary of their continued neighbor outreach and a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence (Attachments 4 through 6). The Planning Commission approved the application subject to Conditions of Approval (Attachment 7).

On February 22, 2022, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by an interested person, Shelli Baker, property owner of 120 Olive Street (Attachment 8). The appellant indicated that the Planning Commission based their decision on incomplete and inaccurate information; that the Planning Commission did not address the concerns of surrounding neighbors; and that pertinent information provided to staff was not forwarded to the Planning Commission.

Pursuant to the Town Code, any interested person as defined by Section 29.10.020 may appeal to the Council any decision of the Planning Commission. For residential projects an interested person is defined as “a person or entity who owns property or resides within 1,000 feet of a property for which a decision has been rendered and can demonstrate that their property will be injured by the decision.” The appellant meets the requirements.

Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the Planning Commission hearing and in this case, by April 6, 2022. The Council must at least open the public hearing for the item and may continue the matter to a date certain if the Council does not complete its deliberations on the item.

Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.295, in the appeal, and based on the record, the appellant bears the burden to prove that there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission as required by Section 29.20.275. If neither is proved, the appeal should be denied. If the appellant meets the burden, the Town Council shall grant the appeal and may modify, in whole or in part, the determination from which the appeal was taken or, at its discretion, return the matter to Planning Commission. If the basis for granting the appeal is, in

PAGE 3 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):
whole or in part, information not presented to or considered by the Planning Commission, the matter shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review.

DISCUSSION:

A. Project Summary
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing 814-square foot single-story residence and 253-square foot attached garage (Attachment 1, Exhibit 9) and construction of a new 1,677-square foot two-story residence with a 299-square foot attached garage (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11). The proposed residence would exceed the allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR).

In addition, the proposed residence includes a front setback of 10 feet, where 15 feet is required, and a left-side setback of three feet, where five feet is required. The project includes one off-street parking space, where two spaces are required by the Town Code.

Lastly, the project also includes 1,195 square feet of below-grade square footage that would not count towards the allowable floor area pursuant to Town Code.

The subject property is approximately 3,680 square feet and is nonconforming as to size, where 5,000 square feet is required for a parcel in the R-1D zone. A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1D zone. The proposed residence complies with the zoning regulations for height and right-side and rear setbacks. The applicant requests approval to exceed the allowable FAR, reduce the front and left-side setbacks, and an exemption to the requirement to provide two off-street parking spaces. The applicant provided a Letter of Justification discussing these requests (Attachment 1, Exhibit 4). A full discussion and analysis of the application, including the requested exceptions, is provided in the January 12, 2021, staff report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 1).

B. Planning Commission
On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission received the staff report and addendum report (Attachments 1 and 2), opened the public hearing, and considered testimony from the applicant and the public (Attachment 3). The appellant was present at this meeting and spoke in opposition to the proposed project. After asking questions of the applicant, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the project. The Commission voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to a date certain of February 9, 2022, directing the applicant to:
 Continue neighbor outreach efforts and contact neighbors that expressed concerns; and  Provide a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed residence.

Attachment 3 contains the verbatim minutes of the January 12, 2022, meeting.

PAGE 4 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

On February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission received the staff report and desk item report (Attachments 4 and 5), opened the public hearing, and considered testimony from the applicant and the public (Attachment 6). The appellant was present at this meeting and spoke again in opposition to the proposed project. After asking questions of the applicant, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the project. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the application subject to Conditions of Approval (Attachment 7).

Attachment 6 contains the verbatim minutes of the February 9, 2022, meeting.

C. Appeal to Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on February 22, 2022, prior to the 5:00 p.m. deadline, by an interested person, Shelli Baker (Attachment 8).

The appeal states that the Planning Commission based their decision on incomplete and inaccurate information; did not address the concerns of surrounding neighbors; and that pertinent information provided to staff was not forwarded to the Planning Commission (Attachment 8). A summary of the specific reasons listed in the appeal form are provided below as verbatim excerpts, followed by the applicant’s response in italic font and staff’s analysis. The applicant’s full response letter to the appeal is included as Attachment 9.

Supplemental information provided by the appellant on March 31, 2022, is included as Attachment 10.

1. Appellant: Plans to be revised to include omitted and accurate information and condition of approval added regarding building permit submittal.

Plans are incomplete and do not include: A Construction Management and Job Sequencing Plan, Geotech/Soils Stability Report and peer review, Site Grading Plan and Dewatering Mitigation Plan, stitch pier design for access and soil stability indicating total scope of soils export/import. (Plan currently indicates an obvious error of only 0.9 cubic yards being exported.) Storage/staging areas for lumber, waste containers, toilet, wash out area, and worker parking are also lacking from the plans.

A sampling of omitted dimensions/call outs are: sectionals, rear setback, rear deck elevation and dimensions, and partial west side setbacks ...The plans need to be revised prior to council approval.

Request: Include a condition of approval that any changes to the plans submitted to the building department shall be denied and resubmitted to the planning department and planning commission.

PAGE 5 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

Applicant: Projects in the planning phase do not require construction management, job sequencing plan, geo/soils, peer review site grading/dewatering plan, stitch pier design, staging and storage design, waste containers or parking, unless specifically called out by way of site conditions/zoning. This project was not subject to those during planning review because the conditions do not warrant them at this time, but may be subject to review as part of the building permit process and/or the conditional of planning approval. The Planning and Building Department makes those determinations based on code compliance and site conditions.

All required dimensions were included in the drawings for Planning Department review.

Some dimensions which may bring more clarity during the building permit process may have not yet been included, but will likely be part of that process at the appropriate time.

As discussed in both Town Planning Commission meetings, the rear deck elevation is less than required and is a walk-out condition from the ground level of the house, it is not elevated to produce a condition to invade any neighbor’s privacy. To further clarify, the elevation of the rear deck is the same height as the existing floor finish of the home or lower as indicated on the Civil drawings. The required rear setback for the home is 20’ and this project is in greater compliance than required.

Staff analysis: Sheet C2.0 of the Development Plans includes grading quantities for site work outside of the excavation required for the building (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11). The site grading quantities are evaluated by staff to determine if a Grading Permit will be required at the Building Permit stage of the project. In this case, the project includes less than one cubic yard of site grading, far below the threshold for a Grading Permit of 50 cubic yards. Excavation quantities, which are exempt from a Grading Permit, were not required by the Engineering Division during review of this application. Grading and excavation activities, including the off hauling of spoils, are addressed through Conditions 39, 40, 48, 57, 58, and 64 of the Draft Conditions of Approval (Attachment 7).

The appellant indicates several pieces of information were omitted from the Development Plans submitted with this application. Staff has provided an itemized response to each below. All referenced Draft Conditions of Approval can be found in Attachment 7.
 Construction Management and Job Sequencing Plan: Construction site management plans are not required under the Architecture and Site application, but are required with the materials submitted for a Building Permit as reflected in Conditions 46, 47, and 51 of the Draft Conditions of Approval;
 Geotech/Soils Stability Report and peer review: A Geotechnical report was not required by the Engineering Division under the Architecture and Site application as

PAGE 6 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
the subject property is not located in a liquefaction zone nor in close proximity to a known fault line. Peer review of a Soils Report is required with the Building Permit as reflected in Condition 20 of the Draft Conditions of Approval;  Site Grading Plan: A Preliminary grading plan is included in the Development Plans submitted for this application (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11, Sheet C2.0);  Dewatering Mitigation Plan: Details for dewatering was not required under the Architecture and Site application and is not typically required under an application for a Building Permit. The Soils Report, submitted for peer review under the Building Permit application, may recommend dewatering procedures depending on the depth of the water table. If recommended, details of dewatering would be required by the Building Division during review of the Building Permit application;  Stitch pier design for access and soil stability indicating total scope of soils export/import: Structural details of the stitch pier design are required and will be reviewed under the Building Permit application. As discussed above, site grading quantities were provided, and excavation quantities were not required by the Engineering Division under this application. Grading and excavation activities, including the off hauling of spoils, are addressed through Conditions 39, 40, 48, 57, 58, and 64 of the Draft Conditions of Approval;
 Storage/staging areas for lumber, waste containers, toilet, wash out area, and worker parking are also lacking from the plans: Construction site management plans are not required under the Architecture and Site application, but are required with the materials submitted for a Building Permit as reflected in Conditions 46, 47, and 51 of the Draft Conditions of Approval;
 Sectionals (i.e., section drawings): A building section exhibit was included on Sheet A-3 of the Development Plans (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11);  Rear setback: The required rear setback was not included on the various Site Plans in the Development Plans (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11). Staff evaluated the project and determined that the proposed residence is located approximately 30 feet from the rear property line where a minimum 20 feet is required by the zone;  Rear deck elevation and dimensions: Sheet C2.0 of the Development Plans includes finished elevations of the deck of 393.36 feet to 393.53 feet (sloping away from residence) above the adjacent ground elevation of 392.47 feet. Dimensions of the deck are not included, but because the deck is essentially at-grade, it is allowed anywhere on the property under Section 29.40.070(c) of the Town Code;  Partial west side setbacks: West side setbacks are shown and dimensioned on Sheet A-1 of the Development Plans (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11); and  Include a condition of approval that any changes to the plans submitted to the Building Department shall be denied and resubmitted to the Planning Department and Planning Commission: The Community Development Department will evaluate

PAGE 7 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
the plans submitted for the Building Permit and any future revisions thereto to determine if they are in substantial conformance with the approved project, as required by Draft Condition of Approval 1. If changes exceed the scope of the approved project, a modification to the approved Architecture and Site application may be required.

2. Appellant: Add street repair condition of approval.

A significant number of trucks and heavy equipment will be necessary to construct the home and off haul dirt associated with the basement. It will be very challenging for the narrow streets to accommodate these trucks and equipment and there will likely be significant damage done.

Request: Add a condition of approval that Olive Street be surveyed before and after construction (e.g. video taken by public works) and that the street, curb, gutter, sidewalk and neighborhood property be repaired to original condition.

Applicant: Projects in the planning phase do not require many of these items, however, there are required Conditions of Approval which are already part of the project: Not listed here, but there are 12 pages of Conditions of Approval of 70 items, all of which occur at the phases of work after Planning Approval.

To note: There have been several construction projects on this block over the last several years, including one which was a completely new build, with a basement.

Staff analysis: The Engineering Division did not require a preconstruction pavement survey for this project. Conditions 33, 35, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 of the Draft Conditions of Approval address restoration of public improvements; street and sidewalk closures; construction parking; and hauling of soil.

3. Appellant: New home to comply with minimum 5-foot side yard setbacks OR remove basement from plans.

Safety/Welfare: The stitch piering necessary to construct a basement will cause excessive ground shaking and potential damage to the adjacent 80 year old home which is situated on a sloped lot with sump pumps underneath. This issue is further compounded by the request for reduced setbacks.

Request: Remove basement or increase setbacks to conforming.

Applicant: Projects in the planning phase do not require means and methods of construction review.

PAGE 8 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

Several homes on this block have less than 3’ side yard setback, including the neighbor at 120 Olive. There are also homes with basements in this neighborhood.

Stitch Pier method of construction is an industry accepted means of engineering. This method is used on even smaller 0’ lot line properties. The means and methods of construction are not part of the Planning Review Process.

To Note: The soils engineer, structural engineer, architect, contractor, and homeowner all have insurances. The integrity of the design and code compliance is all part of the building permit process and construction inspections, not planning review.

Staff analysis: Section 29.10.265 of the Town Code allows for the modification of any rule of the zone on nonconforming property, including setbacks, when found to be compatible with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission found that the reduced setbacks of the new residence were compatible with the neighborhood and complied with these requirements. The proposed three-foot side setback is not likely to significantly increase any ground shaking created by stitch pier drilling over what would be experienced with a five-foot side setback.

4. Appellant: Minimum 20-foot driveway added to site plan which does not include public right-of-way.

Emergency access: The narrow street width and lack of viable on-site parking will make it more difficult for cars/trucks in general and more importantly emergency vehicles to access the homes on Olive Street.

Request: provide a minimum 20-foot driveway for off-street parking that does not include the public right of way.

Applicant: The Town requirement for a driveway is not 20’, it is 18’. The project site has an 18’ driveway to property line and includes than another 2’+ to the public right of way.

The project is in compliance with code. Illustrated below:

PAGE 9 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

To Note: This neighborhood has several driveways which are non-complaint, including several homes with no driveway space to park, in addition to many of the garages being constructed to not actually be able to park a car. The Town Planning Department and Planning Commission specifically reviewed this project in that context as we are adding park-able driveway (code compliant) space and adding a function (code compliant) garage, thus positively impacting to the reduction of off-street parking.

Staff analysis: Staff has provided an itemized response below.  Driveway: Section 29.10.155 of the Town Code requires driveways to be a minimum of 18-feet in length. Sheet C3.0 of the Development Plans show an existing driveway length of 17.4 feet (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11). The applicant has set the garage door one foot deep into the wall of the new residence, resulting an increased driveway length of 18.4 feet in depth. Neither measurement of driveway length includes any portion of the public right-of-way; and
 Emergency Access: The application carries no requirement to improve the existing conditions of Olive Street. The project includes the creation of a new compliant parking space within the garage of the residence, which can be counted toward the parking requirement for the property. Two additional spaces are being created on the site via the increased-length driveway and the car lift in the garage, although these spaces cannot be counted toward the parking requirement for the property.

PAGE 10 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

5. Appellant: New home not to exceed FAR calculation or basement to be removed from the plans.

The FAR calculations for a non-conforming lot is already adjusted to a higher allowable coverage than conforming lots. The 1195sf basement is in addition to the allowable FAR.

Additionally, the use of a basement was established to aid enlarging homes without unnecessarily impacting the neighborhood with excessive and out of scale designs.

Request: Reduce the size of the house to conform to FAR guidelines.

Applicant: This part of the project was specifically reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Planning Department. The drawings provided for planning review purposes in total is a 1195sf basement, but if reviewed against the portions of basement garage space and living area it would actually be less: Basement living: 809sf, Basement Garage: 386. The design of this project is in scale with the neighborhood as reviewed by the Town Design Guidelines, Town Staff, the Town Consulting Architect and Planning Commission. The mass and presence of the home is less than the 3 story home at the corner on 546 San Benito and homes at 125, 127 and 135 Olive as well as being very similar to its direct neighbor at 120 Olive. This is illustrated on Sheet A1.1 on the plans in profile, but was also witnessed by the Town Planning Department and Planning Commission whom all visited the site before unanimously approving the project. To also add, the story poles have been up since October 2021 (and are still up), giving proper notice for all to weigh in.

The above ground massing is consistent with Town code 29.40.072 and was reviewed in such context with the appropriate basement usage. The second story of the project is less than the footprint of the ground floor, bringing scale to the streetscape that blends with the neighborhood pattern as well as having articulation to not be a solid mass block. 61% of the massing is on the ground level and 39% on the second story.

Staff analysis: Section 29.40.255(c) of the Town Code allows for an FAR in excess of what is allowed when the project is found to be consistent with the residential development standards and the lot coverage, setbacks, and FAR of development on surrounding lots.

The Planning Commission found that the proposed residence complied with these requirements.

6. Appellant: New home to comply w/ minimum front and side setbacks of 15 and 5 feet respectively.

PAGE 11 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

There are no compelling or inherent constraints that prevent the proposed house from being built with very slight modifications.

Request: Simply repositioning the garage two feet to the east and the house five feet toward the rear of the property allows the house to be built with minimal changes to the design and maintains the overall integrity of the house. These minor alterations also solve the problematic substandard length driveway.

Applicant: These manageable adjustments will eliminate the need for three of the four exceptions/variances and satisfy many of the neighborhood objections and concerns.

This part of the project was specifically reviewed by the Planning Commission and the Planning Department. In fact, the Planning Commission acknowledged the constraints of this property are very tight and believed the work from the Town Architect, Planning Department and Architect of Record did a detailed job to explain why each part of the project warranted its use. Specifically citing the complaint garage and its use of the modified setback to gain compliance was well received to help ease parking concerns while also balancing the needs of the homeowners to gain a livable space inside the house and backyard to suit the needs of growing young families as the live in Los Gatos.

Summary of the direct neighbor’s setbacks who exceed allowable:

Address Side yard Front yard
110 both sided less than 3’ 4’
112 3’ 8’9”
120 3’ on 2 story home 11’
125 1’ 5’
127 1’6” 7’
129 under 2’
131 under 2’ 8’
133 3’ 7’
Staff analysis: Section 29.10.265 of the Town Code allows for the modification of any rule of the zone on nonconforming property, including setbacks, when found to be compatible with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission found that the reduced setbacks of the new residence complied with these requirements.

7. Appellant: Pertinent information was provided and not delivered to the Planning Commission. Please see attached email from Sean Mullin, Project Planner, and accompanying letter and signature page dated February 7, 2022, from the neighbors.

PAGE 12 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

Applicant: A letter appears to have been inadvertently not included as part of the process, however, during both Planning Commission meetings each of the topics included in this letter were specifically cited and considered during the approval.

