Los Gatos City Council
April 5, 2022

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
between two parties because of the situation. I know that part of our job is mediating, so I am interested to hear what suggestions Chair Janoff and Commissioner Hanssen
have, because you’ve been doing this longer than the rest of us.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I should clarify that my
comments were more directed at a continuance than they were at denying the application. I think at the end of the day the application has merit, but I don’t feel like the proper due diligence has been done with the neighbors, and I
recognize the complications of COVID, but we’ve seen so many other hearings in the last year-and-a-half where they managed to figure out a way to connect with the neighbors on Zoom or on a phone call or something like that, so I would feel better about approving this and the exceptions if that step had been done, and could be done as a follow up to this meeting, to at least go over the plans with the neighbors, and I think they’ll find that most of those
concerns are actually addressed, but some of those
neighbors didn’t even come and speak tonight, so I would be in favor of a continuance to give them time to speak to those other neighbors that are opposing, and that would be my recommendation.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: I’ll add onto that. You’re
correct, Commissioner Thomas, our job is in some cases to mediate, but it is not make a decision perhaps in a vacuum, so I think what Commissioners Raspe, Tavana, and Barnett are saying is it’s important, that this is a project that technically has many merits and it has the endorsement of the consulting architect, it helps the parking because of the driveway length and the conforming garage, so it’s
helping in those respects.

I don’t have an issue with the nonconforming
setbacks; it seems to be standard in the neighborhood
because these are exceptionally small lots, and how are you going to fit what you need to fit onto them without some exceptions, so I don’t have an issue with that.

I did have a bit of an issue with height. It’s
difficult for me to understand from the information we have from the architect. Story poles give you just sort of a basic data point, but we don’t have the kind of elevation renderings that we often get at the Planning Commission where we can really see the articulation of a design and you sort of get a little more perspective on where your mass is articulated, forward or backward, so you begin to see the impact it might have on some of the neighboring structures, and I think that’s important for us to see. I’m

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
in favor of the project as it is, but I think it would be very helpful, especially for the neighbors, to be able to see how the massing of the proposed project looks. It looks so flat from these illustrations that we have; it’s really difficult.

Having said all that, I think it’s very
important, especially in a neighborhood that’s this tight physically and emotionally, you’ve got a lot of friendships yet to come, for the Applicants to reach out to their
neighbors, see if compromise can be made. It may be that that is not possible, but at least show that you’ve
respected your neighbors and your neighborhood and get a little feedback from them. It may change the position of a window in the master bedroom so that your neighbor on that side doesn’t feel privacy has been infringed.

I’m actually in favor of the project, as three
Commissioners have noted, but I would like to see more
outreach to the neighborhood to make this really a
neighborhood-accepted project. I think having some harmony in the neighborhood rather than controversy is probably a good thing.

I would be in favor of Commissioner Hanssen’s
request for a continuance in order for the neighborhood outreach to be developed, and then we can hear whether that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
outreach has resulted in any changes to the plan, large or small, at a continued meeting.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Thomas, then I saw
Commissioner Clark as well. Go ahead, Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you. I agree with
everything that was just said, Chair Janoff, and I also am in support of a continuance.

I think that there are some cases where it might
be difficult for the neighbors to articulate specific
changes that they’re asking for, and if that’s the case and the Applicant can bring that to us, and we’ve been in
support of the project thus far, and we don’t have any very specific feedback about changes, then I don’t see why we can’t move on with a continuance.

I have really appreciated Mr. Plett’s ability to
verbally communicate and answer many of the questions that we’ve had, but it was difficult in person at the site and on paper to really visualize with these visuals that we have. He was correcting us a couple of times, we were
getting clarifications on things, and we spent a lot of time with these materials, so I think also getting some better renderings and having a better idea of what the mass and scale actually is on the property will hopefully allow

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the neighbors to come to agreement or feel more comfortable with the project moving forward.

I just wanted to say that I’ve appreciated the
clarifications tonight and I think that a few more things just need to be clarified and one last attempt to come to some agreement on a few things, so I’m in support of a
continuance.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you, Commissioner Thomas.

Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, Chair Janoff.

Just a couple of additions to what was said. I do agree that the outreach was not done to the extent that it needs to be, and it honestly sounds like the Applicant wasn’t aware that it’s very important and normal to go door-todoor and actually talk to their neighbors, and so I do think it would be important to give them the opportunity to do that and to try to address those concerns with their neighbors, because it would be really sad to see
relationships with neighbors hurt through this, and once the house goes up just there being resentment around that.

I think it would be nice to give them some time, see if there’s anything that they’re able to explain to neighbors, and then also maybe there are some really minor changes

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that they’d be able to make that would make other people feel a lot better.

I agree it helps the parking situation, it was
built with a lot of intention, and I like the design as it is, but I think that there should be more outreach before I’m comfortable approving it.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for your comments,
Commissioner Clark, and I did want to just clarify that when we recommend further outreach, it doesn’t need to be face-to-face. If the Applicant and neighbors are concerned regarding face-to-face communication given COVID, please make an attempt to provide phone numbers or emails, but it’s so much better to talk than do the emailing thing, so you could certainly distribute a flyer to your neighbors and say, “Please give us a call. We’d like to hear from you.” So again, it doesn’t have to be face-to-face. It can be if you want to have a street meeting; that might be
interesting, but having said that, do I have any other
comments from Commissioners? Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: I have a concern about
continuing this tonight and the fact that it could open up… I want to see if we can maybe limit the scope of the
continuance just to neighborhood outreach as opposed to rereviewing the whole entire project as a whole. I think that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
would be unfair to the Applicants tonight. They came all this way to present to us, we’ve been discussing this for an hour-and-a-half, and we’ve just continued it for
neighborhood outreach, which I do believe they did do.