Including: Planning Commissions acceptable of applicants neighborhood outreach, parking and driveway conditions, setbacks, square footage/FAR, rear deck height and overall height.

Staff analysis: The referenced letter (Attachment 8) from Darren Carroll was handdelivered to the staff on February 8, 2022, at approximately 11:35 a.m., ahead of the deadline for inclusion in the February 9, 2022, Desk Item to the Planning Commission.

Staff inadvertently did not include the letter in the Desk Item, but did include an updated signature page received via email on February 9, 2022 (Attachment 5, Exhibit 18). The author of the letter, as well as several of the signatures of the letter, spoke at both the January 12, 2022, and February 9, 2022, Planning Commission hearings.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Story poles and signage have been maintained on the site since the January 12, 2022, Planning Commission meeting. Written notice of the Town Council hearing was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. At the time of this report’s preparation, the Town has not received any public comment.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.

CONCLUSION:

A. Recommendation
For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Town Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution (Attachment 11) denying the appeal and approving the application with the required Findings (Attachment 11, Exhibit A), Conditions of Approval (Attachment 11, Exhibit B), and Development Plans (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11).

PAGE 13 OF 13
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: March 31, 2022
CONCLUSION (continued):

B. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Town Council could:

1. Adopt a resolution to grant the appeal and remand the application back to the Planning Commission with specific direction (Attachment 12);

2. Adopt a resolution granting the appeal and denying the application (Attachment 13); or

3. Continue the application to a date certain with specific direction.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. January 12, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 1-11

2. January 22, 2022 Planning Commission Addendum Report, with Exhibits 12-13

3. January 12, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

4. February 9, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 14-15

5. February 9, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report, with Exhibits 16-18

6. February 9, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

7. February 10, 2022 Planning Commission Action Letter

8. Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision, received February 22, 2022

9. Applicant’s Response to Appeal, received March 21, 2022

10. Supplemental Information from Appellant, received March 31, 2022

11. Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal and Approve Project, with Exhibits A and B

12. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Remand Project to Planning Commission

13. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Deny Project

PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/12/2022
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: January 7, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 118 Olive Street.

APN 410-15-022. Architecture and Site Application S-21-013. PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and Meredith Reichert. APPLICANT: Jay Plett, Architect.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider approval for demolition of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence to exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards with reduced front and side yard setbacks on nonconforming property zoned R-1D located at 118 Olive Street.

PROJECT DATA:

General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1D (Single-family residential downtown – 5,000 square-foot minimum for single-family)
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan
Parcel Size: 3,680 square feet
Surrounding Area:

Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D
South Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D
East Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D
West Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D
ATTACHMENT 1

PAGE 2 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
CEQA:

The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.

FINDINGS:
▪ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures.
▪ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the exception of the requests to exceed FAR standards, for reduced front and side yard setbacks, and for an exemption from the parking requirements. ▪ As required by Section 29.40.075(c) of the Town Code for granting approval of an exception to the FAR standards.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.150(h)(2) of the Town Code for reduced parking where it can be shown that the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required. ▪ As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.

CONSIDERATIONS:
▪ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application.

ACTION:

The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is located on the north side of Olive Street, approximately 138 feet from the intersection with San Benito Avenue (Exhibit 1). The subject property is approximately 3,680 square feet and is nonconforming as to size, where 5,000 square feet is required for a parcel in the R-1D zone.

This Architecture and Site application is being referred to the Planning Commission because the applicant is proposing to exceed the maximum allowable FAR and reduced

PAGE 3 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):
front and side setbacks. The residence would have the third largest floor area in terms of FAR and square footage in the immediate neighborhood based on Town and County records.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is approximately 3,680 square feet, located on the north side of Olive Street (Exhibit 1). The subject site and surrounding properties are comprised of singlefamily homes.

B. Project Summary
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing 814-square foot single-story residence and 253-square foot attached garage (Exhibit 9) and construction of a new 1,677-square foot two-story residence with a 299-square foot attached garage (Exhibit 11). The proposed residence would exceed the allowable FAR. In addition, the proposed residence includes a front setback of 10 feet, where 15 feet is required, and a left-side setback of three feet, where five feet is required. The project includes one off-street parking space, where two spaces are required by the Town Code. Lastly, the project also includes 1,195 square feet of below-grade square footage that would not count towards the allowable floor area.

C. Zoning Compliance
The subject property is approximately 3,680 square feet and is nonconforming as to size, where 5,000 square feet is required for a parcel in the R-1D zone. A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1D zone. The proposed residence complies with the zoning regulations for height and right-side and rear setbacks. The applicant requests approval to exceed the allowable FAR, reduce the front and left-side setbacks, as well as an exemption to the requirement to provide two off-street parking spaces. The applicant provided a Letter of Justification discussing these requests (Exhibit 4).

DISCUSSION:

A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing single-story residence and construction of a 1,677-square foot two-story residence with a 299-square foot attached garage and 1,195 square feet of below-grade square footage that would not count towards the allowable floor area (Exhibit 11). The proposed residence would have a front setback of 10 feet,

PAGE 4 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
where 15 feet is required, and a left-side setback of three feet, where five feet is required, as discussed in Section D below. The project also includes one off-street parking space, where two spaces are required by the Town Code, as discussed in Section E below. The applicant provided a Letter of Justification discussing the project and the requested exceptions (Exhibit 4).

A summary of the floor area for the existing and proposed homes is included in the table below.

The neighborhood compatibility of the proposed floor area is discussed in Section B below.

B. Neighborhood Compatibility
Pursuant to Section 29.40.075 of the Town Code, the maximum FAR for the subject property is 0.37 (1,369 square feet). The proposed residence would have an FAR of 0.46 (1,677 square feet), exceeding the allowable FAR by 0.09 (308 square feet). The table on the following page reflects the current conditions of the homes in the immediate neighborhood and the proposed project.

Floor Area Summary
Allowed SF Existing SF Proposed SF
Main Residence 1,369 814 1,677
Below-Grade Area* -- 0 1,195
Garage 400 253 299
* Pursuant to Sec. 29.10.020, floor area means the entire enclosed area of all floors that are more than four feet above the proposed grade, measured from the outer face of exterior walls or in the case of party walls from the centerline.

PAGE 5 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

Immediate Neighborhood Comparison
Address Zoning House
SF
Garage
SF
Total
SF
Site
SF
Building
FAR
Garage
FAR
Exceed
FAR?
114 Olive St R-1D 1,311 220 1,531 3,680 0.36 0.060 No
116 Olive St R-1D 969 220 1,189 3,680 0.26 0.060 No
120 Olive St R-1D 1,429 300 1,729 3,680 0.39 0.082 Yes
+0.02 (+60 sf)
122 Olive St R-1D 1,267 360 1,627 3,680 0.34 0.098 No
127 Olive St R-1D 1,518 300 1,818 3,626 0.42 0.083 Yes
+0.05 (+166 sf)
129 Olive St R-1D 916 162 1,078 3,625 0.25 0.045 No
131 Olive St R-1D 1,125 215 1,340 3,624 0.31 0.059 No
133 Olive St R-1D 975 190 1,165 3,542 0.28 0.054 No
135 Olive St R-1D 1,699 0 1,699 3,542 0.48 0.000 Yes
+0.11 (+373 sf)
546 San Benito Av R-1D 1,767 0 1,767 3,680 0.48 0.000 Yes +0.11 (+398 sf)
118 Olive St (e) R-1D 814 253 1,067 3,680 0.22 0.069 No 118 Olive St (p) R-1D 1,677 299 1,976 3,680 0.46 0.081 Yes +0.09 (+308 sf)
Based on Town and County records, the homes in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 916 square feet to 1,767 square feet and building FARs range from 0.22 to 0.48.

The applicant is proposing a 1,677-square foot residence (not including the proposed below grade square footage) and a 299-square foot attached garage on a 3,680-square foot parcel.

The proposed residence would be the third largest in terms of FAR and square footage in the immediate neighborhood. As shown in the table below, there are four homes in the immediate neighborhood which currently exceed their maximum allowable FAR. The proposed residence would rank in the middle of the homes in the immediate neighborhood that exceed FAR standards.

Residences in Immediate Neighborhood Exceeding FAR – Ranked by FAR Exceedance Address Zoning House SF Site SF Allowed FAR Building FAR Exceed FAR? 546 San Benito Av R-1D 1,767 3,680 0.37 0.48 Yes
+0.11 (+398 sf)
135 Olive St R-1D 1,699 3,542 0.37 0.48 Yes
+0.11 (+373 sf)
118 Olive St (p) R-1D 1,677 3,680 0.37 0.46 Yes
+0.09 (+308 sf)
127 Olive St R-1D 1,518 3,626 0.37 0.42 Yes
+0.05 (+166 sf)
120 Olive St R-1D 1,429 3,680 0.37 0.39 Yes
+0.02 (+60 sf)

PAGE 6 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

Section 29.40.075(c) of the Town Code states that the deciding body may allow a FAR in excess of the maximum allowed FAR if the following findings can be made:

1. The design theme, sense of scale, exterior materials, and details of the proposed project are consistent with the provisions of the adopted residential development standards; and

2. The lot coverage, setbacks, and FAR of the proposed project is compatible with the development on surrounding lots.

Exhibit 4 contains the applicant’s Letter of Justification addressing the findings required to grant an exception to the maximum allowable FAR. In addition, the applicant states that the proposed residence has been designed with thorough consideration of the Residential Design Guidelines and to be compatible with the neighborhood in terms of mass, area, and scale.

C. Building Design
The applicant proposes a contemporary two-story residence with traditional forms, natural materials, and neutral colors. Proposed exterior materials include a dark gray standing seam metal roof, off-white plaster siding, natural stained cedar siding, gray and white stone veneer, and recessed dark aluminum windows (Exhibit 5).

The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed residence on August 4, 2021 (Exhibit 6). At the time of this review, the project did not include full demolition of the existing residence and was considered a significant remodel and second-story addition.

While processing the application, the applicant decided that full demolition of the existing residence was needed to accomplish the project. The design of the proposed residence did not change once full demolition of the existing residence was proposed. After reviewing the project, the Consulting Architect noted that the proposed residence has the potential to blend well with the immediate neighborhood (Exhibit 6). The Consulting Architect identified several issues and provided six recommendations for changes to the original design to increase compatibility with the immediate neighborhood and the Residential Design Guidelines. In response to these recommendations, the applicant made several modifications to the design of the residence and provided written responses to the recommendations (Exhibit 7). The Consulting Architect’s recommendations are provided on the following page, followed by the applicant’s response in italics.

PAGE 7 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

1. Use similar flat roof forms on both the garage and Family room/Kitchen pop out.

Optional usable roof deck over garage for Bedroom 2 and/or Master Bedroom.

We have created a deck over the garage per our attached revised plan. Our design steps the deck back to the garage face providing a stepped back more attractive street presence.

2. Integrate the entry column into the garage wall and add a canopy over the entry and the garage.

The element in question is not a column. It is the end of a wall that extends from the entry to the face of the building. Comment is not applicable.

3. Recess the garage door - similar to new home nearby to the right (114 Olive Street).

The garage door has been recessed by 1'-0."

4. Match the gable roof slopes.

The roofs in question oppose each other and no contrast between their slope differences will be visually apparent. The roof slopes were chosen to blend the house appropriately and to keep the mass of the house appealing. If the side gable slope were to match the front of the house, mass would be increased. I believe the intent of the code is to prevent unequal slopes on the gable as illustrated in the drawing above, left. Larry Canon just approved a house w/dissimilar roof slopes at 515 Bachman Ave. The photo that Larry Canon is using is 114 Olive is my design. Those roof slopes do not match, but since the roof directions oppose each other, the appearance is wholly acceptable and not apparent resulting in reduced mass and bulk.

5. Add trim to all windows consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4 and recess large windows- similar to new home nearby to the right (114 Olive Street).

This design calls for trimless, recessed windows per the exception noted at 3.7.4, Page 4 of Canon's report. The exterior walls will be 6" thick and the windows will be recessed as far as practical. For this style of architecture, window trim would not be appropriate.

The applicant provided additional details to staff that the proposed windows would be recessed into the wall by approximately two inches. The windows would also have dark frames in contrast with the wall color to further accentuate the recess.

PAGE 8 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

6. Eliminate the stone on the front facade.

The stone wraps around the architectural element at the front of the house and is distinct. No such elements exist at sides and rear to create a similar condition. The proposed color of the stone compliments and blends with the color of the roof.

As seen above, the applicant has responded to the recommendations made by the Consulting Architect with both design changes and written justification. Staff notes that the responses to recommendations 2 and 4 were minimal. The applicant’s response to item 2 clarifies that the entry column referenced in the recommendation is a wall that projects from the front elevation and supports the second story above (Exhibit 11, Sheet A-2, Ground Floor Plan). The applicant chose not to incorporate a canopy above the entry and garage, as recommended, but did change the sloped roof above the garage to a terrace, creating a flat roof profile above the garage (as recommended in item 1). In response to recommendation 4, the applicant clarifies that the roof sections with differing slopes oppose each other and that the different roof pitches would not be visually apparent in this configuration. Further, the applicant provides examples of homes in the neighborhood and beyond with similar roof configurations to show compatibility with the neighborhood.

If the Planning Commission finds that additional changes are necessary, they can be incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for the project.

D. Setbacks
Pursuant to Town Code, the R-1D zone requires a front setback of 15 feet, rear setback of 20 feet, and side setbacks of five feet. Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code allows any rule of the zone, including setbacks, to be modified on a nonconforming lot when the deciding body finds that the building and its use will be compatible with the neighborhood.

As noted, the subject property is nonconforming as to size. The proposed residence includes a front setback of 10 feet, where 15 feet is required, and a left-side setback of three feet, where five feet is required (Exhibit 11). In their Letter of Justification, the applicant provides six examples of residences along Olive Street having front setbacks between four feet and eight feet, nine inches (Exhibit 4). Additionally, the applicant provides seven examples of residences along Olive Street with side setbacks between zero feet and three feet. The examples provided by the applicant are also shown on Sheet A-1.1 of the Development Plans (Exhibit 11).

E. Parking
Town Code Section 29.10.150 requires two off-street parking spaces for a single-family residence. Section 29.10.150(h)(2) allows an exemption from the parking requirement

PAGE 9 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
when the deciding body finds that the subject property does not have adequate area to provide parking as required. Further, if the deciding body makes the finding, parking shall be provided to the maximum extent possible.

The proposed project includes only one off-street parking space. The applicant requests an exemption to the Town Code parking requirement and provided a Letter of Justification detailing their request (Exhibit 4). The applicant indicates that the subject property is nonconforming as to size with inadequate area to provide additional parking. The existing residence includes a one-car garage that does not meet the required dimensions for a onecar garage. The proposed residence includes a one-car garage that would meet the required dimensions and would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern of one-car garages.

F. Neighbor Outreach
The property owner has indicated that they have shared the plans with surrounding neighbors as outlined in Exhibit 8.

G. CEQA Determination
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Story poles and project signage were installed on the site by December 22, 2021, in anticipation of the January 12, 2022 Planning Commission hearing. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022, are included as Exhibit 10.

CONCLUSION:

A. Summary
The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application for demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new two-story residence to exceed FAR standards with reduced front and side yard setbacks on nonconforming property. The applicant has responded to all recommendations of the Town’s Consulting Architect and provided justification for the proposed FAR and reduced setbacks, demonstrating their consistency with the immediate neighborhood. The applicant also requests an exemption from the parking requirements due to the substandard size of their property and provided

PAGE 10 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
CONCLUSION (continued):
justification showing that the one-car garage would be an improvement to existing conditions and would be consistent with the immediate neighborhood.

B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should:

1. Make the finding that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction (Exhibit 2);

2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2);

3. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the exception of the requests to exceed FAR standards, for reduced front and side yard setbacks, and for an exemption from the parking requirements (Exhibit 2);

4. Make the findings as required by Section 29.40.075(c) of the Town Code for granting approval of an exception to the FAR standards (Exhibit 2);

5. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements (Exhibit 2);

6. Make the findings as required by 29.10.150(h)(2) of the Town Code for reduced parking where it can be shown that the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required (Exhibit 2);

7. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2);

8. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and

9. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-21-003 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the Development Plans in Exhibit 11.

C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Planning Commission can:

1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or

2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or

3. Deny the application.

PAGE 11 OF 12
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 7, 2022
EXHIBITS:

1. Location Map

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval

4. Project Description and Letter of Justification, dated August 2, 2021

5. Color and Materials Board

6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated August 4, 2021

7. Applicant’s response to Consulting Architect’s Report

8. Owner’s summary of neighbor outreach

9. Photos of existing residence

10. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022

11. Development Plans

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

OLIVE ST

ASHLER AV

N SANTA CRUZ AV

THURSTON ST

SAN MATEO AV

SAN BENITO AV

FANCHER CT

MONTEREY AV

ANDREWS ST

GRIFFITH PL

SAN BENITO AV
118 Olive Street
0 0.125 0.25
Miles
°
EXHIBIT 1

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 2 - Required Findings and Considerations.docx PLANNING COMMISSION – January 12, 2022
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
118 Olive Street
Architecture and Site Application S-21-013
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1D. APN 410-15-022.

PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and Meredith Reichert
APPLICANT: Jay Plett, Architect
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin

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.

Required finding for the technical demolition of existing structures:
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing structures:

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. The economic utility of the structures was considered.

Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations:
■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the exception of the requests to exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards, for reduced front and side yard setbacks, and for an exemption from the parking requirements.

EXHIBIT 2

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 2 - Required Findings and Considerations.docx Required finding to exceed floor area ratio (FAR) standards:
■ As required by Section 29.40.075(c) of the Town Code for allowing a FAR in excess of the FAR standards in the Town Code:

1. The design theme, sense of scale, exterior materials, and details of the proposed project are consistent with the provisions of the adopted residential development standards; and

2. The lot coverage, setbacks, and FAR of the proposed project are compatible with the development on surrounding lots.

Required finding for reduced side setbacks on a nonconforming lot:
■ As required by Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements:

1. The subject property is nonconforming with regard to lot size.

2. The front and left-side setbacks of the new residence are compatible with the neighborhood.

Required finding for an exemption to single-family parking requirements:
■ As required by Section 29.10.150(h)(2) of the Town Code for reduced parking where it can be shown that the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required:

1. The subject property is nonconforming with regard to lot size with inadequate area to meet the single-family parking requirement. The existing residence includes a one-car garage that does not meet the required dimensions for a parking space.

The proposed residence includes a one-car garage that would meet the required dimensions and would be consistent with the neighborhood pattern of one-car garages.

Required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
■ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family residences not in hillside areas. The project was reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Architect and recommendations were provided to address the consistency of the project with the Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant responded to all recommendations.

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 2 - Required Findings and Considerations.docx

CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture and 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.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx PLANNING COMMISSION –January 12, 2022

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
118 Olive Street
Architecture and Site Application S-21-013
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1D. APN 410-15-022.

PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and Meredith Reichert
APPLICANT: Jay Plett, Architect
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin
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 and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes.

2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.

3. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application.

4. 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 it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.

5. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.

6. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.

7. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report for the project, on file in the Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable.

8. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans.

EXHIBIT 3

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx

9. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.

10. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard must be landscaped.

11. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review.

12. 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 officials in any action 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, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.

13. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.

Building Division

14. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit is required for the demolition of the existing single-family residence. A separate Building Permit is required for the construction of the new single-family residence and attached garage. An additional Building Permit will be required for the PV System if the system is required by the California Energy Code.

15. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2020, are the 2019 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Energy Reach Codes.

16. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.

17. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process.

18. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.

19. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE: Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air District’s J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.

20. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics.

21. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed five (5) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations.

22. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection.

This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal 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 wall(s) locations and elevations

23. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.

24. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61:
a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inch wide doors on the accessible floor level. c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36-inch-wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge.
d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.

25. 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 installation. 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.

26. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies.

27. 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 issuance 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.losgatosca.gov/building.

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx

28. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blueprint for a fee or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.

29. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
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 SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:

Engineering Division

30. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction 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 an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Owner'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 issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner's expense.

31. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval 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.

32. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website.

33. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner or their representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Owner or their representative'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. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx compensation shall be allowed therefore. 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. The restoration of all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Owner or their representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.

34. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction.

35. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required.

36. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any building permits.

37. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans.

38. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval.

39. GRADING PERMIT DETERMINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS: In the event that, during the production of construction drawings and/or during construction of the plans approved with this application by the Town of Los Gatos, it is determined that a grading permit would be required as described in Chapter 12, Article II (Grading Permit) of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, an Architecture and Site Application would need to be submitted by the Owner for review and approval by the Development Review Committee prior to applying for a grading permit.

40. ILLEGAL GRADING: Per the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, applications for work unlawfully completed shall be charged double the current fee. As a result, the required grading permit fees associated with an application for grading will be charged accordingly.

41. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any building permits or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall:
a. Along with the Owner, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance and other construction matters;
b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.

42. DEMOLITION: Within 60-days of the Development Review Committee approval action being final (i.e. after the 10-day appeal period and no requested appeals being submitted

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx to the Town), the Property Owner shall record a Deed Restriction on each of the parcels in question which prohibits the recording of a Certificate of Compliance until one of the two (2) prerequisite actions occurs prior to the proposed recordation: 1) removal of any structures which cross lot/property lines or 2) the Property Owner successfully obtaining an Architecture & Site approval from the Town of Los Gatos for the demolition of the existing house and construction of a replacement house.

43. WATER METER: The existing water meter, currently located within the Olive Street right-ofway, shall be relocated within the property in question, directly behind the public right-ofway line. The Owner shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity prior to issuance of a certificate

44. SIDEWALK REPAIR: The Owner shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any sidewalk damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet current ADA standards. Sidewalk repair shall match existing color, texture and design, and shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of sidewalk repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.

45. CURB AND GUTTER REPAIR: The Owner shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.

46. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right-ofway will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by the Town.

47. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with specification of dates and hours of operation.

48. 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 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Owner or their representative shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division 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 Owner to place

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx 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.

49. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Owner shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town.

50. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, 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 from the source. 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.

51. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Owner’s design consultant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (fullsize) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. Please refer to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information.

52. MAINTENANCE ACCESS: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the Owner shall propose maintenance access improvements for the Town Engineer to review, comment on, and approve. The Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department shall approve the surface materials over each public easement.

53. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that 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 replaced 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 work orders.

54. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of 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 porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx

55. UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES: It is unlawful to discharge any wastewater, or cause hazardous domestic waste materials to be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge, into storm drains, gutters, creeks or the San Francisco Bay. Unlawful discharges to storm drains include, but are not limited to: discharges from toilets, sinks, industrial processes, cooling systems, boilers, fabric cleaning, equipment cleaning or vehicle cleaning.

56. LANDSCAPING: In finalizing the landscape plan for the biotreatment area(s), it is recommended that the landscape architect ensure that the characteristics of the selected plants are similar to those of the plants listed for use in bioretention areas in Appendix D of the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) C.3 Stormwater Handbook.

57. 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 (3) 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 shall 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 (1) 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 twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.

58. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)- recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or otherwise kept dust-free. b. All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal from site.
c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
d. As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in areas away from the adjacent residential homes.
e. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as deemed appropriate by Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-out control

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt-track-out onto adjacent public roads.
f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour. g. All driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334-ODOR (6367). i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.
j. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.

59. 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 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.

60. 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 stormwater treatment facilities are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way. Alternatively, the facility(ies) may be located with an offset between 5 and 10 feet from the adjacent property and/or right-of-way line(s) if the responsible engineer in charge provides a stamped and signed letter that addresses infiltration and states how facilities, improvements and infrastructure within the Town’s right-of-way (driveway approach, curb and gutter, etc.) and/or the adjacent property will not be adversely affected. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property.

61. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner 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.

62. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Owner's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner's expense.

63. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Immediately upon approval of an encroachment permit, the Owner shall initiate a weekly neighborhood email notification program to provide project status updates. The email notices shall also be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent location along the project perimeter.

64. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.

TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:

65. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.

66. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet A-1) An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 SF whether by increasing the area of the primary residence or by creation of an attached Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2) In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by more than 50%. 3) In all attached ADUs, additions or alterations to an existing one- and two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system. Exceptions: 1) One or more additions made to a building after January 1, 2011 that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area and meets all access and water supply requirements of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the 2019 California Fire Code. This project is categorized as a new dwelling according to scope.

67. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.

68. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency

S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2022\01-12-2022\Item 2 - 118 Olive Street\Exhibit 3 - Recommended Conditions of Approval.docx response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.

69. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.

70. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

1 | P a g e
PROJECT DESCRIPTION and JUSTIFICATION

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN A TRANSITION OF RENEWAL AND
COMPRISED OF VARYING STYLES. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF A NEW

HOME OF TRADITIONAL AMERICAN FORMS AND SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE ADDITION IS

DESIGNED TO BLEND AMICABLY INTO THIS ECLECTIC NEIGHBORHOOD, IN MANY WAYS ITS FORM RESEMBLING THE 2 STORY NEXT TO IT AT 120 OLIVE.

FLOOR AREA and F.A.R. COMPARISONS
THE PROJECT FLOOR AREA = 1,677 SF/FAR .456
THERE ARE 4 HOMES WITHIN ITS IMMEDIATE SPHERE THAT ARE OVER

THE ALLOWED FLOOR AREA
120 OLIVE = 1,429 SF / FAR = .390
135 OLIVE = 1,699 SF / FAR = .480
127 OLIVE = 1,518 SF / FAR = .423
546 SAN BENITO = 1,767 SF / FAR = .480
THE AVERAGE OF THESE 4 BEING 1,603 SF WITH AN AVERAGE FAR OF .44. THIS HOME FLOOR AREA FALLS IN THE MIDDLE - WITH 2 NEIGHBORS BEING LARGER AND 2 NEIGHBORS BEING SMALLER.

SETBACK COMPARISONS
Fronts
PROJECT 10'-0”
133 OLIVE 7'-0”
13 1 OLIVE 8'-0”
127 OLIVE 7'-0”
125 OLIVE 5'-0”
1 12 OLIVE 8'-9”
1 10 OLIVE 4'-0”

THE PROPOSED PROJECT'S FRONT SETBACK IS WELL WITHIN THE

NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS AS MANY HOMES POSSESS MUCH
SMALLER FRONT SETBACKS.

EXHIBIT 4

2 | P a g e
SETBACK COMPARISONS (continued)
Sideyards
PROJECT 3'-0”
120 OLIVE 3'-0” +-
135 OLIVE 0'-0”
13 1 OLIVE 2'-0” +-
129 OLIVE 2'-0” +-
127 OLIVE 1'-6” +-
1 10 OLIVE 0'-0”
1 12 OLIVE 3'-0”

THE PROPOSED PROJECTS SIDEYARD SETBACK IS WELL WITHIN THE

NEIGHBORHOOD PATTERNS AS MANY HOMES POSSESS MUCH
SMALLER SIDEYARD SETBACKS.

PARKING

THE SITE IS NONCONFORMING WITH INADEQUATE AREA AND
DIMENSIONS TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING. THE PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONE-CAR GARAGES. THE PROJECT HOME’S GARAGE IS NON-CONFORMING WITH AN EXISTING 10’-0” INSIDE WIDTH.

THE PROPOSED GARAGE WILL BE IMPROVED TO 12’-0” INSIDE CLEAR WIDTH, THUS PROVIDING A CONFORMING ONE-CAR GARAGE.

S U M M A R Y

THE PROJECT'S FLOOR AREA IS COMPARABLE WITH THE FOUR
NEIGHBORS; ITS F.A.R. IS LESS THAN THE AVERAGE OF THOSE FOUR NEIGHBORS, WHICH EXCEED THE FAR. THE HOME/ADDITION HAS BEEN

DESIGNED WITH THOROUGH CONSIDERATION OF THE TOWN'S DESIGN

GUIDELINES, TO FIT AND BLEND AMICABLY WITHIN IT'S
NEIGHBORHOOD BY MATCHING THE MASS, AREA AND SCALE of
ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
(gun metal gray)

TRIMLESS RECESSED ALUMINIUM

FRAMED WINDOWS IN PLASTER,
dark color
OFF WHITE PLASTER walls
stone veneer
(gray + white tones)
alternate cedar siding

MATERIAL BOARD
reichert home
remodel & addiition
118 olive, los gatos
apn: 410 15 022 EXHIBIT 5

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

August 4, 2021
Mr. Sean Mullin
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 118 Olive Street
Dear Sean:

I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows:

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located in an established neighborhood containing a mix of one and two-story homes. Photos of the site and surrounding neighborhood context are shown on the following page.

EXHIBIT 6

118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 2
The Site and Existing House Houses immediately to the left House to the immediate left House to the immediate right Nearby house immediately across Olive Street Nearby house to the right Nearby house across Olive Street Nearby house across Olive Street

118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 3

ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The proposed first and second floor footprints, shown in relationship to other nearby homes, and elevations are shown below.

Proposed Front Elevation
Proposed Right Side Elevation
Proposed Rear Elevation
Proposed Left Side Elevation Page 377
118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 4
The additions seem appropriate, and have the potential to blend well with the existing house and immediate neighborhood. There are, however, a few issues, as follows:

1. The use of stone on the front elevation, while not carrying it around consdsistently on the other three facades would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity
• Carry wall materials, window types and architectural details around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rear elevations that are markedly different from the front elevation.

2. The column detail shown at the entry is not well detailed, and does not look like it is an integral part of the facade,

3. The existing house is simple in its forms, and the addition should relate to that. However, the garage form and the popout form on the right side elevation at the Family Room/Kitchen are quite foreign to main forms of the house and to each other.

3. There appears to be no trim at the window, and windows do not appear to be substantially recessed from the face of the wall which would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4.

3.7.4 Design the windows with attention to matching the traditional details of the architectural style
• Most architectural styles - except Mission, Spanish Eclectic or Modern - should have wood trim around the windows. The trim width should be matched to the style, but in general, should not be less than 3 1/2 inches wide. Head trim depth should be equal to or wider than the jamb casing, but not less than one-sixth of the opening width.
• Projecting window sills and heads are strongly encouraged unless the architectural style would not normally have those features.
• Wood trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the window frames are recessed at least 6 inches from the outside face of the wall. The use of stucco covered foam trim is strongly discouraged.

4. Gable roof slopes do not match which would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.5.1.

118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 5

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Use similar flat roof forms on both the garage and Family room/Kitchen popout. Optional usable roof deck over garage for Bedroom 2 and/or Master Bedroom.

2. Integrate the entry column into the garage wall, and add a conopy over the entry and the garage.

3. Recess the garage door - similar to new home nearby to the right (photo below).

4. Match the gable roof slopes.

5. Add trim to all windows consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4 and recess large windows- similar to new home nearby to the right (photo above).

6. Eliminate the stone on te front facade.

118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 6
Sean, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.

Sincerely,

CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon

August 4, 2021
Mr. Sean Mullin
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 118 Olive Street
Dear Sean:

I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows:

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located in an established neighborhood containing a mix of one and two-story homes. Photos of the site and surrounding neighborhood context are shown on the following page.

EXHIBIT 7

118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 2
The Site and Existing House Houses immediately to the left House to the immediate left House to the immediate right Nearby house immediately across Olive Street Nearby house to the right Nearby house across Olive Street Nearby house across Olive Street

118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 3

ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The proposed first and second floor footprints, shown in relationship to other nearby homes, and elevations are shown below.

Proposed Front Elevation
Proposed Right Side Elevation
Proposed Rear Elevation
Proposed Left Side Elevation Page 383
118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 4
The additions seem appropriate, and have the potential to blend well with the existing house and immediate neighborhood. There are, however, a few issues, as follows:

1. The use of stone on the front elevation, while not carrying it around consdsistently on the other three facades would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.2.

3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity
• Carry wall materials, window types and architectural details around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rear elevations that are markedly different from the front elevation.

2. The column detail shown at the entry is not well detailed, and does not look like it is an integral part of the facade,

3. The existing house is simple in its forms, and the addition should relate to that. However, the garage form and the popout form on the right side elevation at the Family Room/Kitchen are quite foreign to main forms of the house and to each other.

3. There appears to be no trim at the window, and windows do not appear to be substantially recessed from the face of the wall which would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4.

3.7.4 Design the windows with attention to matching the traditional details of the architectural style
• Most architectural styles - except Mission, Spanish Eclectic or Modern - should have wood trim around the windows. The trim width should be matched to the style, but in general, should not be less than 3 1/2 inches wide. Head trim depth should be equal to or wider than the jamb casing, but not less than one-sixth of the opening width.
• Projecting window sills and heads are strongly encouraged unless the architectural style would not normally have those features.
• Wood trim is also encouraged on stucco houses unless the window frames are recessed at least 6 inches from the outside face of the wall. The use of stucco covered foam trim is strongly discouraged.

4. Gable roof slopes do not match which would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.5.1.

The stone wraps around the architectural
element @ The front of the house and is
distinct. No such elements exist @ sides &
rear to create a similar condition. The
proposed color of the stone compliments
& blends with the color of the roof
We have created a deck over the garage per Canon suggestion The exterior walls will be 6" thick and the windows
will be recessed as far as practical. For this style
of architecture, window trim would not be
appropirate
The element in question is not a column. It is the
end of a wall that extends from the entry to
the face of the building. Comment is N/A
The roofs in question oppose each other and no contrast between their slope differences will be visually apparent. The roof slopes were chosen to blend the house appropriately and to keep the mass of the house appealing. If the side gable slope were to match the front of the house, mass would be increased. I believe the intent of the code is to prevent unequal slopes on the gable as illustrated in the drawing above, left. Page 384 Larry Canon just approved a house w/dissimilar roof slopes @ 515 Bachman Ave 118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 5

RECOMMENDATIONS

1. Use similar flat roof forms on both the garage and Family room/Kitchen popout. Optional usable roof deck over garage for Bedroom 2 and/or Master Bedroom.