Folks that we did hear tonight are not part of the
immediate neighborhood. So, is there a way we can just
limit the scope of the continuance tonight is my question? CHAIR JANOFF: I think we can do that. Staff?
JOEL PAULSON: You definitely can limit the scope
to whatever is in motion. That doesn’t mean that that’s all that may get discussed, but I think that direction might be helpful just so folks know where the Commission is if
that’s where they’re interested in going.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: What my intent was by
suggesting this, and I’ll stop short of making the motion at the moment, was to limit the scope of this to simply extending the neighborhood outreach to at least the eight people that signed that letter, and anyone else that had written in, and anyone else that’s in the immediate
neighborhood as we defined it by the Town Residential
Design Guidelines if they haven’t already been spoken to.

I’m not suggesting that they have to meet the
requirements of those neighbors, but if there’s something

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that’s reasonable… I’ll just give an example. If the
neighbor says, “I don’t think houses should exceed FAR,” and there’s no harm that can be demonstrated because of it, that might not be a good feedback, that’s your opinion but it isn’t a harm that you’re experiencing, so what I would envision is having some dialogue, doesn’t have to be faceto-face, limited to the immediate neighborhood, and I’m assuming that all the people that signed that letter were in the immediate neighborhood.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for that clarification.

I would just like to add, for those who may not know, that the Residential Design Guidelines define “immediate
neighborhood” as the two houses to the left and right of the property and the five houses across the street from the property, so those would be the primary outreach homes. I don’t recall whether the eight names on the letter were all on Olive or from other areas, so we would want the focus to be on those 2-2-5 houses in particular.

I think it’s clear from the discussion tonight
that the Commission is generally in favor of the project as provided but that we would like to see some renderings so that we can get a better understanding of it, and that
those renderings may help neighbors better understand what they’re looking at over the story poles, and that we would

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
not be expecting wholesale design changes. These would be minor modifications that would help neighbors feel more comfortable with the design proposed. With that,
Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Based on all the
discussions that we’ve just heard, I would make a motion to continue this hearing for a period of 30 days or more to allow the Applicant to reach out to the neighborhood as has been described by Chair Janoff, and also that the
additional elevations be provided; I think that would be helpful.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for that motion. Do I
have a second? Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I second the motion.

CHAIR JANOFF: Thank you for that. Any comments
regarding the motion on the table? Director Paulson.

JOEL PAULSON: I would just suggest that we do a
date certain of February 9th. If they’re not ready then, then we can continue it to the next meeting.

CHAIR JANOFF: Is that modification to the motion
acceptable to the maker and the seconder of the motion? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It is to me.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: (Makes thumbs up motion.)

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2022
Item #2, 118 Olive Street
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR JANOFF: All right, with that then, I don’t
see any hands raised to further discuss, so I’ll call the question. By roll call vote please indicate yes, no, or abstain. Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Tavana.

COMMISSIONER TAVANA: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: And Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR JANOFF: I vote yes as well, so the motion
to continue this matter for 30 days or to a date certain as Director Paulson has provided is approved. Director
Paulson, there are no appeal rights for a continuance, are there?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct. There are not.

CHAIR JANOFF: All right, thank you.

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: 02/09/2022
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: February 4, 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:

On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the application and continued the matter to February 9, 2022. 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.

Following the meeting of January 12, 2022, the applicant provided updates to staff of their continued neighbor outreach efforts (Exhibit 14). Additionally, the applicant provided a rendering showing the exterior of the residence (Exhibit 15).

STORY POLES:

The installed story poles have remained in place on the site. The project sign was updated to reflect the February 9, 2022, Planning Commission meeting.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

At the time of this report’s preparation, the Town has not received any public comment.

ATTACHMENT 4

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: February 4, 2022
CONCLUSION:

A. Summary
The applicant has submitted a summary of their continued neighbor outreach and a threedimensional rendering at the direction of the Planning Commission.

B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis in the January 12, 2022, Staff Report and the additional information provided by the applicant, 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.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: February 4, 2022
CONCLUSION (continued):

C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Planning Commission can:
a. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or b. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or c. Deny the application.

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
Received with the January 12, 2022 Addendum Report:

12. Applicant’s response to public comments

13. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022
Received with this Staff Report:

14. Neighborhood outreach summary

15. Three-dimensional rendering

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

From: thomas reichert <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2022 4:03 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Jay Plett <[email protected]> Subject: 118 Olive Planning Commission Follow up

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean,
Thank you for the call to discuss follow up steps based on the January 12th planning commission direction for a continuance until February 9th. As part of the follow up, see notes on our outreach efforts:
• As of this evening, January 13, 2022 we sent a note (see below for content of note) to the direct neighborhood sphere as well as those signing the opposition letter Dated December 17th, 2021. This note included our personal contact information and an invitation to our home to discuss the project in plain view of the project.

Included in the distribution is the following (hand delivered):
• 114, 116, 120, 122, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135. 107, 108, 110 and 121 Olive • 546 San Benito (believe they may also be the owner of 122 olive, but left 2 separate invitations)
• 630 San Benito (home owner of 116 Olive)
• 19330 Overlook Rd (home owner of 116 Olive)
Additionally, specifically for 19330 Overlook Rd I was able to obtain their phone number from a mutual neighbor and have called to leave a voicemail and sent a text message to relay contact information.