2. Integrate the entry column into the garage wall, and add a conopy over the entry and the garage.

3. Recess the garage door - similar to new home nearby to the right (photo below).

4. Match the gable roof slopes.

5. Add trim to all windows consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4 and recess large windows- similar to new home nearby to the right (photo above).

6. Eliminate the stone on te front facade.

We have created a deck over the Garage per our attached revised plan. Our design steps the deck back to the garage face providing a stepped back more attractive street presence As mentioned earlier on the previous page point
number 2., there is no entry column
The garage door has been
recessed by 1'-0"
Answered on the previous page point number 4., The photo that Larry Canon is using of 114 Olive is my design. Those roof slopes do not match, but since the roof directions oppose each other, the appearance is wholly acceptable and not apparent resulting in reduced mass and bulk
This design calls for trimless, recessed windows per the exception noted @3.7.4, Page 4 of Canon's report
Answered on the previous page, point number 1.

118 Olive Street
Design Review Comments
August 4, 2021 Page 6
Sean, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.

Sincerely,

CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
As discussed earlier, the dissimilar roof
slopes are acceptable as we have applied
them
The canopy as extended per Larry Canon
is not desirable. This is a north elevation
and we prefer as much solar access as
possible here. The canopy as designed, it is
purely functional- It sheds the main person
door and the future kitchen area from
the weather.

EXHIBIT 8

Project House
EXHIBIT 9

Project House

From: AnnMarie Zimmermann < >
Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2021 6:58 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Ralph Cell Zimmermann < >
Subject: Opposing 118 Olive Plans

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Sean,
I hope you are doing well.

We oppose the plans at 118 Olive (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2388/O) for the same reasons we opposed 114 Olive:
• Parking implications on Ashler, Olive and San Benito by waving the side-by-side parking requirement. Parking and traffic conditions have only gotten worse since we last corresponded.
• Privacy. We’ve attached a picture of 114 Olive overlooking our backyard and kitchen even after revised plans. It’s still very obtrusive and uncomfortable. • Potential damage to the Oak tree between 114 and 118 Olive. The family at 114 Olive periodically cut the Oak over their house.
• Precedence setting by continuing to look for exceptions for non-conforming lots rather than preserving the cottage like style and history of the neighborhood.

Ralph and AnnMarie Zimmermann
Los Gatos, CA
EXHIBIT 10

From: Celeste Lam < >
Sent: Friday, December 17, 2021 1:44 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Marcus Lam >
Subject: 118 Olive St plans

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean,
It's been a little while. I hope this finds you well! Marcus and I are writing in support of the plans for 118 Olive St. Similar to us, the Reichert family have two young children and we understand the need to upgrade the once weekend bungalow homes on our street to meet the needs of modern families.

Especially when the Bay Area is experiencing an unprecedented housing crunch.

Let us know if we can be of assistance. We would have loved positive support during our building process, so however we can help we'd like to.

Thanks & Happy Holidays!
Celeste & Marcus Lam

From: Christie Boskovich < >
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 7:24 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Boskovich < >
Subject: Letter of Support for 118 Olive St Project

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean,
Hope you are well. Unrelated to our project, Mark and I just wanted to let you know we are fully supportive of Meredith and Thomas Reichert's remodel plan. They have reached out to us personally to let us know their plan and we think it will be an excellent upgrade for our neighborhood. It makes a very efficient use of space. We believe they are balancing their family's needs with the needs of the neighborhood very well and we hope their plans get approved. If you have any questions for us, please let us know.

Thank you!
Christie and Mark Boskovich

From: Mark De Mattei < >
Sent: Monday, December 20, 2021 1:27 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Jay Plett < >; Thomas Reichert < >; Zachary De
Mattei < >
Subject: Reichert residence olive street

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean ,
We own the home at 129 olive which is directly across the street from the Reichert proposed project. I am e mailing you regarding my support of the Reichert residence project . I have reviewed the design and story poles . I feel this is a positive addition to the Neighborhood .

Kind Regards
Mark
Mark De Mattei
President

PL PL PL PL
DECK
UPper
level 3'-0" 5'-0" 10'-0"
1'-0" @ EGRESS WELL
ONLY.

WELL TO HAVE

METAL GRATE

COVER DESIGNED

FOR FOOT TRAFFIC
(e) NEIGHBOR
HOUSE
residential
(e) NEIGHBOR
HOUSE
residential
(E) WATER

LINE TO

REMAIN WW SS S S

POWER POLE

ABANDON GAS

SERVICE
UG
UG

SEWER MAIN
VERIFY C.O
24"

EVERGREEN
TREE
6" FRUIT
TREE
8" FRUIT
TREE
(e)
driveway
olive street UG

UNDERGROUND
ELEC., PHONE,
CABLE ETC. PER

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

AND PG&E

STANDARDS
front yard
landscape to be
less than 500 sf
(N) 200 AMP

ELEC SERVICE
reichert home

REMODEL & ADDITION
118 olive
apn: 410 15 022
site plan
1/8" = 1'-0"
NOTE: NO UTILITIES VISIBLE FROM STREET INCLUDING HB'S
A-1 N
OWNERS

THOMAS & MEREDITH REICHERT
118 OLIVE STREET, LOS GATOS, CA 95030
PH: 858 449 4536
EMAIL: [email protected]

SITE PARTICULARS

SITE IS NON-CONFORMING IN BOTH AREA AND DIMENSION
APN: 410 15 022
ZONING:R1-D
AVG SLOPE: 4%
SITE AREA: 3680 SF
FAR HOUSE: 0.372
ALLOWED FLOOR AREA: 1369 SF
required setbacks: front= 15', rear= 20', side'S= 5'

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN A TRANSITION OF

RENEWAL AND COMPRISED OF VARYING
architectural STYLES. THE PROJECT will be A
new dwelling composed of traditional
american FORMS blending amicably into it's
eclectic neighborhood. THis home design is
appropriate for the neighborhood- IN
MANY WAYS ITS FORM RESEMBLING THE 2 STOReY
right NEXT TO IT AT 120 OLIVE.
table of contents
a-1 site plan / general info
ca-1 town and fire conditions of project approval
a-1.1 neighborhood plan
a-2 floor plans / roof plan
a-3 section / alt. basement plan
a-4 elevations
a-5 shadow study
C1.0 thru C4.0- CIVIL
SITE NOTES: - NO GRADING PROPOSED - (E) SITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED - (N) DOWNSPOUTS W/ SPLASH BLOCKS TO DIVERT

RUNOFF ONTO VEGETATED AREAS

09.23.21 09.01.21

06.15.21 04.26.21
A separate building permit is required for the
PV system that is required by the Energy
Calculations compliance modeling. The separate
PV System permit must be finaled prior to
issuance of Certificate of Occupancy
AREA SUMMARY main LEVEL 896 sf
UPSTAIRS LEVEL 781 sf
TOTAL FLOOR AREA 1677 sf
BELOW GROUND LIVING 896 SF
BELOW GROUND STORAGE 299 SF
GARAGE 299 sf
abreviation & SYMBOL legend
(e) existing
(p) proposed
FYSB front yard set back
RYSB rear yard set back
SYSB side yard set back
g gas line
p property line
pp power pole
OH OVERHEAD elec line
s sewer line
w water line l

TREE PROTECTION MEASURES WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND
ALL PROTECTED TREES AS REQ'D BY SECTION 29.10.1005
the house is to be equipped with fire sprinklers
This residence will comply with the Towns all electric
appliance, electric vehicle and energy storage
system requirements in accordance with Town Code
Section 6.70.020 and 6.120.020.

EXHIBIT 11

reichert home

REMODEL & ADDITION
118 olive
apn: 410 15 022

09.23.21 09.01.21

06.15.21 04.26.21
ca-1
town and fire conditions of approval

546 three STOREY
120two
STOREY 118
project house 116
one
storey 114
one & half storey olive street 135
two
storey 133
one
storey 131 one
storey 129
one
storey 127
two
storey 125
two
storey
san benito ave
544 ONE
storey
section
cut LINE- A
N
3'-0"
2'-0"
2'-0"
1'-6"
1'-0"
3'-0"
112
one
storey 110
one
storey
7'-0"
8'-0"
7'-0" 5'-0"
8'-9"
4'-0"
3'-0"

PL PL PL PL
PL
PL PL
546
three
STOREY
122
a.d.u
120
two
STOREY
118
project
house
116
one
storey
A.D.U 114
one &
half
storey
olive street
135
two
storey
133
one
storey
131
one
storey
A.D.U
129
one
storey
A.D.U
127
two
storey
gar.
125
two
storey
A.D.U
san benito ave

PROJECT
HOUSE
546 san benito ave
122 olive st
120 olive st
118 olive st
116 olive st
114 olive st
san benito ave
28'-0" +/-
12'-1" +/-
27'-0" +/-
16'-0" +/-
27'-0" +/-
20'-0" +/-
PL PL

PL PL PL PL PL
PL
546
three
STOREY
122
a.d.u
120
two
STOREY
118
project
house
116
one
storey
114 A.D.U
one &
half
storey
olive street
135
two
storey
133
one
storey
131
one
storey
A.D.U
129
one
storey
A.D.U
127
two
storey
gar.
125
two
storey
A.D.U
san benito ave
san benito ave
544 SAN BENITO AVE
135 OLIVE ST
129 OLIVE ST 131 OLIVE ST 133 OLIVE ST
125 OLIVE ST 127 OLIVE ST
25'-0" +/-
17'-0" +/-
22'-6" +/-
16'-0" +/-
17'-0" +/-
18'-9" +/- 16'-6" +/-
PL

PL PL PL
P PL L
14'-0" +/-

PROJECT
HOUSE
118 olive st
131 olive st
25'-0" +/-
20'-6" +/-
232 thurston st
olive st thurston st
ashler ave
39 ashler ave
25'-6" +/-

FLOOR AREA/FAR COMPARISONS

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
1" = 50'
olive street LOOKING at PROJECT
1/16" = 1'-0"
olive street LOOKING across from PROJECT
1/16" = 1'-0"

NEIGHBORHOOD SECTION-A
1/16" = 1'-O" A-1.1

09.23.21 06.15.21

04.26.21 ADDRESS LOT SIZE FLR AREA allowed/over flr area FAR HOUSE GARAGE (SF) 114 olive st 3680 1311 0.356 220
116 olive st 3680 969 0.263 220
120 olive st 3680 1429 1369/60 sf 0.388 300
135 olive st 3542 *1699 1326/373 sf **0.479 0
133 olive st 3542 975 0.375 190
131 olive st 3624 1125 0.310 215
129 olive st 3588 916 0.255 162
127 olive st 3588 1518 1340/178 sf 0.423(comp. far) 300 546 san benito 3680 *1767 1369/398 sf **0.480 360
ave

PROJECT HOUSE
118 olive st 3680 1677 1369/308 sf 0.456 242
analysis
*2 NEIGHBOR HOMES HAVE GREATER FLOOR AREA
** 2 NEIGHBOR HOMES HAVE GREATER FAR

AS THE STREETSCAPE ILLUSTRATES, THE PROJECT HOUSE BLENDS AMICABLY WITH THE SCALE OF THE

NEIGHBORHOOD
reichert home

REMODEL & ADDITION
118 olive
apn: 410 15 022

1' -0"
m.
terrace
garage W/ lift
proposed gar
width= 12'-0"
38'-6"
gar door to
be recessed
as shown
20'-0" min. req'd.

PL
ridge
r valley valley ridge
24"

EVERGREEN
TREE
6" FRUIT
TREE
8" FRUIT
TREE
7/12 slope
7/12 slope
7/12 slope
m. bed
terrace
garage W/ lift
proposed gar
width= 12'-0"
38'-6"
gar door to
be recessed
as shown
terrace
20'-0" min. req'd.
ridge
flat roof
flat
roof r valley valley ridge
7/12 slope
7/12 slope 7/12 slope
7/12 slope
d
terrace
reichert home

REMODEL & ADDITION
118 olive
apn: 410 15 022
roof plan
1/4" = 1'-0"
UPPER floor
1/4" = 1'-0"
GROUND floor
1/4" = 1'-0"
A-2

09.23.21 09.01.21

06.15.21 04.26.21
LEGEND

NEW WALL

flat
roof
PL
24"

EVERGREEN
TREE
terrace
garage W/ lift
proposed gar
width= 12'-0"
38'-6"
gar door to
be recessed
as shown
20'-0" min. req'd. reichert home

REMODEL & ADDITION
118 olive
apn: 410 15 022
A-3
HVAC
4" Flat HVAC
ducts to serve
ground level
section
1/4" = 1'-0"
aLt.
basement
1/4" = 1'-0"
HVAC

09.23.21 09.01.21

06.15.21 04.26.21

reichert home

REMODEL & ADDITION
118 olive
apn: 410 15 022

09.23.21 09.01.21

06.15.21 04.26.21
A-5
shadow study
not to scale

C1.0

COVER SHEET, DETAILS AND GENERAL NOTES
REVISION No. BY
DATE
SCALE

DESIGNER
JOB
SHEET

OF SHEETS
DRAFTER REVISION No. BY
GKMengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING LAND PLANNING
16185 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 205Los Gatos, Ca 95032
(408) 656 5917

REICHERT ADDITION & REMODEL
APN: 410-15-022
118 OLIVE AVENUE LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA
9/23/2021

AS SHOWN
GM
GM
A210614 5 1 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 6/08/2021 2 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 9/14/2021

FOR PLANNING

PURPOSES ONLY
I. GENERAL:

1. ADJUSTMENTS TO BUILDING PAD ELEVATIONS OR PARKING LOT GRADES TO ACHIEVE EARTHWORK BALANCE SHALL BE MADE ONLY WITH APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.

2. COMPACTION TO BE DETERMINED USING ASTM D1557-LATEST EDITION.

3. THE TYPES, LOCATIONS, SIZES AND/OR DEPTHS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES AS

SHOWN ON THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS WERE OBTAINED FROM SOURCES OF VARYING RELIABILITY. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT ONLY ACTUAL EXCAVATION WILL

REVEAL THE TYPES, EXTENT, SIZES, LOCATIONS AND DEPTHS OF SUCH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. (A REASONABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN MADE TO LOCATE AND DELINEATE ALL KNOWN UNDERGROUND UTILITIES.) HOWEVER, THE ENGINEER CAN ASSUME NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR

THE COMPLETENESS OR ACCURACY OF THE DELINEATION OF SUCH UNDERGROUND UTILITIES WHICH MAY BE ENCOUNTERED, BUT WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN ON THESE DRAWINGS.

4. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL EXISTING INVERT ELEVATIONS FOR STORM DRAIN AND SANITARY SEWER CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO ANY SITE WORK. ALL WORK FOR STORM AND SANITARY INSTALLATION SHALL BEGIN AT THE DOWNSTREAM CONNECTION POINT. THIS

WILL ALLOW FOR ANY NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO BE MADE PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE ENTIRE LINE. IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO BEGIN AT THE DOWNSTREAM

CONNECTION POINT AND WORKS UPSTREAM, HE SHALL PROCEED AT HIS OWN RISK AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY ADJUSTMENTS NECESSARY.

5. SHOULD DISCREPANCIES EXIST BETWEEN THE ACTUAL ELEVATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF

EXISTING UTILITY CONNECTIONS AND THOSE AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY GKM ENGINEERS, AT (408) 656-5917 BEFORE ADJUSTING UTILITY DESIGN.

6. CONTRACTOR SHALL UNCOVER AND EXPOSE ALL EXISTING UTILITY AND SEWER LINES WHERE

THEY ARE TO BE CROSSED ABOVE OR BELOW BY THE NEW FACILITY BEING CONSTRUCTED IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE GRADE AND TO ASSURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CLEARANCE. IF THE CONTRACTOR REQUIRES ASSISTANCE HE SHALL CALL GKM ENGINEERS AT (408) 656-5917 AND REQUEST A SURVEY CREW TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION. PIPE SHALL NOT

BE STRUNG NOR TRENCHING COMMENCED UNTIL ALL CROSSINGS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED FOR CLEARANCE. IF THE CONTRACTOR FAILS TO FOLLOW THIS PROCEDURE, HE WILL BE SOLELY

RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY EXTRA WORK OR MATERIAL REQUIRED IF MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN ARE NECESSARY.

7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SET HIS STRING OR WIRE THROUGH AT LEAST THREE GRADE STAKES TO VERIFY THE GRADE. IF THE STAKES DO NOT PRODUCE A UNIFORM GRADE,

NOTIFY THE ENGINEER IMMEDIATELY AND HAVE THE GRADES CHECKED PRIOR TO TRENCHING.