Note that went out (also included was our family holiday card):
"Dear Neighbors,
You are invited to join for a meet and greet with the new residents of 118 Olive St.: Thomas and Meredith Reichert and their Family. We have lived here for the past year and would love to meet and share our proposed project to expand our current home to meet the needs of our family. We plan to be out front of our home on Monday January 17th and Friday January 28th around 530p if you’re available to join. If you prefer to email, call or text, my contact is below:
[email protected] (858)449-4536
Sincerely,
The Reichert Family "
--
Thomas M. Reichert
EXHIBIT 14

maintain the property in its current zoning conditions. We discussed how the neighborhood has many examples of variances, including those who signed the opposition letter, but continued his position.

Overall we learned he likes the project and design, but would prefer if we had no variances. He also mentioned he wished there was more outreach earlier in the project- one area we think in retrospect would have been great advice to take. Our architect mentioned it to us early, but we as new owners and first time home renovators didn’t realize the impacts. The Planning Commission's advice to extend to give us this additional time really did help us to engage further and give adequate time to discuss with our neighbors. Another topic which was discussed that night was our driveway length, some concerns about us having less than 20’. The next morning we were able to get a measurement from the garage to the sidewalk and measured it at 20’-4”, We believe this clarification helps ease these concerns, but we weren't able to discuss it at the time we all met. In our initial analysis of the neighborhood variances we didn't call out driveway compliance, if we did, appears to be one of many homes which doesn't have a 20' clearance. Additionally, we didn't note that this home has an entry stairway that appears to be within 10' of the front setback because we were only reviewing Olive St homes.

Pam ( Olive)- She continued to stay neutral on her position on the project. She was helpful to keep the conversation as friendly as possible and provided a good neighborly fabric for us all to align with positivity.

Mark/Christie ( Olive)- They continued their support for the project. One point at the beginning of the meeting we really appreciated their positive support of the project because it felt very much like we were being teamed up against. As mentioned the meeting ended up much better than where it started.

Jim ( Olive)- He joined the meeting after most others left, but came and shared that he supported our project as long as we don’t use the contractor from the Olive project.

Eric ( Olive resident)- He also joined late, but continues to share his support for the project.

Additionally he confirmed what we believed in regards to Lynn ( Olive Owner at ) that she has now supports our project, but has general concerns about the neighborhood being able to maintain its character in the long term.

In summary of the 2+2 on each side and 5 across from our project during the extension by Planning Commission:
114, 116, 129 and 132 support the project
120 and 122 like the project, but don’t agree with the variances and blocking views 127 and 135 have not participated in the outreach
133 remains neutral
We believe the additional time to meet the neighbors was a positive recommendation and that we used that time to engage with the intent of the extension. We suggest the proposed change above the garage to a roof be accepted by the Planning Commission as part of the good faith discussions to take feedback from the neighbors. We don’t believe any changes to the variances would be necessary given the Planning Commission's instruction to limit the scope of the extension, the examples given of the immediate neighborhood which also have similar setbacks and FAR’s (which were considered as part of the Planning Department recommendation for approval and inline with the the Town's zoning code which allows for variances on these specific types of non-conforming lots and fits the neighborhood streetscape), as well as an understanding from the neighbors that they acknowledged the intention of our meetings would likely not result in significant changes.

Thank you
-Thomas Reichert
PS.

FYI. See follow up note we plan to distribute to the neighbors who came on Friday:
"Hi Neighbors,
It was great to meet you at our house on Friday. We wanted to confirm that we heard your concerns. It’s our intention to be mindful of our design and keep in line with the context of the neighborhood.

Specifically we understand that there are many homes on this block that exceed the FAR and setback exceptions, we looked at each of these categories and chose to not be the largest, tallest or closest in any position to ensure that any future precedence would not impact greater growth that what already exists on the block, yet still allow families to grow in an environment with rising housing costs and shortages. We will continue to suggest the patio above the garage be changed to a roof to maintain the privacy of our direct neighbor. We also wanted to clarify that our driveway will functionally be designed to be more than 20’, which was highly discussed to ensure we have a driveway and a garage space.

Lastly, while we know there were several other topics, we would urge you to reach out to us if you would like to discuss further.

Thank you
Thomas, Meredith and Family"

EXHIBIT 15

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

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: 02/09/2022
ITEM NO: 2

DESK ITEM
DATE: February 9, 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 16 includes an updated three-dimensional rendering with added dimensions. Exhibit 18 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2022, including one comment that was erroneously not included in the staff report packet. Exhibit 17 includes the applicant’s response to the additional public comments.

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 5

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: February 9, 2022
EXHIBITS (continued):

Received with the January 12, 2022 Addendum Report:

12. Applicant’s response to public comments

13. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, January 7, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, January 11, 2022
Received with the February 9, 2022 Staff Report:

14. Neighborhood outreach summary

15. Three-dimensional rendering
Received with this Desk Item Report:

16. Three-dimensional rendering with dimensions

17. Applicant’s response to public comments

18. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2022 and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 9, 2022

PL
PL
PL
PL
19'-0" 15'-0"
15'-0"
10'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
28'-0"
EXHIBIT 16

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

From: thomas reichert <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 9:12 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Jay Plett <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 118 Olive - Public Comments

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean,
Thanks for sending this public comment. Going into the meeting tonight we realize there may not be enough time allotted to speak, so we’ll summarize a few thoughts after reviewing this additional information.

First, we appreciate the open nature of the process for neighbors to be able to share concerns.

In our Planning Commission meeting last month they asked us All to discuss the project as neighbors- in person would be ideal, but phone or e-mail would work. We personally reached out with a letter to each household identified, shared our personal contact information, hosted two meetings at our home and had follow up letters suggesting our openness to any further direct contact to discuss. We supplied a summary of all the discussions that took place to the Planning Department for reference (as accurate as possible knowing it would be open to public scrutiny) for anyone to review.

We wanted to call out one specific item with the recent public comment letter. Understanding everyone is entitled to voice their opinions, there was one comment that was expressed which was different from our interpretation in regard to the meeting at our home on Jan 28th with Jim from 110 Olive. After reading the public comment, which we had a separate conversation with Jim we were immediately concerned that he may have been offended about our outreach attempt. Just in case, we wanted to make sure Jim didn’t not share the perspective in the public comment. We reached out to connect directly with him last night at his home where he confirmed we didn’t offend him during our meeting on Jan 28th and that he is still good with our proposed project given our feedback. Furthermore, suggested we ignore the representation from the public comment in regard to the negative impact of that letter. We are very aware some neighbors may choose to change their mind or avoid potential conflict, but are pointing out that all our interactions with Jim continue to be positive.

Not specific to the public comment submitted, but to clarify some of the history of the planning process we have up to this point:

We originally submitted the home as a renovation project. As we moved further along the process with Planning Department it became clear they were ready to proceed to with a recommendation for Planning Commission, but we started to discuss pros and cons of a project of this scale to either be a new build vs saving 50% of the structure to fall under specific guidelines for renovation. At this point we grew concerned that unexpected costs from delays, wood dry rot or other unknown issues may be outweighed by doing a new build. We engaged EXHIBIT 17

Planning to understand that we could potentially keep the design exactly the same as if we were planning a renovation, but make concessions as if it were a new build: add fire sprinklers, lose gas powered appliances, underground utilities, etc. This wasn’t a straightforward or easy decision, the cost of renovating a home and building a basement while maintaining the structure with understanding the overall impact and disruptions to the neighbors while we either lift or roll the existing structure to the back of the lot for months while we dig a basement. All to say, we made compromises to our intentions, thinking about overall impacts to the neighbors and project costs which ultimately plays into our feasibility to expand the house for our growing family.

Our current design for a new home is EXACTLY the same as it was when we had recommended approval for a renovation (except the placement of one window). The design keeps the house in the EXACT same setting as it sits today, with only 2 small difference- (1) garage is bumped out to be compliant and help with parking and (2) we have a small room added to the front which adds visual appeal/street presence scale so the massing of the house isn't a large flat 2 story. To add, the design brings massing off of the second story and maintains most of the volume on the ground floor which intentionally is meant to be part of the neighborhood context.

In regard to the front setback: the front is set back similar to the context of the neighbors. If we tried to move the whole house back it would limit the already small area for our kids to play in back and we want to respect the back neighbor’s privacy by not getting closer to their property.

One of the questions that we haven’t heard a strong case for yet based on the discussion to this point: How does our use of the FAR or setbacks impact the other homes for this lot and context? Specifically citing, the code allows these exceptions for this use case and there are so many examples in the immediate neighbors that have similar exceptions, including those who signed the public comment of opposition. It was not clear to us what issue would be solved by making an adjustment to our plan that wasn’t readily part of the fabric of many of the adjacent homes. We believe that Town Planning Commission and the Planning Department with their consulting architect considered all the details in recommending our plan for approval.

A bit long winded here, apologies. Just wanted to write since the time to discuss may be very limited during the actual session.

Thank you,
The Reichert's

From: Andrea Galatea < >
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2022 2:12 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Proposed project at 118 Olive Street, Los Gatos

EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Sean,
My name is Andrea Galatea and I have resided at , Los Gatos for several years. . is next door to the proposed project at 118 Olive St. I am writing to let you and the planning commission know that I am definitely not in support of the proposed project.

Please feel free to email me should you have any questions, and I would be happy to elaborate. Best, Andrea Galatea
EXHIBIT 18

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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:

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

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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 HANSSEN: We can move on to the public
hearing portion of the meeting and we will be going to
Agenda Item #2, which is requesting approval for the
demolition of an existing single-family residence and
construction of a new single-family residence to exceed the floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side yard setbacks on a nonconforming property zoned R-1D. This is 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. Our project planner is Sean Mullin.

This agenda item is a continuation from our
January 12, 2022 Planning Commission meeting, however, I will still ask if there are any disclosures that any
Commissioners need to make from the time that we had our last meeting? And are there any Commissioners that visited the site since the last meeting? All right, we have no
disclosures, so we can move on to the Staff Report. Mr.

Mullin, will you be giving a Staff Report?
JENNIFER ARMER: I will be making the
presentation on behalf of Mr. Mullin this evening. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
The item before you, as was just stated, is a
continuation of your discussion on January 12th. At that meeting the Planning Commission considered the application and directed the Applicant to continue neighbor outreach efforts and contact neighbors that expressed concerns, and provide a three-dimensional rendering of the proposed
residence.

In addition to the information that was provided,
in response to these two items as Exhibits 14 and 15 for your Staff Report, a Desk Item was also provided today with revised three-dimensional rendering with dimensions,
additional public comments, and the Applicant’s response to public comments.

This concludes Staff’s presentation, but we would
be happy to answer any questions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have
questions for Staff at this time? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair, and just
one quick clarification. Nothing substantively has changed in the plans since we last discussed it, is that correct? JENNIFER ARMER: That’s correct. It really was
just doing the additional outreach and providing the
additional information rendering that was requested.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for Staff? I had one quick question about the Desk Item, and that was we had a couple comments that came in and I was curious as to whether or not those commenters were part of the group that we asked the Applicant to
address that hadn’t spoken previously on the item?
JENNIFER ARMER: I’ve not gone back and compared
the names, but I think we can ask that of the Applicant to let us know whether that those are people that they had previously reached out to.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good, thank you. If no other
Commissioners have questions, then I will move on to the Applicant, and the Applicant is able to address the
Commission for up to five minutes.

JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Plett, you can unmute yourself
and begin your presentation.

JAY PLETT: Good evening, Commission Members. Per
the instruction that we received we submitted a threedimensional diagram of the structure, and we submitted a Desk Item that depicts the various dimensions from property line that shows that this is not a flat façade of any kind that might have been conveyed through just a flat
elevation. There is a lot of depth and back and forth on the façade of this house.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
The change though that you spoke of, the balcony
over the garage, that is shown removed in the threedimensional depiction that you have as a Desk Item, so that shows a sloping shed roof over the garage in lieu of the balcony that was there.

We also did conduct further outreach to the
neighbors and they were able to walk around the property, invited onto the property, could view the story poles close up, and have the discussion with the owners of the
property.

I’ll turn it over to Thomas Reichert now to talk
about the one specific neighbor.

THOMAS REICHERT: I think the question was
specific around the people who signed the current letter. I believe that there is only one person that signed it that did not show up, and that was 108 Olive. I had not talked about it here previously or to this point at all. Everyone else who signed it I believe participated in the previous one as well as showed up to the second open house to
discuss the project.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Are you finished with your
comments?
JAY PLETT: Yes. we’re open for questions.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Of course, and I will ask if the
Commission has any questions for the Applicant?
Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. That was a very
brief presentation, but I’m curious to know from the
property owner what you included in your item; we have a summary of the outreach. Can you summarize the summary and let us know whether in your opinion you were able to
assuage neighbors’ concerns? You made a change to the plans by moving the balcony. Can you just give us a quick update on whether you found this to be an action that moves your project along in the direction you had hoped?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s a great question, and I
would say the overall takeaway was it was nice to meet the new neighbors, or as the new neighbors to meet everyone, so I think that was really a positive point in the
participation. Everyone who came in that second session was someone who I had not met since moving in. Because it was during COVID we hadn’t met any of those neighbors and they had also not reached out to us as the new neighbors, so it was nice to have this happening to discuss that.

Another point outside of that, more to your
question was I think there was some clarity brought,
because not everyone is familiar with reading plans, so

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
when you see it just on 2-D paper. One of the specifics was people thought we were going for more build, higher build, more side build, more front build, and when they came and they looked and could see it and we could discuss it in person, the fact that we weren’t going for the maximum
height, the fact that we weren’t going for full length, two-story, all the way across, those were points that we came to a little bit of clarity on.

I think some of the issues with parking and the
fact that we were asking for exemptions were points that no one changed their opinions on, but that became very clear on the sticking points that we didn’t necessarily agree with.

CHAIR HANSSEN: So that answers your question,
Commissioner Janoff. Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Continuing on that vein, I
tried to summarize your summary, and is it correct that you had four neighbors who were unconditionally in favor of the application and one neutral?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct. There are only
two addresses within the 5+2+2 that are opposed. It’s the two neighbors I believe to the west, 120 and 122, which is

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
the vacant lot. All of the other neighbors were either
neutral or supporting, that’s correct.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: And as to those who did not
support, their concerns were primarily the variances and blocking views?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct. I didn’t touch
on the point that there was positive feedback on the fact that we were switching from the balcony to the roof. Again, didn’t dissuade the sticking points, but that was the whole point of common ground.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, that answers my
questions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I had just a clarifying question.

In the Desk Item today there was a couple of letters, and in the first one a person basically said, “I wanted to make sure that you knew that I was not in support of the
project.” I didn’t have time to go and check to where it was relative to the last hearing. Had that person
previously voiced their disapproval of the project?
THOMAS REICHERT: Correct. I think you’re talking
about Jim, the neighbor at 110 Olive?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Well, they blocked out the
address; that was part of the problem.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
THOMAS REICHERT: Jim signed both letters, and
each time after he signed the letter I asked him what his concern was, and both times he said that it was a
combination of parking and the contractor selection. I
don't pretend know what he signed with the letter, but to me, both times he said he’s fine with it as long as we are good with this parking situation and not using that
contractor that worked on the project next door to him.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Good. I think that cleared it up.

I felt like you did a very thorough job of documenting all the interactions you had and reaching out to the people. I wanted to make sure there weren’t people coming out of the woodwork that we didn’t know about before.

THOMAS REICHERT: There was one person who did
not continue signing the letter; the person who owns 116 Olive refrained from resigning the newsletter.

CHAIR HANSSEN: All right, very good. I think
that answers my question. Do any of the Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? We will have another chance after public comments, if we have any.

We will move on to public comments, and this
would be a time for any member of the public to speak about this item on the agenda. Do we have anyone that would like to speak on this item?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Anyone from the
public that wishes to speak on this item, please raise your hand. We will have the telephone number ending in 1501
speak first.

SHELLI BAKER: Good evening, Planning Commission,
this is Shelli Baker, owner of 120 Olive Street here again.

As a reminder, our property is directly next-door on the west side of the proposed home to the left, and
understandably the most effected.

As noted at the last meeting, our expansive
mountain view will be completely blocked and we will be looking out of our living room, kitchen, dining, and master bedroom windows at tall walls. These same areas will loose their incredible natural lighting, as will our entire back yard, as confirmed in the shadow study provided.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing we can do about this.

But, it gets even worse. The proposed exception
of reducing the side setback from 5 feet to 3 feet is
preposterous, especially when considering the stitch
piering process taking place just that much closer to our 80 year old constructed home on a sloped lot with sump
pumps underneath. Given the research we’ve done, the stitch piering process is going to shake the heck out of our home

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
no matter what, but even more so if this reduced side
setback exception is granted.