8. STORM DRAIN PIPES DESIGNATED AS "SD FROM 4" TO 24" IN DIAMETER SHALL BE SDR-35 P.V.C. (HANCOR SURE-LOK WT PIPE OR APPROVED EQUAL), CLASS HDPE SMOOTH INTERIOR PIPE PER ASTM D3212 (HANCOR SURE-LOK WT PIPE OR APPROVED EQUAL) OR DUCTILE IRON PIPE (D.I.P.), IF SPECIFIED ON PLANS. NO MATERIAL SUBSTITUTION SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR DUCTILE IRON PIPE. ANY PIPES LARGER THAN 24" IN DIAMETER SHALL BE CLASS III REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (R.C.P.). HDPE AND P.V.C. PIPE SHALL ONLY BE USED WHEN THE MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATION REQUIREMENTS ARE MET. PIPE MADE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL MAY BE USED ONLY AFTER APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEER.

9. ALL UTILITY STRUCTURES INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO MANHOLES, CATCH BASINS,

WATER VALVES, FIRE HYDRANTS, TELEPHONE AND ELECTRIC VAULTS AND PULL BOXES THAT

LIE WITHIN AREAS EFFECTED BY WORK ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO GRADE BY THE CONTRACTOR OR THE RESPECTIVE UTILITY COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO AFFECT COORDINATION.

10. ALL AREAS TO BE GRADED AT 1% MINIMUM FOR DRAINAGE EXCEPT ALONG FLOWLINE OF CURB AND GUTTER OR VALLEY GUTTER, AS SHOWN.

11. CONTRACTOR SHALL GRADE EVENLY BETWEEN SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN.

12. PROPOSED SPOT GRADES (ELEVATIONS) SHOWN HEREON ARE FINISHED PAVEMENT GRADES, NOT TOP OF CURB GRADES, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

13. ESTIMATED EARTHWORK QUANTITIES: EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN (IF ANY), OR

OTHERWISE SUPPLIED BY GKM, ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY AND SHOWN FOR THE PURPOSES OF CALCULATING GRADING PERMIT FEES. GKM ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF THESE QUANTITIES.

14. WHEN A GRADING PERMIT IS ISSUED ON THIS PROJECT THE AGENCY APPROVAL APPLIES ONLY TO GRADING. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING ALL OTHER NECESSARY PERMITS TO ACCOMPLISH PROPOSED SITE WORK. IT IS STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT THE

CONTRACTOR OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY UNDERGROUND PERMITS BEFORE ROUGH GRADING

THE SITE, AS REVISIONS TO UNDERGROUND FACILITIES MANDATED BY PLAN CHECKING AGENCIES MAY SUBSTANTIALLY EFFECT GRADING INCLUDING FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS.

15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE CONTENTS AND THICKNESSES OF THE BUILDING SLAB SECTION (IE: CONCRETE, SAND, ROCK) WITH THE STRUCTURAL PLANS AND THE ELEVATIONS SHOWN HEREON PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS.

16. ALL WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE O.S.H.A. REGULATIONS.

17. CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR AGREES THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED

CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO ASSUME

SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILITY FOR JOB SITE CONDITIONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY;

THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL BE MADE TO APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED

TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS, AND CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR FURTHER AGREES TO

DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL HARMLESS FROM ANY AND ALL

LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF WORK ON THIS

PROJECT, EXCEPTING LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF DESIGN PROFESSIONAL.

18. WHERE OFF-SITE DRIVEWAY APPROACHES ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED THE ON-SITE DRIVEWAY SHALL NOT BE CONSTRUCTED UNTIL THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS ARE INSTALLED. THE ON-SITE DRIVEWAY SHALL CONFORM TO THE COMPLETED OFF-SITE DRIVEWAY.

19. ALL PIPES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM COVER OF 3' FROM FINISH GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS.

20. BENCHMARK:______________________________________________________________

GENERAL NOTES
6"
MIN.

PER PLAN

3.0' DIAMETER MIN.

MIRAFI
140 N
12"

SEE PLAN FOR

RIM ELEVATION

GROUT PIPE

IN PLACE OR PVC TEE
RIM
INSTALL 12" WIDE APRON
OF 3"-4" COBBLES AROUND
12" RCP/ OR PVC W/
C.I. OR PVC GRATE
3/4'-1 1/2"

CRUSHED DRAIN
ROCK

3.0' MIN.
6" PERF. PVC

STORM DRAIN

PER PLAN
VARIES

CRUSHED ROCK DRAIN TEE

DRAIN PIPE

NDS UNIVERSAL OUTLET

OR APPROVED EQUAL
NDS 12" LOW

PROFILE ADAPTER
SLOPE

TO DRAIN
NDS SPEE-D GRATE, NDS #40, 6"
ROUND FLAT TOP, BLACK.

WITHIN LAWN AREAS

COMPACTED SOIL
VARIES

CRUSHED ROCK DRAIN TEE

DRAIN PIPE
(LENGTH AS REQUIRED)

OR APPROVED EQUAL
SLOPE

TO DRAIN
NDS SPEE-D GRATE, NDS #90, 6"

ATRIUM GRATE, BLACK

MULCH AREAS

COMPACTED SOIL
(SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER)
NDS #66 DRAIN RISER PIPE

OR APPROVED EQUAL
VARIES

CRUSHED ROCK

DRAIN PIPE

NDS UNIVERSAL OUTLET

OR APPROVED EQUAL
NDS 12" LOW

PROFILE ADAPTER
SLOPE

TO DRAIN
NDS SPEE-D GRATE, NDS #40, 6"
ROUND FLAT TOP, BLACK.

WITHIN LAWN AREAS

COMPACTED SOIL
VARIES

CRUSHED ROCK

DRAIN PIPE
(LENGTH AS REQUIRED)

OR APPROVED EQUAL
SLOPE

TO DRAIN
NDS SPEE-D GRATE, NDS #90, 6"

ATRIUM GRATE, BLACK

MULCH AREAS

COMPACTED SOIL
(SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER)
NDS #66 DRAIN RISER PIPE

OR APPROVED EQUAL
NDS 1/4 BEND DRAIN

ELBOW OR APPROVED
EQUAL
NDS 1/4 BEND DRAIN

ELBOW OR APPROVED
EQUAL

NOT TO SCALE
AREA DRAIN 1
C2.0
C1.0 COVER SHEET, DETAILS, & GENERAL NOTES

GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN

SHEET INDEX

NOT TO SCALE

CONCRETE PAVEMENT SECTION

REICHERT ADDITION & REMODEL
APN: 410-15-022
118 OLIVE AVENUE, LOS GATOS, CA.

C3.0 EROSION CONTROL PLAN

NOT TO SCALE
INFILTRATION DEVICE 6
C4.0 TOPOGRAPHIC SITE SURVEY
PUMP STATION 3
C1.1 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

DISCHARGE TO

INFILTRATION DEVICE
NOT TO SCALE 5
NOTES

1. SEE SOILS REPORT FOR COMPACTION REQUIREMENTS AND FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION NOT SHOWN OR NOTED.

C1.1

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
REVISION No. BY
DATE
SCALE

DESIGNER
JOB
SHEET

OF SHEETS
DRAFTER REVISION No. BY
GKMengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING LAND PLANNING
16185 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 205Los Gatos, Ca 95032
(408) 656 5917

REICHERT ADDITION & REMODEL
APN: 410-15-022
118 OLIVE AVENUE LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA
9/23/2021

AS SHOWN
GM
GM
A210614 5 1 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 6/08/2021 2 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 9/14/2021

FOR PLANNING

PURPOSES ONLY

CURB SPLIT

11.0'

13.5'
(S 68°20' E 46.00')
S 68°26'24" E 46.00'
WM
MTR
GAS
POLE
JOINT

MTRELEC
LAWN

FLOW LINE
PEAK
PEAK
N 21°36'36" E 80.00' (N 21°43' E 80')
N 21°36'36" E 80.00'
(N 21°43' E 80')
S 68°26'24" E 46.00' (S 68°20' E 46.00')

LANDING
BRICK
120 OLIVE

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
116 OLIVE

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
35 ASHLER

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
39 ASHLER

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
O L I V E S T R E E T (40')
EX. F.F. = 393.59
118 OLIVE E E E E E
C2.0

GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
LEGEND

ABBREVIATIONS

CONSTRUCTION NOTES
REVISION No. BY
DATE
SCALE

DESIGNER
JOB
SHEET

OF SHEETS
DRAFTER REVISION No. BY
GKMengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING LAND PLANNING
16185 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 205Los Gatos, Ca 95032
(408) 656 5917

REICHERT ADDITION & REMODEL
APN: 410-15-022
118 OLIVE AVENUE LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA
9/23/2021

AS SHOWN
GM
GM
A210614 5 1 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 6/08/2021 2 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 9/14/2021

FOR PLANNING
PURPOSES ONLY 0
Scale 1" = ft 10
10 20 30
All roof rainwater leaders are to be discharged onto
splash blocks that are designed to spread out the rain
water so that it enters the landscape areas as sheet flow

RAINWATER LEADER NOTE

EARTHWORK QUANTITIES
ROUGH GRADING FILL: 0.0 CUYDS
IMPORT:

EXPORT:

ROUGH GRADING CUT: 0.9 CUYDS

ALL ROOF RAINWATER LEADERS ARE TO BE DISCHARGED ONTO SPLASH BLOCKS THAT ARE

DESIGNED TO SPREAD OUT THE RAIN WATER SO THAT IT ENTERS THE LANDSCAPE

AREAS AS SHEET FLOW
0 CUYDS

0.9 CUYDS
ALPHA LAND SURVEYS, INC.
4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DR #7
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066

SURVEY NOTE
THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY:

DATED 3/1/21 JOB#: 2020-065

GKM ENGINEERING IS NOT LIABLE TO THE ACCURACY OF

ANY OF THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC, FIXED WORKS,

BOUNDARY, AND/OR ENCUMBRANCE INFORMATION
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS 2 2

CURB SPLIT

11.0'

13.5'
(S 68°20' E 46.00')
S 68°26'24" E 46.00'
WM
MTR
GAS
POLE
JOINT

MTRELEC
LAWN

FLOW LINE
PEAK
PEAK
N 21°36'36" E 80.00' (N 21°43' E 80')
N 21°36'36" E 80.00'
(N 21°43' E 80')
S 68°26'24" E 46.00' (S 68°20' E 46.00')

LANDING
BRICK
120 OLIVE

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
116 OLIVE

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
35 ASHLER

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
39 ASHLER

ADJACENT

RESIDENTIAL
LOT
O L I V E S T R E E T (40')
EX. F.F. = 393.59
118 OLIVE

E E E E E
C3.0

EROSION CONTROL PLAN
REVISION No. BY
DATE
SCALE

DESIGNER
JOB
SHEET

OF SHEETS
DRAFTER REVISION No. BY
GKMengineering.com

CIVIL ENGINEERING SURVEYING LAND PLANNING
16185 Los Gatos Blvd., Suite 205Los Gatos, Ca 95032
(408) 656 5917

REICHERT ADDITION & REMODEL
APN: 410-15-022
118 OLIVE AVENUE LOS GATOS CALIFORNIA
9/23/2021

AS SHOWN
GM
GM
A210614
5 1 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 6/08/20212 RESPONSE TO ENG. COMMENTS - 9/14/2021

FOR PLANNING

PURPOSES ONLY
0 Scale 1" = ft 10
10 20 30
ALPHA LAND SURVEYS, INC.
4444 SCOTTS VALLEY DR #7
SCOTTS VALLEY, CA 95066

SURVEY NOTE
THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY:

DATED 3/1/21 JOB#: 2020-065

GKM ENGINEERING IS NOT LIABLE TO THE ACCURACY OF

ANY OF THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC, FIXED WORKS,

BOUNDARY, AND/OR ENCUMBRANCE INFORMATION

SHOWN ON THESE PLANS

EROSION CONTROL NOTES

1. EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES AND MEASURES ARE TO BE INSTALLED AND OPERABLE BY OCTOBER 15 AND SHALL CONTINUE IN EFFECT UNTIL APRIL 15, OR UNTIL INSTALLATION OF THE PERMANENT PROJECT LANDSCAPING AND PAVING.

2. CHANGES TO THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INDICATED ON THESE

PLANS AND DESCRIBED HEREIN TO ACCOMMODATE FIELD CONDITIONS MAY

BE MADE ONLY WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF OR AT THE DIRECTION OF THE CITY ENGINEER.

3. A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHALL BE PROVIDED AT ANY POINT OF EGRESS FROM THE SITE. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE SHOULD BE COMPOSED OF COARSE DRAIN ROCK (GREATER THAN 3" BUT SMALLER THAN 6" IN DIAMETER) AT LEAST TWELVE (12) INCHES THICK BY FIFTY (50) FEET LONG BY TWELVE (12) FEET WIDE AND SHALL BE MAINTAINED UNTIL THE SITE IS PAVED.

4. SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED IN PLACE AROUND EACH STORM INLET AS INDICATED ON THE DEMOLITION PLAN. SEE THE "DRAIN INLET PROTECTION" DETAIL ON THIS SHEET. ALL INLETS WHICH

ARE NOT PROTECTED BY SEDIMENT TRAPS SHALL BE COMPLETELY BLOCKED AS LONG AS THE EROSION CONTROL PLAN IS IN EFFECT.

5. ALL PAVED AREAS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAR OF EARTH MATERIAL AND DEBRIS.

THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED SO AS TO PREVENT SEDIMENT-LADEN

RUNOFF FROM ENTERING THE STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM OR ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

6. ALL EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED BY THE

CONTRACTOR AND REPAIRED, AS REQUIRED, AT THE CONCLUSION OF EACH WORKING DAY DURING THE RAINY SEASON. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL

INSPECT THE EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES AND MAKE NECESSARY

REPAIRS THERETO PRIOR TO ANTICIPATED STORMS, AND SHALL

PERIODICALLY INSPECT THE SITE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS DURING STORMS OF EXTENDED DURATION. REPAIRS TO DAMAGED FACILITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED IMMEDIATELY.

7. FOLLOWING EACH STORM, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSPECT EACH STORM

INLET SEDIMENT TRAP TO ASSURE THE INTEGRITY OF THE BASIN AND OUTLET PIPE. ANY DAMAGE TO THESE OR OTHER EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE REPAIRED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE.

8. AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOLLOWING EACH STORM, THE CONTRACTOR

SHALL REMOVE ANY ACCUMULATION OF SILT OR DEBRIS FROM THE

SEDIMENT TRAP BASIN AND SHALL CLEAR THE OUTLET PIPE OF ANY BLOCKAGE.

9. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INSTALLATION

AND MAINTENANCE OF THE EROSION CONTROL FACILITIES AND SHALL

CONDUCT PERIODIC INSPECTION OF THE PROJECT SITE DURING STORMS

OF PROLONGED DURATION AND/OR HEAVY INTENSITY TO ASSURE THAT THEY FUNCTION IN THE MANNER DESCRIBED HEREIN.

EROSION CONTROL NOTES

PROFILE

EXISTING PAVED ROADWAY
A
DITCH
A

FOUR TIMES THE CIRCUMFERENCE OF THE
LARGEST CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE TIRE.

R=50'
R=50'
MATCH EX. GRADE
NOTE: CONSTRUCT SEDIMENT

BARRIER & CHANNELIZE RUNOFF
TO SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE. 10' MINIMUM OR AS REQUIRED TO

ACCOMMODATE ANTICIPATED

TRAFFIC, WHICHEVER IS GREATER

SEDIMENT TRAPPING DEVICE

CRUSHED AGGREGATE GREATER
THAN 3" BUT SMALLER THAN 6"
12" MINIMUM, UNLESS OTHERWISE

SPECIFIED BY A SOILS ENGINEER SECTION A-A CATCH BASIN W/ FILTER FABRIC UNDER GRATE.

STRAW WATTLE

FILTER FABRIC
3/4" GRAVEL OR GRAVEL

FILLED SANDBAGS
PLAN

WRAP STRAW WATTLE

AROUND INLET

STORM INLET
3/4" GRAVEL OR GRAVEL

FILLED SANDBAGS

FINISH GRADE

FOR FLAT AREAS

FINISHED GRADE
DIRECTION 3/4" x 3/4" WOOD STAKE @ 4' O.C.

OF FLOW

STRAW FIBER ROLL WRAPPED IN A TUBULAR BLACK
PLASTIC NETTING WITH A DIAMETER OF 8"-10".
12" MIN.

ALONG CONTOURS SPACE 20' ON SLOPE
12" MIN.
8"-10" DIA FIBER ROLL

FOR SLOPED AREAS
N.T.S.
3/4" x 3/4" WOOD
STAKE @ 4' O.C.
3" MIN.
5" MAX.
3" MIN.
5" MAX.