Additionally, the elevation of the rear, exterior
walk-out decking requires clarity, as it appears that the submitted architectural renderings don’t clearly depict the height. If I am guessing accurately, not only will our
kitchen, dining, and back yard lack natural lighting, they will lack cherished privacy as well.

We were not able to walk the property the evening
that we visited. It was 5:30 Friday night, it was very
cold, it became dark, and we had some interruptions as well that did prevent us from even going down the side yard into the back yard at all. Didn’t even come across the radar.

If this proposed plan is approved as is it will
be the beginning of the end for Olive Street as we know it.

The narrowest street with the tiniest lots in Los Gatos, every cottage sale hereafter will be viewed as a tear-down, land value, and as they turn over, more overbuilt homes with exceptions galore, will prevail. That’s beginning the domino effect. I believe in hindsight the Town and Planning Commissioner will regret their hastiness in needlessly
granting these types of exceptions to the rules that were set in place for valid reasons, but it will be too late and

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
those who have lived here and loved their homes will be the ones who have suffered.

As with most, our homes are our livelihood.

Planning Commissioners, we ask that you put yourselves in our shoes, in our homes, and try to feel the situation as it really is. Imagine if this were happening in your world on your street, or even next door to your home. The
important decisions you make here regarding 118 Olive
Street will set a new precedent and expectations for the future owners and/or builders on Olive Street.

That’s what I have to say this evening. I could
say more, but thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I’d
like to ask if any Commissioners have questions for Ms.

Baker? I don’t see any hands raised. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, the next speaker will be
Bonnie Hurwitz. Bonnie, you can unmute yourself and then you can speak.

BONNIE HURWITZ: Thank you for allowing me to
speak this evening. I agree with a good deal of what Shelli said. A couple of areas of clarification.

The gentleman that owns the property at 108 Olive
is a surgeon and he’s often on call, so he’s unfortunately

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
unable to attend these calls, but he did sign both letters, and I just want to make sure you know that it’s not for lack of interest in the topic that he’s not on the call.

As for what Shelli said, I did attend the
outreach meeting. We were not invited to walk the property, as she said. Initially it was very nice to meet the two owners of the property, Meredith and Thomas, but shortly after we convened there, yes, it was 5:30; yes, it started to get dark; yes, it become cold, but we also were
interrupted by a neighbor that intervened and interrupted the conversation and didn’t allow a productive conversation to proceed, unfortunately, so that neighbor didn’t do any good service to the ensuing possibly productive
communication that could have happened that evening. As a result, I have to admit it really was a bit of a waste of time, but on the other hand, neither was that neighbor told to please be quiet and take his viewpoint someplace else. I left there feeling that it was a decent attempt, but I got nothing really out of the meeting. Again, we weren’t asked to walk the property.

When I looked at the meeting, the renderings that
I saw originally, in my view and I’m not an architect, it looks like a tear-down to me. It does not look like any kind of addition being addressed there. They’re going to

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
just dismantle the entire property, and basically when I was asking questions about the garage and the property
itself, the feeling I got when I walked away that evening was that they pretty much said we know what we want, and I get that, they know what they want, and they asked for what they wanted and nobody told them they couldn’t do it. There was no pushback. They asked for what they wanted and it was a bunch of checkmarks on a bunch of boxes, and check,
check, check and off they went. So, that’s why they
proceeded with the renderings that you guys are all seeing today. They asked for everything and nobody said no, so I agree with what Shelli has said.

And by the way, on the prior call, my
recollection was that one of the Commissioners, I don’t recall who, said this area was in transition. This area, if you ask some of the local owners, it’s not in transition and many of us have owned our properties for a long time and we intend to stay. I, for one, have owned my property for 18 years, and I bought it as a single person, and I intend to stay. Thank you very much.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you so much for your
comments. I’d like to ask if any Commissioners have
questions for Ms. Hurwitz. Vice Chair Barnett does.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: As I understand, there were
two opportunities to meet with the owners, and I was
wondering if you attended both of those or just the one where it got dark and cold and you weren’t asked to view the property?
BONNIE HURWITZ: It was the second meeting and I
had some personal medical thing to attend to on the prior call, so I wasn’t able to attend the first meeting, but I attended the second one when I felt better. If you need to know that, that’s the case and that’s the truth.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I understand that. Thank
you.

BONNIE HURWITZ: You know, the fact that it’s
convenient for the neighbor, it’s not necessarily
convenient for everybody else.

CHAIR HANSSEN: We thank you for your comments,
and I think you answered Vice Chair Barnett’s question.

Staff, is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item. I saw a couple hands.

JOEL PAULSON: Yes. The next speaker will be
Keith White.

KEITH WHITE: Thank you for the opportunity to
speak. When my wife and I owned 120 Olive Street about
which Shelli Baker spoke earlier, when we were looking at

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
buying 120 Olive Street we spent a lot of time researching the neighborhood, looking into the neighborhood to see what was going on, and trying to imagine what changes we could expect going forward in the future.

It was mostly made up of a lot of smaller homes,
some remodels. Our house had been remodeled prior to us purchasing it. It’s a very narrow street, very quaint, and we thought this would be great for us for now, and the
change we could see would be some amount of turnover, some amount of remodels.

We went so far looking into it as to review the
building codes and go down the Building Department and ask them what could be expected, what rules would be followed, and we were fairly much assured that the Town was a
stickler for the rules and making sure that everybody
follows them. And yet, here we are 20 years later, and it’s not just the neighborhood changing, it’s actually the house right next door, which we expected; but we didn’t expect that it wouldn’t follow all of the rules, and specifically the front and side setbacks are the ones that concern us most as those have the greatest impact on our property
specifically, but also the floor area ratio being exceeded, because we expected it to be smaller homes would remain the norm.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
So, the rules as they were and the rules as they
still are, just not being followed, doesn’t seem to be
reasonable to me and I ask you why that’s not the case? Why not follow the rules? I don’t fault the new owners, who seem to be very nice and their architect has done a great job presenting a nice home, but it isn’t that much
different to just follow the rules and this problem would go away.