NOTES:

1. FIBER ROLL COMPOSED OF BIO-DEGRADEABLE FIBERS STUFFED INTO A PHOTO-DEGRADEABLE OPEN WEAVE NETTING.

2. FIBER ROLL EROSION BARRIER TRAPS SEDIMENT AND REDUCES SHEET AND HILL SIDE EROSION BY REDUCING SLOPE GRADIENT. IT INCREASING INFILTRATION RATES AND BY PRODUCING A FAVORABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PLANT ESTABLISHMENT.

3. FIBER ROLL INSTALLATION REQUIRES THE PLACEMENT AND SECURE STAKING OF THE FIBER ROLL IN A TRENCH 3"-5" DEEP, DUG ON CONTOUR. RUNOFF MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN UNDER OR AROUND FIBER ROLL.

FIBER ROLL EROSION BARRIER 2 STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE

FIBER ROLL EROSION BARRIER

KEY NOTE

LIMIT OF DISTURBED AREA

INLET SEDIMENT PROTECTION
LEGEND
DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 1 3

C4.0

PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/12/2022
ITEM NO: 2

ADDENDUM
DATE: January 11, 2022
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence to Exceed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Standards with Reduced Front and Side Yard Setbacks on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1D. Located at 118 Olive Street.

APN 410-15-022. Architecture and Site Application S-21-013. PROPERTY OWNER: Thomas and Meredith Reichert. APPLICANT: Jay Plett, Architect.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 12 includes the applicant’s response to previously distributed public comments. Exhibit 13 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022.

EXHIBITS:

Previously received with the January 12, 2022 Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval

4. Project Description and Letter of Justification, dated August 2, 2021

5. Color and Materials Board

6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated August 4, 2021

7. Applicant’s response to Consulting Architect’s Report

8. Owner’s summary of neighbor outreach

9. Photos of existing residence

10. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022

11. Development Plans
ATTACHMENT 2

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: January 11, 2022
EXHIBITS (continued):

Received with this Addendum Report:

12. Applicant’s response to public comments
Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Town of Los Gatos Planning Department January 10, 2022
Attention Sean Mullin Application 5-21-013
Re 118 Olive St Los Gatos Ca 95030
Dear Mr. Mullin,
This letter is in response to the letter received (reference letter) which is dated December 17th 2021 and received January 6th 2022 by the Town Planning Department reguarding 118 Olive.

Response to Issue 1- Parking: The current proposed project site has 1 car parking garage and 1 driveway space. We are proposing to build a functional garage and maintain the driveway parking space, which would park all our cars, not contributing to any on street parking. There are several homes on this block which have small or unusable garages (including our current home) and no driveways, this combined with many painted red curbs may impact parking, however even with all of this, we have personally had no parking limitations since we have moved to Olive street since it is required to have permits to park.

Response to Issue 2- FAR and setbacks: As noted in the reference letter 118 Olive seeks approval of FAR to exceed allowable SF, there are 4 other homes in the immediate location that also exceed allowable:

Project Site (308 SF)
• *120 Olive (60 SF)
• 135 Olive (373 SF)
• 127 Olive (178 SF)
• *546 San Benito (398 SF)
As noted in the reference letter 118 Olive seeks approval of front and side yard setback reductions. There are many homes in the immediate location that are built with considerably more intrusive setbacks than our proposal.

Front Setback
Project Site 10'-0”
• 133 Olive 7'-0”
• 131 Olive 8'-0”
• 127 Olive 7'-0”
• 125 Olive 5'-0”
• 112 Olive 8'-9”
• *110 Olive 4'-0”
• *546 San Benito 8’-0
EXHIBIT 12

Side yard Setback
Project Site 3'-0” (limited to the garage on the West side first story) • *120 Olive 3'-0” +- (along the entire length of the home for 2 stories) • 135 Olive 0'-0”
• 131 Olive 2'-0” +-
• 129 Olive 2'-0” +-
• 127 Olive 1'-6” +-
• *110 OLIVE 0'-0”
• 112 OLIVE 3'-0”
Response to Issue 3- building height and scale: We worked very closely with the Town planner, Architect and our design architect to be respectful to the scale of the proposed project, the adjacent properties and the neighborhood character- all which have been reviewed and align with the Los Gatos residential design guidelines and General plan by the town planning staff and consultants. We reviewed, iterated and collaborated to align on topics such as street presence, neighborhood patterns, forming, mass, garage guidelines etc. including talking with many neighbors.
• One point in the reference letter is in regard to 120 Olive and our proposal to build a 2 story home next to their 2 story home. If I understand it correctly, this home has a 3’ side yard set back as is our proposal, and this home is a 2 story and we are proposing the same. The building height of our proposal is within the Towns guidelines and is not as tall as either of its neighbors to the West, furthermore 546 San Benito can be seen from Santa Cruz Ave even above our proposed flags which speaks to the considerations of our proposal to understand the scale of the neighborhood patterns and less than the max build height allowable.

• Another point in the referenced letter is in regard to the elevation drawings. The letter makes a good point about the sketches of 120 Olive and 546 San Benito being difficult to show accurately in drawing given the large slope of the site. That being said, the planner and reviewers are aware, make site visits and have photographs to understand streetscape and context of the neighborhood. A project of this scale and scope have significant review periods, we have been engaged with the Town planning department since April 2021 in making appropriate considerations. Additionally, the flag poles are only suggested to be up 10 day prior to the proposed hearing, as part of better understanding the context we elected to work with the Town Planning Department to have them up since before Halloween 2021 ahead of our January 12th 2022 hearing. This allowed as much feedback and context to be seen and reviewed, far exceeding the minimum required timing.
• In the reference letter it specifically highlights 546 San Benito elevations and building. If I understand it correctly, this is the largest house in the neighbor sphere by height, FAR, elevations, street presence and has taken advantage of the Towns allowances for basement space to not count against its FAR as its encouraged to build below grade to not overbuild the sight lines. Our project proposal is smaller in every comparison, and we too hope to take advantage of the Towns allowances for basement. To further clarify, our basement proposal is predominately underground, 546 San Benito elevation from San Benito Street is similarly positioned, but because of the significant site slope, when you turn the corner to Olive Street the elevation is an entire 3 story building (the only one on the street), it is far more imposing that our proposed standard 2 story project. That being said, I believe that 546 San Benito followed the rules, as does ours with heights, scale and basement.

Considered Basement Level, with 2 floors above
Response to Issue 4- Privacy: In terms of privacy for 120 Olive related to our proposed terrace.

We can agree with the reference letters concern. This was discussed with the Towns consulting architect and Planning Department and is a good time to revisit given the concern. We recommend the terrace be reconsidered to allow us to do an alternate proposal of a sloped roof as referenced in the Consulting Architects review. This would allow proper massing and

scale relative to streetscape, while aligning with the design of the proposed home AND provide the privacy we think 120 Olive deserves. The design concern which was brought up during the consultant architects review of the roof vs terrace was regarding streetscape, to address this we highlight that the proposed roof will have a low top plate at its lowest point, thereby reduce the presence both to the direct 120 Olive neighbors and limit the overall height of the roof.

Shown below as our proposed resolution to have terrace changed to roof.

Another point of privacy from the reference letter regarding the rear deck as potentially being a concern. The proposed deck would be level with exiting the back door and provides no vantage point for us to view into neighbor’s yard, to clarify and press upon, we don’t want to view anyone’s yard from our own. Similar to the point of the lots being sloped, the deck as proposed would just make a safe and level exit from our house to the back yard.

Response to Issue 5- construction disruption: We agree with all the sentiment about how construction can be disruptive. Please note that we believe construction is allowed to take place where permits are issued and follow all rules and guidelines AND as any good neighbors would do we would work with each other to minimize distributions. Many of the neighbors on this very block have successfully completed construction work despite the issues noted- two house finished work this last few years and one of the homes who signed the letter of reference (546 San Benito) did a very extensive build.

Response to Issue 6- Design: Included here is several photos of the block highlighting the eclectic design of neighborhood. Also to note, we have reviewed this the Town Planning Department and consulting Architect to ensure our proposal fits with Los Gatos Residential Design Guidelines.

In closing: We believe the proposed project is reasonable, well fit and a benefit to the neighborhood which has many neighbors (who have become our friends) who support the project. We believe to have worked in good faith with the planning team and our neighbors to adequately address concerns and ask that this project proceed with planning approval.

We would like to thank the neighbors who chose to sign the reference letter. Having these comments is a valuable part of the process and helps us make more informed decisions and build a project with any concerns as part of the considerations. We hope that we could also come to agreement on other neighborhood issues like abandon houses or underutilized lots to support the housing crisis which the Towns General Plan hopes to make progress. For example, the abandoned home on the corner of Thurston and San Benito which is very close to all of us and might be an avenue for us to collaborate on to improve the neighborhood.

It makes sense to acknowledge that while we have met many friends and neighbors since moving to this home, COVID-19 has made it even more difficult to meet every neighbor- we ourselves have been conservative in our social activities since our immediate family has high risk factors to potential exposures. Interestingly, each homeowner who signed the reference letter is a someone we haven’t gotten a chance to meet- we have since made headway into meeting these extended neighbors. Hoping these exchanged letters will bring a renewed sense of community given the context of living with the reality of a COVID-19 pandemic.

Sincerely,
The Reichert Family
*Parties who signed the reference letter of concern
• 107, 108, 110, 116, 120, 121 and 122 Olive and 546 San Benito

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

From: Jason Malinsky < >
Sent: Saturday, January 8, 2022 7:58 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: 118 Olive Street

EXTERNAL SENDER
Mr. Mullin:

I write in support of the proposed project at 118 Olive Street. I have reviewed the basic plans as well as walked and driven by the house numerous times as I live just a couple blocks away on San Benito and pass it daily as I take my son to kindergarten. The project appears eminently reasonable for the size and character of the neighborhood. Additionally, adding a property like this to the area encourages more families with children to live here as it is a more suitable home for a family than the current home on the lot. More families with kids roots people deeper into the community as I know the owners of 118 Olive are committed to being when their new home is constructed. This is what makes Los Gatos great and allows it to evolve to meet the needs of families that want to be here.

Please approve the project as designed.

Jason Malinsky
EXHIBIT 13

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:

Kathryn Janoff, Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Kylie Clark
Melanie Hanssen
Steve Raspe
Reza Tavana
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 3

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
P R O C E E D I N G S:

CHAIR JANOFF: We now move on to the public
hearing, Agenda Item #2, which is requesting approval for demolition of an existing single-family residence and
construction of a new single-family residence to exceed floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side
setbacks on nonconforming property zoned R:1D, located at 118 Olive Street. APN: 410-15-022. Architecture and Site Application: S-21-013. Property owners: Thomas and Meredith Reichert. Applicant: Jay Plett, Architect.

I understand Mr. Mullin will be giving the Staff
Report tonight.

SEAN MULLIN: Thank you, Chair. Before you this
evening is a request to demolish an existing residence and construct a new two-story residence. The subject property is nonconforming; the size being 3,680 square feet where 5,000 is required. The proposed two-story residence would be 1,677 square feet with a 299 square foot garage. The project also includes a partial 1,195 square foot basement that does not count towards the FAR. The Applicant is
requesting approval to exceed the allowable FAR for the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
property for reduced front and side yard setbacks, and for an exemption from the parking requirements.

The Applicant proposes a contemporary two-story
residence with traditional forms, natural materials, and neutral colors. The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the project and noted that the proposed residence had the potential to blend well with the immediate neighborhood.

The Consulting Architect provided six
recommendations for the project to increase its consistency with the Residential Design Guidelines and surrounding
neighborhood. The Applicant responded through design
changes and written justification as detailed in your Staff Report.

As mentioned, the project would exceed the floor
area by 9%, or 308 square feet. The Planning Commission may approve an FAR above what is allowed when making findings related to the consistency with the Residential Design
Guidelines and compatibility with the surrounding
properties.

At the requested size the residence would be the
third largest in terms of FAR and square footage in the immediate neighborhood. There are also four other homes in the immediate neighborhood that exceed their allowable FAR,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
and the FAR of the proposed residence would rank in the middle of these homes.

The project also proposes reduced front and rear
setbacks on a nonconforming lot. Required setbacks on a nonconforming property, as well as other rules of the zone, may be modified under an Architecture and Site Application when findings can be made related to the proposal’s
compatibility with the neighborhood. The proposed residence includes a front setback of 10 feet where 15 feet is
required, and a left side setback of 3 feet where 5 feet is required. The Applicant has provided examples of homes
along Olive Street with reduced front and side yard
setbacks consistent with the proposed residence.

Lastly, the Town Code requires that two offstreet parking spaces be provided for a single-family residence. The code also allows for exemptions from these parking requirements when a property is found to not have adequate parking area. The subject property as mentioned is nonconforming as to size.

The existing residence includes a single noncompliant parking space in the garage, and the proposed residence would include a one-car garage, meeting the
required dimensions for a parking space, and would be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
consistent with the neighborhood pattern of one-car
garages.

Based upon the analysis provided in your Staff
Report, Staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site Application subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval included in Exhibit 3. An addendum to your Staff Report has been distributed this evening, including a
response to public comments prepared by the property owner, and additional public comment received after publishing of the Staff Report.

This concludes Staff’s presentation and we are
available to answer any questions.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for that report, Mr.

Mullin. Before I proceed with any questions of you, may I see a show of hands of Commissioners who have visited this property? Thank you very much. Now, do Commissioners have any questions for Mr. Mullin or Staff at this time?
I don’t see any hands raised, so we will now open
the public hearing and give the Applicant up to five
minutes to address the Commission.

JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. Whoever is going to be
speaking on behalf of the Applicant, please raise your
hand. It looks like I have a hand from Darren, but I don’t believe that’s the Applicant. Mr. Plett or the property

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
owner? Mr. Plett, you can unmute yourself and you have up to five minutes.

JAY PLETT: Okay, thank you. Good evening,
Commission members. I’m the project architect for this
house.

We designed this project with regard to the
Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, consultation with Staff, and also the Consulting Architect. The neighborhood is in a state of transition with regard to young families moving in and homes being enlarged to accommodate them.

From the inception of the project’s design we
sought to design a home that blends in with the fabric of the neighborhood, neither the largest floor area nor the largest floor area ratio, but to all within the average of the four largest homes. The form of the home is consistent with traditional American design and closely resembles the form and mass of several neighboring houses. As a result of these efforts, Staff has recommended approval of the
project. We also believe it is worthy of your approval.

I’d like to allow the owners now to speak as well
on behalf of the project.

THOMAS REICHERT: Thanks, Jay. Also, thank you
all for inviting us here to go through the project. It is also our first Commission meeting, so I know it sounds like

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
there are a few new Commission members, so welcome to you guys, but tonight is our very first meeting.

We moved into the neighborhood about a year ago.

I’m here with my wife, and grandma, who lives about seven minutes away, is watching the two kids at home. We love this neighborhood, and my wife grew up here, so we’re happy to be back here close to family.

We are excited about the potential to expand this
house to meet the demands of our family and continue to grow a long time here in the community, especially given some of the constraints that COVID has brought to us in our new environment. Oftentimes the kids have to be home from school or we have to work from home. These last two years have proven that a little extra space really can make a big difference in some mental wellbeing and home life balance.

We chose to work with Jay. He designed a few
houses in the neighborhood, including several on this exact block, he has his home office here in downtown Los Gatos, and he really helped us get a good sense from working with Jay that he has a good understanding of the context of the neighborhood, working with the Town, both Planning,
Building, and Planning Commission over time, so that’s been a wonderful part of the process for us.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
One thing in particular about Jay that I really
liked is that he helped us, as homeowners who have never done a project like this, get a good sense of understanding how to come to a very realistic type project when we have come to the table saying we wanted a very large house, or we want everything and have our cake and eat too, and right from the beginning Jay sort of brought us to reality and said, “Don’t submit that. You need to submit something
that’s way more realistic,” to come in here.

So, going through that process with Jay, and
kudos also to Sean and his team, is the very first time that we went in for submittal. We started from the point of something that was already reasonable and fit and then were able to make very meaningful changes through the process that we were okay with from the beginning. I’ve been really happy with the process so far and just wanted to say thanks both to Jay and the neighbors who have helped us get to this point, so appreciate it.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for the comments, and at
this time do Commissioners have questions for the Applicant or homeowner? Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your
comments and presentation. I wanted to ask about
neighborhood outreach. I read everything that was in the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Staff Report, and I read the Applicant’s letter in terms of talking about some of the neighbors that you knew and how you became friends with them, and then as I read on there was a letter signed by about eight neighbors opposing your project, so what I wanted to understand was what process you went through to do neighborhood outreach. Did you reach out to everyone, or just people that you knew, and then what did you discuss with them? Did you share your plans or did you just tell them about your project? This is for Mr.

Reichert.

THOMAS REICHERT: Thanks for the great question.

In the first letter that I think you just referenced, it’s pretty difficult during this time of COVID—even this
meeting itself is being hosted virtually—and we had just moved to the neighborhood, so we didn’t know a single
person before we moved in. But to answer your question very directly, we didn’t reach out to everyone for a couple of reasons. One, we didn’t know anyone, so we reached out to quite a few people in our own personal comfort level during COVID. We were in pretty tight of a bubble. We lived with close family that had some potential issues, so the people that we did meet were actually really closely related to where the kids were going to school and people that we had

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
passed in the street. We didn’t go knocking door-to-door or anything like that.