That’s my concern. Thank you very much for the
time.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. Do
any Commissioners have questions for Mr. White? I don’t see any hands raised, so thank you for your comments. Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, there is. The next speaker
will be Darren Carroll.

DARREN CARROLL: First thing, just quick
clarification, both meetings I think were at the same time, at 5:30, so the getting dark and cold was the same thing.

The other thing is we weren’t invited to walk
around the house or anything of the sort.

And thirdly, we were not privy to any additional
information as we had assumed was part of the direction from the Planning Commission to provide additional

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
renderings. Nothing was offered. No full size plans, no renderings, no sketches, no nothing.

Then I’ll read as quickly as I can here. Olive
Street is a charming neighborhood with older, smaller homes on a very narrow street. Unfortunately, several of the
characteristics that made this a nice neighborhood are also the character (inaudible).

Parking is abysmal. Garages are often not used as
intended and driveways are rarely used for more than one car, so ultimately the overflow turns into a game of
musical chairs for the permitted parking on Olive Street.

The losers end up on San Benito Avenue, and the residents of San Benito that are not allowed to park on Olive Street have no place to park. This is especially difficult for those of us that have family members that are aged,
handicapped, or have health issues. Therefore, every effort should be made to lessen the impact of the situation by enforcing a full-length driveway that is not including the public right-of-way, and installing the car lift that is on the plans.

The homes are very close together and the
Applicant had a choice to remodel a cute home that allows setbacks consistent with that home and therefore the
neighborhood, or to demolish the home and build in an

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
entirely different direction. The Applicant has chosen the latter, yet proposes building a house that does not follow either of those criteria, and even requests several
unnecessary variances. There are no inherent, compelling, or logical reasons why this needs to be. Incidentally,
there has not been another home on Olive Street that was demolished and then built.

Very slight modifications to the plan bring the
home back in line with the rules and lessen the concerns many neighbors have without significantly changing the
design or integrity. Simply moving the house 5 feet back from the property line and 2 feet to the east for the
garage will alleviate neighborhood concerns as well as
solve the problematic, sub-standard length driveway.

As for the size of the house, a nonconforming lot
is given the benefit of a higher floor area ratio than a conforming lot to compensate for its size. This home not only takes advantage of that, but it exceeds it by 308
square feet, or 23%. The building of a basement that did not count allowable coverage was originally implemented specifically to help nonconforming lots lessen the
neighborhood impacts, not as an absolute or an addition to substantially passing allowable coverage, as this house proposes.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
There have been a few comments about the
participants being nice people, having kids that play
together, or about helping families as reasons why this house should be approved or given special treatment. These are all nice sentiments that truly have no bearing on the situation. Any form of favoritism should not weigh in or be a consideration any differently than if a decision was
based on age, sex, race, or marital status, none of which are allowed. No one is telling these people that they can’t build a house. The point is they should build a house that follows the rules just like thousands of others in this town have adhered to, and hopefully with a little respect and consideration to the neighborhood and its concerned residents, we will all benefit. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Is that all of your comments?
DARREN CARROLL: I hope so.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. It was very thorough.

I just wanted to make sure you were done.

DARREN CARROLL: The point being, if you’d allow
me just one second here, that that meeting served no
purpose. We had no suggestions for compromise or solution.

It was interrupted. We were not allowed to discuss
anything, and we were provided no additional information to help process the thoughts or make any determinations or

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
suggestions, or perhaps even consider the fact that some of us may have been wrong about something. There were no
renderings, which is something that I believe was
instructed by the Commission, and no mention of that. No full size plans, no survey, no color drawings, no walking around saying see, this is where it actually is.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I think we’ve gotten to your
three minutes.

DARREN CARROLL: I’ve made my point. Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Yes, and thank you for that. I’m
going to ask if any Commissioners have questions for you, and it looks like Commissioner Janoff has a question.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Darren, can you
please restate your address?
DARREN CARROLL: I own the house at 546 San
Benito Avenue, which technically shouldn’t be involved with this, because I’m not in that parking district, and 122 Olive Street.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Do any other
Commissioners have questions for the speaker? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Is it your position that the
setbacks for this proposed house must be in strict

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
accordance with the code? I thought you might have said something to the contrary.

DARREN CARROLL: I don’t understand why they
can’t be, because it’s not going to change the integrity or the design of the house by meeting the code. It would
follow the rules. If they want to remodel it, follow those rules. If they want to build new, follow those. I’m not opposed to either one; I just think there has to be
consistency here, because I think that’s what the rules are for, first off. Second of all, the exact reasons that
Shelli Baker and Bonnie Hurwitz mentioned, that once these people get five exceptions to the rules or variances the next guy comes down the road and says, “Well, I just need one more,” so pretty soon we’re going to…
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: You’ve responded to my
question. I appreciate that answer.

DARREN CARROLL: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you. Staff, is there anyone
else that wants to speak on this item?
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Anyone else from
the public that wishes to speak on this item, please raise your hand. I don’t see any other hands raised, Chair.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Then we will go back
to the Applicant, and the Applicant has up to three minutes to respond to any of the comments that were just made.

JOEL PAULSON: Mr. Plett, you can unmute
yourself, and you have up to three minutes.