One part of the process that I would highlight is
actually we erected the story poles significantly longer than they would need to be required. That’s a way for us to communicate our intentions and sort of freely let everyone know, not just the ten-day minimum.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And then am I to
understand the response that you gave was primarily to that letter and the objections that were raised by several
neighbors?
THOMAS REICHERT: I didn’t understand that
question.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: You had given a response
and we got it in the addendum yesterday, I guess it was, and it talked about some different points, and you had some drawings. Was that intended to interest the neighbors in opposition?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: My final question and I’ll
be done, Chair. You had two different drawings that your architect put up, and one was included in the addendum, which was where you had offered to basically take off that deck to the side?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
THOMAS REICHERT: Yeah.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: You had two versions, so
you’re willing to do that, but we would probably want to keep it. Where do you stand on that?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s a great point. I
understand we have three minutes at the end of public
comment and I was hoping to talk about that a little bit based on if there are more potential comments, but yes, to talk to your point, we have a potential modified plan that might address some of the concerns that we brought up with more detail between understanding what that comment was and now, and we would be open to modify the plan in that way as a concession to I think the concern specifically was around privacy. So, yes, open to modify it in a way that allows them to maintain their privacy.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for answering my
questions.

CHAIR JANOFF: I have one more follow up question
regarding the long-term of the story poles. Did you receive any direct communication by mail, email, notes left on your doorstep, from your neighbors once those story poles went up? Or were the objections we saw in the Staff Report new to you?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
THOMAS REICHERT: Every single person who signed
that letter I actually had never talked to before.

Coincidentally, after that I talked to a few of them,
reached out. Some I didn’t hear back from, but a couple of them I did; we talked about the project and shared plans directly. But to your point, we had not talked to a single person, not a note, not a phone call, not a come to the door to say anything.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that. Any
other questions of the Applicant at this time? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I actually have five
questions. I don’t want to monopolize the evening, but I wonder if we could get started on some of them anyway?
My first question is as to the proposed deck, is
that 2 feet or more above grade? The reason I ask is that the Residential Design Guidelines say that there need to be special setbacks under those circumstances.

THOMAS REICHERT: Are you referring the deck in
the back yard, or the one off of the master bedroom and off the garage?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The back yard, not the
terrace off the master bedroom.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
THOMAS REICHERT: The proposed deck is under 2
feet, and actually it’s just a level walkout from the back door, so it’s not above 2 feet.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you for that.

If I might ask further, are there provisions made to
protect the privacy of 120 Olive with respect to the window placement, size, and type? I couldn’t tell from the plan.

THOMAS REICHERT: Great question. I think the
terrace is probably the thing that impedes the biggest part of their privacy. In terms of windows, zero of the windows fact that direction and I that think goes a long way with the potential modification. The windows that are in the master bedroom that face towards 120 Olive are all
clerestory, like you can’t see them when you’re walking, even on our side of the house; they’re just for light.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you. If I
might continue, the architect recommended the continuation of the stone on the front façade around the sides for
continuity, and I understand that the owner rejected that, and I was wondering if you could comment further on that? THOMAS REICHERT: Maybe I misspoke when I said
it. I agree with it, we should wrap the stone around the corner of the front, and I think that’s the way that Sean and Larry Cannon think, so yes, that’s in the intent.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for the
clarification. I noticed there’s a possible provision for an elevator for the car parking. I was wondering if that’s part of the intended project and if that would allow space for parking for a third vehicle?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s the intent. We’ve
planned it with Jay so that would be possible. I think
ultimately it will come down to a financial decision, like if it costs way too much money, then it will be very
difficult for us to accommodate that additional parking spot. I really want it. I think it provides an additional off-view spot; I just really like the idea of having an extra car in the garage.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I have a final question
for Mr. Schultz. I know that you’ve commented previously about the issue of the law and the Town Code with respect to the right to a view, and I wonder for the record in this matter if you could repeat your advice on that point?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Thank you. Yes, our code does
not address views whatsoever. I do know some jurisdictions that have adopted codes that do protect views, but unless it’s specifically set forth in the code and General Plan there is no right to a view.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you, those are my
questions.

CHAIR JANOFF: I do have one additional question
for the architect, Mr. Plett. You refer to the house at 114 Olive as being similar in mass as 118 Olive. Can you tell me the height of 114 and the height of 118, please?
JAY PLETT: 114 is about 20 feet, and then 118,
we’re at 27 feet.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. Any other
questions for the Applicant at this time? Commissioner
Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I have a few questions.

First is you’re requesting a reduction of the front setback and I wanted to ask if it has been an option to reduce the back setback instead or if there was some wiggle room
there, and if so, why you’re not reducing that?
THOMAS REICHERT: The front setback, we are
asking for that. We are by no means even at the 10 feet.

The closest front setback, some are as low as 5 feet, so we shot to do that. It articulates the front elevation and the massing very well, and we also would like to preserve as much of the back yard as possible, because it’s such a
small site, so the reasoning with that is a back yard, a play area for the kids.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. And something
else I wanted to ask about was the suggestion by the
architect to add trim, and it sounded like you are not
going to do that. I wanted to first verify that that’s
still the case, and then also ask to hear your reasoning.

THOMAS REICHERT: Yes, the windows will be inset
instead of having trim that would protrude on the building face. In lieu of that, the windows will be set in and
recessed into the wall.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, thank you. I have a
follow up about the 120 Olive property. Something that
struck me during the site visit was how close it seemed like the buildings would be together, and then how tall they would be. Are those neighbors supportive of this
project, or do you know?
THOMAS REICHERT: Commissioner Clark, the
homeowner and the renter both are not in support, and I did reach out to both of them and unfortunately was unable to even talk to them. One of them had COVID and a trial case they were working on, and the other was unable to
communicate outside of just both signing the letter, so no, we have not been able to communicate with either of the people at that location. I think in my response letter I offer what I think might be a good compromise, having the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ability to talk to them was we’re not proposing anything that they don’t have. They have a 3-foot setback; we’d like a 3-foot setback. They have a two-story; we would like a two-story. Their two-story is the entire length of the
home; we’re only proposing to have two-stories on a very short portion outside of the garage.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Got it. Thank you.

JAY PLETT: If I could add to that, only the
ground level is asking for the 3-foot setback. The second floor is a 5-foot setback as it exists right now.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Okay, got it. Thank you. One
last question. Something that the neighbors brought up in that letter that they signed was the excavation that will be necessary for such a large basement, and I was wondering if that’s anything that you would ever consider eliminating or reducing because of how inconvenient it sounds like that could be?
THOMAS REICHERT: Yes, obviously we’re not to
that part of the building process yet, but one of the
things we did is we already hired the soils engineer to let us know if it is possible to build on that site. We did that in advance, at risk, to better understand it with more perspective. He suggesting using a technique called “stitch

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
piering,” which allows us to do the entire construction on our side of the fence on the property line.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. Those are all my
questions.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. I just want
to remind the Commission, and especially our newer members, that we’ll know more if we hear from the members of the public how these particular concerns are articulated, and then the Applicant will have a chance to address those in his next session. Do we have any other questions from
Commissioners? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I had one follow up
question. Is the height of the proposed residence lower than the height of 120 Olive Street?
JAY PLETT: Thanks for that, Commissioner
Barnett. Yes, the height of our proposed product is lower than both of the two heights of the western properties.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I thought that’s how I
read your material, but thank you for that.

CHAIR JANOFF: Any other questions from
Commissioners? I don’t see any hands raised, so at this time we will ask if any members of the public would like to speak on this item?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JOEL PAULSON: Next will be Shelli. Shelli, you
can unmute yourself.

SHELLI BAKER: Good evening to all and thanks for
your time. I no longer live at 120 Olive Street, but in 2004 we did purchase that home for two reasons. Number one, it has a beautiful amount of natural light that streams through the entire home. Number two, there is a quite
beautiful mountain view out of the master suite, which is the only second story part to this home, and it was
probably done back in the forties. This home, by the way, is approximately 1,500 square feet total.

We bought the home for those reasons, and this is
also a reason why since 2012 it is easy to rent. People go in, this is a happy place. It’s bright, it’s sunny, it’s cozy, it’s cute, it’s open, and it’s very dated also
inside. It’s an old house, but it’s very easy to rent. We moved up in the hills of Los Gatos, but our intentions are during retirement to move back to 120 Olive Street, so it’s not just like a rental property for us, although when you have a rental you also of course very much care about the value of the home, which I do.

I looked very carefully at what was available
early on, about a month ago. The shadow study scared me. I looked at it very carefully, watching the way the from midPage 439 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
December to June the light coming into the entry, kitchen, living room, dinning room, master bedroom, and our back yard will be completely in the shadow for most of the day, and December, January, February, March, these are the
months where you need light more than anything, so that was exceptionally disturbing to me.

The privacy of course, reducing a setback, it’s
only a 5-foot setback to 3 feet. I just don’t understand.

The house is enormous. I know there are other enormous
houses, but these are the tiniest lots. That’s actually why we left, because we have three children and we’re like we better go get a house, a space, so they have a place,
because it’s tiny. I just feel like reducing setbacks and putting the house closer to the street, and it’s already going to be very vertical, and exceeding the FAR, those are the reasons why I’m not in agreement with it.

Even if I didn’t live right next door, I feel
like 120 Olive will be imposed more than any other home directly on the street based on its proximity, but even if I lived down the street or around the corner, it’s
something that I don’t think we should set a precedent for:
let’s exceed the FAR, let’s reduce the setbacks front and side. That’s not my stance and never has been.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
If you visited the site, you can see that if that
terrace does remain—I heard that that is now in question— but if that terrace does remain…
CHAIR JANOFF: Ms. Baker, excuse me, I need to
interrupt you. You’re time has expired. Thank you. Do any Commissioners have questions for Ms. Baker? Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for sharing all
of your concerns about the project. From your point of
view, what would make this project acceptable?
SHELLI BAKER: The bare minimum, I would say I
would not reduce setbacks. The lots are 3,600 square feet, so why reduce setbacks on a home that is already exceeding the FAR? I wouldn’t even say exceed the FAR, because then the next house is going to exceed the FAR because this one did; it sets a precedent.

It’s not the street for large houses. I know we
have a few and that’s great, but not. It’s just not;
they’re tiny. There’s no parking. We lived there for ten years, so we know what it’s like.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you. Commissioner Hanssen,
has your question been answered?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Unless there was something
else. What I was looking more for was a specific

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
suggestion. You said that if the setback is reduced, then that would be an issue, but I did want to follow up on
that. The Applicant claimed that you also have a 3 foot setback, is that correct?
SHELLI BAKER: No, I do not believe so. On one
side, on the uphill side, there is a smaller setback.

That’s because had a problem with the lot line. (Telephone rings.) Hold on. This is Darren Carroll as well, because he probably couldn’t unmute, so I can arrange if you would like to hear from Darren Carroll as well.

CHAIR JANOFF: Ms. Baker, hang on. Let’s let
Director Paulson manage the speakers and their sequence.

Commissioner Hanssen, do you have any further questions? COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: No.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. Any other
questions for Ms. Baker? I don’t see any hands raised, so thank you for your comments, Ms. Baker. Director Paulson, do we have any other speakers tonight?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The next speaker will be
Mark. Mark, you can unmute yourself.

MARK BOSKOVICH: Good evening, everyone. My name
is Mark Boskovich. I live at 112 Olive Street. I live a couple of houses down from the Reicherts. I had the
pleasure of spending time with their family, we have a

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
young family as well, and they’re a wonderful family and we love their design. We think it will just be a beautiful addition to this neighborhood. We see it as a huge upgrade and it’s going to raise the values of all the homes on this beautiful street. It has that Los Gatos touch thanks to a great Los Gatos architect in Jay Plett.

I’ve been hearing a lot of comments about the
setbacks, and I don't know if you’ve taken a really close look at this street, but the setbacks are all unorthodox in this area. My next-door neighbor’s setback from the front is probably 4-5 feet, and that’s just kind of the norm in this neighborhood, unorthodox setbacks, and so I don’t
think it’s setting any kind of dangerous precedent. Most of the places in this area have different, unusual setbacks.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for your comments, Mr.

Boskovich. Any questions from Commissioners? I don’t see any hands raised.

MARK BOSKOVICH: Can I make one more comment too?
I just want to say that the Reicherts made a huge effort with some of the neighbors, including myself, to speak with us to make sure that we were okay with the plans. I think they did their best under some very difficult
circumstances.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that
addition. Director Paulson, do we have any other speakers who wish to address the Commission?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The next speaker will be
Bonnie. Bonnie, if you unmute yourself, you have three
minutes.

BONNIE HURWITZ: Hi. Thank you very much for
allowing me to speak. My name is Bonnie Hurwitz and I’m at 121 Olive Street; I’ve lived here for 18 years.

Yes, it’s an eclectic neighborhood. The gentleman
who just spoke before me is brand new to the neighborhood and I don’t think has as much experience living here;
probably been here maybe two or three months.

The reason that I’m speaking up is because we’ve
already discussed at length the size of the proposed home, so I’m not going to belabor that again, but I do need to address the parking situation on this street.

It is quite a narrow street with parking that
alternates between one side and another, and to add
additional parking that’s really outside the scope of what the norm should be is really going to be problematic. It’s already permit-only parking on this street, which means that when everybody has a car on the street, I personally had to go around the block and park around the corner from

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
where my home is, and that’s really problematic as far as I’m concerned.

As regards the outreach portion of this, again,
I’ve lived here for 18 years, and nobody came to talk to me at all, and I see that as a huge issue. Yes, we have a
pandemic. Yes, I understand we don’t want to be up close and personal with people we don’t know, but there was no correspondence, no letter provided in my mailbox, which sits on the outside of my house. I was not approached in any fashion to address these new neighbors to explain what their position was on any of this, and to me it was quite a surprise.

When I saw those poles go up, I was really
shocked at the size of the proposed structure. Thank you very much.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Ms. Hurwitz. Do any
Commissioners have questions at this time? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Ms.

Hurwitz, first of all, thank you for your comments and for taking the time to appear this evening. I wanted to ask you one question specifically with respect to parking.

The materials that we were provided seem to
indicate that there is a pattern of one-car garages in that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
neighborhood, and that this project would fall into that norm or pattern. Do you find that to be an accurate
statement, or do you have a different experience?
BONNIE HURWITZ: I personally have an easement
for my home. I don’t have a driveway that sits on Olive Street, I have an easement that is provided on Thurston, which is the street parallel to Olive Street, so I’m
probably out of the norm, but having said that, most of the homes do have one-car garages, but also having said that, many of those homes are too small for cars. For example, on the one side of me there’s a home that is way too small. It would probably fit a car from 30-40 years ago, but that garage and many other garages on Olive Street do not fit conventional cars that are built today, which means people are parking on the street. And again, it’s permit-only
parking and you get two spots and then that’s it.

CHAIR JANOFF: Let me just interrupt you, Ms.

Hurwitz. Commissioner Raspe, did you have your question answered?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: My question has been
answered. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. I do have a
follow up question. It’s my understanding that the current house has a nonconforming garage and a car doesn’t fit into

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
it, and that the proposed project would have a garage that a modern car would fit into. Does that not sound like it would contribute to easing some of the parking problems? BONNIE HURWITZ: Not from the size of the
driveway, from what I recall seeing on the drawing, and I don’t have a drawing in front of me, but some of the homes on the street have longer driveways that can actually fit the additional car in the driveway itself, so that parking on the street is not impacted, but I thought with this
short a driveway that wouldn’t be possible.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for your
comments. Any other questions for Ms. Hurwitz. I don’t see any hands raised. Director Paulson, do we have anyone else wishing to speak on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: Do you want me to try Darren one
more time? We do have additional speakers, but I’m going to see if he can unmute himself.

DARREN CARROLL: What I want to say is that
several of the people that signed the letter with the eight signatures asked me to just relay the fact that their
position hasn’t changed, they’re just unable to call in because of several reasons, including not being technically savvy, as I obviously should be in that category.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
But I’d also like point out there are a couple of
other things that are not necessarily specific to the
house, but to the notification process, and that is I don’t think the netting depicts the true setting of the house to the southeast corner. The architect’s summary and the signs on the property say that it is an addition, not a new
construction, and that’s confusing and misleading. Several people walking the neighborhood have said, “Oh, they’re adding on.” I was like, “No, they’re building new.” So, I think the implications might be a little bit deceiving on that.

Along with that, my main concerns are the setback
requirements. I just feel they’re starting with a clean slate. There are no real mitigating circumstances that
dictate a size reduction or a font reduction for setbacks on it. I know my house is a larger house in the
neighborhood, but I didn’t ask for any of the building
setback requirements on that and I was able to do a nice house, and I even have more restrictive setbacks than that one does.

I’d just like to point out, Olive Street is
probably the narrowest street with the smallest lots in the whole town, and when you turn onto Olive Street from San Benito or from Santa Cruz Avenue, the netting on that house

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
just eclipses everything around it, including pretty much mine. A nice house can be designed there, and I’m not
denying anybody that possibility, but I just don’t see the need to build a house that’s almost 28 feet tall 10 feet from the property; it just is going to look like a
lighthouse there. If they want to build that house, then meet the setbacks, that is my biggest concern.

I’ve always been under the impression that there
was some sort of a community benefit by building a house that you had to put into it, whether it was additional
parking, or landscaping, or a privacy concern or something like that, and I just truly don’t see that. I see a big, huge house that’s making every attempt to manipulate every avenue to build a big house on a lot that truly doesn’t support it, and that’s why I’m asking that the Town,
specifically you people tonight, do not support this.

If I have extra time I’d like to address a couple
of questions that were brought up earlier regarding
notification to neighbors when the story poles went up. Is that okay?
CHAIR JANOFF: Darren, it looks like your time is
up, so you won’t be able to proceed, but I do want to ask Commissioners if you have questions for this speaker? Thank

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
you for your comments. We appreciate it. Commissioner
Barnett, did you have a question?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes, I do. Darren, can you
tell me what the height of your residence is?
DARREN CARROLL: Offhand, I can’t, but I’m going
to guess. It’s tall, but my house is on a corner that has a 9-foot shift from end-to-end, so from the front of my
house, which is on San Benito Avenue, it’s just a normal two-story house. If you walk around to the back of my
property, there’s a walk-out basement, and that’s just
fitting the topography, this is not where I had a flat lot to build with and I wanted to go that high. If you took all of my levels, three of them, I don’t exceed the 28 feet that that house is above grade, so what’s visible at my house from the front and back are substantially lower than that. I just have the benefit of being higher
topographically than that property and the lot that it was very difficult to design a house for.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I do understand your
response and I appreciate it.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Commissioner, and thank
you, Darren. At this time, I’ll ask Director Paulson if there are other speakers on this matter.

JOEL PAULSON: Yes, the next speaker will be Lee.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
LEE QUINTANA: I have a few comments. One of them
is on the history of the San Benito house that is included in the comparison table. I have two comments.

One, if my memory serves me well, when I was on
the Planning Commission that house was a very difficult decision, it was very controversial and it was a splitdecision because of the fact that it does seem to be so big and it was feared that that would lead to a domino effect.

The thing I would like to say is that this was
originally proposed as a remodel. As remodels, they would not have had to fix the nonconforming setbacks to the side, but as a demo the Town says that you have to meet the
requirements of the zone. In this case that means wider setbacks. However, there are provisions for exceptions for nonconforming residences, but this project is asking for four or five different exemptions, and each one may
individually meet the findings, but cumulatively it may have a bigger impact.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that it’s
my understanding that granting an exception is not
required. The Commission may grant an exception if they meet the findings necessary, but they’re not required to, and so I would ask you to very carefully consider what
exceptions you actually give. The parking might be

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
reasonable in the sense that they are making the garage more conforming than it had been, but I also question
shortening the driveway, and specifically the request for an exemption to the FAR. They’re using a cellar, and the Cellar Policy states that it should be in lieu of visible space; it doesn’t say that it counts towards the FAR, but it should help with a house being more consistent with the others in the neighborhood.

The last thing I want to say is I do have a very
personal feeling about Olive Street. I think it is one of the cutest streets in the Town; I really love that street because of all the small cottages that are there, and it’s changing so that that’s no longer its character. Thank you.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Lee. Any questions for
the speaker? I don’t see any hands raised. Director
Paulson, do we have anyone else wishing to speak on this topic?
JOEL PAULSON: We do, and the next speaker will
be Leslie.

LESLIE GARRISON: Thank you, Director Paulson.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Leslie Garrison; I own the property at 15 Ashler Avenue on the other side of the fence from Olive Street. I’ve lived here since 2016 with my family, and my son is currently in Cub Scouts with

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the Reicherts’ daughter, whom we’ve had the pleasure to meet and get to know very well as a direct result of being neighbors. Having just completed my own renovation on a historic property I have come to appreciate this process, so thank you for considering my comments.

I find the Reichert proposal to be a tasteful
plan. It’s in line with the neighborhood aesthetics and is likely to yield broader property value improvements for the wider neighborhood. As a full-time working parent with one child already in Los Gatos public schools and soon to have three in Los Gatos public schools, I can relate to some of the constraints and desires of the Reichert family. Given my stellar experience in this neighborhood—I love living here—I really encourage the Commissioners to reduce
barriers to new families being able to buy and stay here in our beautiful walkable neighborhood, rather than create conditions that push families farther away.

I really do understand and appreciate all
comments being made tonight and I understand that
reasonable minds can disagree on these details, but I
really welcome neighbors to respectfully make efforts to do more with less space, and I express my support for this plan. Thank you for considering my input.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Ms. Garrison, for your
comments. Any questions for the speaker? I don’t see any hands raised. Do we have anyone else wishing to speak?
JOEL PAULSON: We do. The next speaker will be
Marcus.

MARCUS LAM: Hi, thank you for allowing me to
speak. I’m at 114 Olive Street. Our house was recently
remodeled right before the end of COVID. Jay Plett was our architect. My wife Celeste and I have been here since 2014, when this house was originally 800 square feet. Obviously, that’s not enough space to accommodate a growing family with two boys now; one is in school at Daves and the other is in preschool at Growing Footprint.

To mirror the point made by the Ashler neighbor,
we appreciate how nice this neighborhood is, but we also need to find ways to accommodate the changing demographics in this town with growing families trying to move in. My wife and I had a very difficult submission process for our remodel. We actually tried to do two stories as well, but because of the feedback from neighbors around us we were very discouraged from that and had to compromise with a different plan. We hope that with the Reicherts, having met them and gotten to know them very well, don’t also have to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
compromise if they don’t have to, and we are very in
support of their project.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Mr. Lam, for your
comments. Do any Commissioners have questions for Mr. Lam? I don’t see any hands raised, so thank you for that.

Director Paulson, do we have other speakers on this item? JOEL PAULSON: The next speaker will be Andrea.

ANDREA GALATEA: Hi, everybody. My name is Andrea
Galatea; I am actually the renter at 120 Olive and I just wanted to make a few comments. I live here with my three children, twin daughters and my son.

Mr. Reichert was very, very nice to come over. I
was very busy with some child stuff that I was doing, but I did want to make a comment, because I saw the orange stuff coming up about a month ago.

The first thing that I wanted to say is when we
rented—we moved from Saratoga—what drew me to this house was the character and charm of that small town feel, and I think that a large house like this, though I’m sure it
would be very beautiful, probably belongs on a large
property, because the aesthetics of it, though very pretty, takes away from the feel of the neighborhood and that
quaintness of the neighborhood charm that we have here.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
As far as the setbacks, the other thing that drew
me to this house was the light and all of the beautiful windows, and it is an old house, but that’s the charm that I like. The single pane windows. When I wake up and have my coffee in the morning in that little front area of the
sunroom, what I love is the views and the light and being able to watch the sunrise, and I think that all I will see are walls of the neighboring home, and whether it’s me or somebody else, that’s what they will see.

Also, the master bedroom, instead of looking out
at a beautiful view, from my bed at night I can see the moon, and there’s a huge pine tree up off in the distance, and all that will be gone and it will darken the master bedroom, and so definitely the light in the home is going to be gone.

CHAIR JANOFF: I’m sorry to interrupt you. Your
time is up. Thank you for your comments. Do any
Commissioners have questions for Andrea? I don’t see any hands raised. Thank you. Director Paulson, do we have any other speakers on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t see any other hands raised
at this time. Again, I see Mark, who already spoke, but let’s see if there’s another member of the household that wants to speak.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHRISTY BOSKOVICH: This is Christy Boskovich;
I’m Mark’s wife. Sorry, I was helping put the kids to bed.

I just wanted to add in a note of how supportive
we are of the Reicherts’ plan. They’re such a wonderful family in the community. We’ve really enjoyed getting to know them; they have a daughter at Daves and they’ve just been so wonderful and really have that community spirit of bringing everyone together, and I really just want to
support more and more young families coming to our street.

I just think that their plan is so tasteful; it’s
very thoughtful. I thought it was such a smart idea to do the basement so that they could get a little more space so that when everyone is home in this COVID world they have that, but it’s not making the house super large.

I think it’s going to look very tasteful, very
beautiful, and really start to match the neighborhood, and we’re just so, so supportive and we really hope that they can build the house of their dreams and they can build this family and live here a really long time, and really just continue to contribute to the Los Gatos community.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for your comments. Do
any Commissioners have questions at this time? I don’t see any hands raised. Director Paulson, are there any other speakers on this matter?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JOEL PAULSON: There are not, so we go back to
the Applicant.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you for that. At
this time we’ll invite the Applicant to come back to the Commission. You’ll have up to three minutes to address any of the comments made or provide any additional information.

THOMAS REICHERT: I just want to thank everyone
for participating, and I think it’s what Leslie said that resonates most in my head, that we can all communicate
civilly and all have a good way of communicating and
talking about it, so I appreciate everyone participating.

I think I want to start with Andrea and Shelli at
120 Olive. They had some really good points, and one of the proposals that they talked about was a large focus on the light. When we look at the lighting study, the part of the house that they’re talking about, as Andrea mentioned, she has her morning coffee there, and actually that’s probably when I see her the most, give a wave or pass by, that part of the house is actually not proposed to change one bit.

It’s not getting any closer to the front setback and they will not loose… The lighting study changes zero. We’re not going to be going up higher than the garage at that point.

That’s not necessarily intentional; we didn’t know that that was a big part of potential concern, but in terms of

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the context and neighborhood plan, in fact they won’t be losing any light in that main living area. Their view won’t change at all.

Then in terms of the back where the second story
is, unfortunately we are proposing a second story right next to their second story, so I’m not sure what
considerations we made; that’s kind of what we’re just
asking for. It’s the second story right next to their
second story.

Jay, you got something?
JAY PLETT: Yes. I’d just like to add that the
statement was made that it’s 10 feet away and it’s 28 feet tall, and that’s not quite accurate. It’s 27 feet tall and the second story portion of the house has a 15-foot
setback. The 10-foot setback only pertains to the first floor, but the second story has a conforming setback of 15 feet, which I believe is correct in that neighborhood.

I would also differ with the perception. If you
look at the house, if you look up from Santa Cruz Avenue, both 120 Olive and especially 546 Santa Cruz Avenue loom over our story poles, and by no means would our project be dominant; 546 Santa Cruz will still be well above the
perceptible view of our project.

Our driveway length will not be changing.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
THOMAS REICHERT: Jay, I wanted to point that
out. One of the concerns I heard was from the neighbor
Bonnie. Sorry we haven’t met yet. I’m excited to
potentially meet and sorry that that’s the circumstance.

But the parking driveway, to Jay’s point, in addition to having the new conforming proposed garage, a full size car does fit in our current driveway and we are proposing no changes to that, so both of our cars would be parked
onsite, on property, with the proposed plan.

CHAIR JANOFF: Director Paulson, are you
indicating that the time has expired? He is, so your time as expired, but if Commissioners have questions of the
Applicant, now is the time to ask. Yes, Commissioner
Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes, thank you, Chair. Just
one quick question. I can’t quite see it clearly in the drawings, but what is the length of the driveway as
proposed?
THOMAS REICHERT: I think Jay is going to
probably measure it, like this scale. On the CRB and it fits without walking on any of the sidewalk, because the ticket person is vigilant about making sure that doesn’t happen, so it fits fully in the driveway.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JAY PLETT: Yes, the existing driveway is 18 feet
and will remain that way.

CHAIR JANOFF: Just a follow up question on that.

I’m looking at sheet C-3 and it indicates that the driveway is 17 feet, 4 inches. Mr. Plett, are you saying that the driveway is going to stay at 18 feet, or will it actually be at 17 feet, 4 inches?
THOMAS REICHERT: There’s a slight variation
between Jay’s measuring off the property line, but
technically the City owns part of the driveway. That could be the variation of the measurement. The dirt and grass and part of the driveway are technically part of the City
property on our easement.

CHAIR JANOFF: But it sounds like that area is
parkable, and so it probably adds a few inches to the 17 inches, 4 inches.

THOMAS REICHERT: It’s not part of the sidewalk,
correct.

CHAIR JANOFF: Any other questions for the
Applicant? I do have one, probably for the architect. It’s a little bit difficult to gather this, because your
elevations don’t indicate what your plate heights are, but could you clarify what your ceiling heights are on each floor?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JAY PLETT: We have a 10 foot ceiling on the main
level, and then on the upper level the plates heights vary.

Let me go to the elevations here. The plate heights vary from 8 feet in the master bedroom, at the rear we have a plate of 7 feet, the master bathroom we are at 6 feet, 6 inches.

CHAIR JANOFF: Let me make it a little easier. Is
there a plate height on the second story that is over 8 feet?
JAY PLETT: No.

CHAIR JANOFF: And then the middle story, the
living space, you say it has a 10 foot plate height, and then the basement level looks like it also has a 10-foot place height?
JAY PLETT: No. Let me go to that sheet. It would
be 9 feet in the basement.

CHAIR JANOFF: And could I just clarify, is it
your intention at a future date to include a lift and a lower level garage in that area?
JAY PLETT: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: And is there a requirement for a
9-foot plate height for a subterranean garage?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JAY PLETT: In a basement garage, I’ve done them
before with a 9-foot basement. I don't know if we could go lower than that.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you. Any other
questions for the Applicant at this time? I don’t see any hands raised, so at this time we’ll close the public
hearing on this item and ask if Commissioners have any
questions of Staff, wish to comment on the application, introduce a motion, or anything else? Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m going to go back to
where I was asking a question earlier. My first reaction was there are a lot of neighbors who are supportive, and then when I saw the letter that was signed by eight
neighbors opposing the project, several of whom have spoken tonight, but not all. I think we have a situation that
needs to be addressed.

But as far as the application itself, it seems to
be a pretty well designed house. I think they’ve made a lot of effort to make it fit into the neighborhood, but on the other hand, they are asking for quite a few exceptions: the FAR, front and side setbacks, and also the parking. From my perspective I think that it really isn’t enough for them to answer some of these questions in the hearing tonight. I think that some additional work should be done with the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
eight people that signed that letter to try to assuage some of their concerns. It may not be possible. We would hope that those people would be amenable to being cooperative and trying to come up with a compromise, but from my
perspective I think that more work needs to be done with the neighbors in order for this to go through.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Commissioner Hanssen.

Do any other Commissioners have comments or thoughts they’d like to share at this time? Let me ask a different question of the Commissioners. Do we have a position on the
Commission where Commissioners are in favor of the proposal as submitted to us tonight? Commissioner Tavana,
Commissioner Barnett, Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Sorry, Chair, if you don’t
mind. I understand your concerns, Commissioner Hanssen, but I’m not entirely sure based on what I heard tonight what the chief concern was. Some of it was FAR, but it’s coming from neighbors whose own houses have exceeded the FAR.

Height was brought up as an issue, but looking at sheet A1.1, Olive Street looking at the project, the height is actually rather in line with a lot of the houses in the immediate neighborhood, so I’m not sure what the chief
concern was and what could possibly be addressed by going

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
back to the neighbors, so in general I am in support of this project tonight.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Commissioner Tavana.

Any other Commissioners wish to speak? Yes, Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’ll join in Commissioner
Tavana’s comments. I noted in the materials and in the
comments tonight that the home in its height, setbacks, and FAR wouldn’t be unique if we were to grant the request as presented tonight. I thought the design is fairly
thoughtful. My only concern in coming into the hearing was the parking, and that concern has been assuaged, as well as the privacy concern, and as I understand it from the
opening comments, the redesign would largely take care of privacy concerns, so as presented I’m in favor of this
project.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for your comments.

Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’ll explain my reasoning
as well. Residential Design Guidelines do put a lot of
weight on neighborhood compatibility and character, but there’s also language in there about the inevitability of change and I think that this is a case where the
neighborhood is in flux. I understand the desire of certain

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
of the neighbors to maintain the traditional architectural values that are in place, but I think as was mentioned with growing families, and frankly the value of lots and the opportunity to improve them to current standards, makes sense in this case, and I think that the exceptions have been addressed or are justifiable under the code.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for your comments,
Commissioner Barnett. Any other comments? Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I am a little bit on the
fence with all of this. Coming into this I think that this is a nonconforming lot. It’s small, but reduced setbacks were not a huge problem as far as I was concerned. I was a little bit surprised to hear so many neighbors commenting on that and FAR, especially when so much of the
neighborhood does exceed the FAR and does not have regular setbacks.

So, from that perspective I don’t see a huge
issue with approving the application. I do wonder though about the below grade square footage, is that really in lieu of above grade square footage?
I understand the COVID situation, and being new
to the neighborhood I completely understand, it just is unfortunate that it puts us in a position where we’re in