THOMAS REICHERT: I just wanted to say thanks for
everyone who commented from the public. I also wanted to point out that yes; we invited people to our home. Those were not the only two opportunities everyone had. We gave everyone our phone number, our email, and invited them to two times that worked for us. We didn’t receive any other form of communication other than the one time they all came together at once at the second meeting, so there was no other outreach. If they had felt that the information they needed wasn’t properly provided, they could have reached out to consume or gather than information.

I also want to point out we didn’t necessarily
have all the doors and gates open at the house, but also no one asked to walk to the back yard. They did walk to the side yard from the neighbor’s spot, some of them did. They were on our property looking at the flags. No one asked for the plans. We had them all in the house. We talked for more than an hour, and at not one point did someone ask to see them; I had them right inside the door.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
I heard some of the public comments talking about
variances. We’re not asking for any variances, we’re asking for two exceptions per the code that specifically allow us these types of exceptions for nonconforming lots.

And we’re consistent with the neighborhood. I
just wanted to point out one specific thing with Shelli and Keith’s home, which they talk about our setbacks and our two-story, and I just want to point out that they’re
potentially the most impacted home, which I agree with, but their home has a 3 foot setback, it’s two-story, it’s front yard setback is less than 15 feet, and it doesn’t have a 20 foot driveway.

We literally are proposing the same house as
theirs, and with a compliant driveway. It’s basically the same. I know our previous documentation has been clear that there’s context to the neighborhood, and why the Planning Department recommended for approval, and why in the last meeting the Planning Commission mentioned it fits with the context, but we wanted more time to have the neighborly talks. I know we outlined all that, but I wanted to point out the house that they say is the most affected has all of the same exceptions that we’re requesting, every single one.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
Jay, I don't know if you want to point out
anything else in the last minute?
JAY PLETT: I would say that yes, Staff found the
project worthy of approval, and that we are consistent with the patterns of the neighborhood. We’re even more compliant than most of the houses in the neighborhood when it comes to setbacks, and we are not the largest and we do not have the largest floor area. I would point you to look at sheet A-1.1 of the plans, and if you go to the second drawing down from the top, it’s Olive Street looking at the
project, it’s the street elevation and you can see the
house from San Benito, how tall it is and how things are falling down, and the house at 120 Olive and its height.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Are you completed with your
comments?
JAY PLETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? This would be the last
opportunity. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I actually have
several questions.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to step
through some of the concerns that were raised from the

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
speakers tonight. There was one regarding the destruction that construction would cause to the underlying soils
perhaps. It would be my understanding that the architect and geotechnical planning for this would ensure that that destruction would not occur. Mr. Plett, can you respond to that?
JAY PLETT: The basement will be constructed with
stitch piers, which is a way of shoring straight down with the cut for the basement, so there will not be any slope instabilities that will be created with the method that will be used to construct the basement. And there has also been a soils report that we have produced ahead of time by a very reputable soils engineer, and the soil is very good, it’s very stable, it’s not loose, and it’s very conducive to the construction of a basement on a small site like
that.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you. The
next question has to do with the rear balcony, and I think we heard that the neighbors appreciated the removal of the front balcony. I don’t see a rear balcony on the elevation that you provided that would impact 120 Olive. If I read your plans it would appear that any second story visibility would be on the opposite side and rear of that house, is that correct?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
THOMAS REICHERT: The rear deck, it’s just coming
out of the sliding door on the ground floor. I think it’s just a nomenclature that’s it’s called a deck. It’s just where you walk off the back door.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So, it isn’t a second story
balcony?
THOMAS REICHERT: No, and that was also clarified
in the first Planning meeting.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I thought so, but because
since it came up again today I just wanted to further
clarify. This is for either of you. Do I understand from reading the letter that you provided in the Desk Item that the house currently has the same setbacks as the proposed structure would have, did I read that correctly?
THOMAS REICHERT: No, the current house, the two
things that would change, it’s currently sited in the exact place as the new plan, except for two: the garage being a little wider to comply, and the front being extended for the streetscape.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Let me be clearer. Is the
setback that borders 120 Olive currently 3 feet, or are you changing it from 5 feet to 3 feet with the garage?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
THOMAS REICHERT: Five feet, and we’re changing
it from 5 feet to 3 feet only for the first level of the home and garage.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just on the property side
that borders 120 Olive.

THOMAS REICHERT: On the first story next to the
garage it gets 2 feet closer, but not on the second story.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I’m going to keep going.

There was a recommendation that you move the house back and over. Can you do that and stay within all of the setbacks, or does that create an issue for the opposite side or the rear?
THOMAS REICHERT: It does create one directly for
the opposite side if there were no changes, and for the rear. I’m unclear what the rear setback is, but we are
siting it to be at the exact same position out of respect for the back neighbor who talked to us at the beginning of the process and asked us not to have a house that overlooks their back yard, so that’s kind of the reasoning from early conversations off the planning process.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: All right, thank you so
much. I appreciate your answers.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Clark.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. This is kind of
along the lines of Commissioner Janoff’s question, but it seemed to me that clearly there’s a lot of public concern about this, and a theme that came up was that they’re upset about exceeding the FAR and reducing the setbacks, and
since it’s a demolition that would theoretically have been possible to do at the beginning, and I understand that you could leave the front setback and just have a smaller back yard, I wanted to ask why specifically you chose to change those and what kind of problems it would cause for you to conform?
THOMAS REICHERT: Was your question why did we
choose to go from a renovation to a new build?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: The question is given that
you’re doing a new build, why was it necessary to exceed the FAR and to reduce the setbacks?
THOMAS REICHERT: It’s hard to answer that
question specifically, and that’s why I gave the context in the Desk Item of the history of the development of the
project. The entire project was developed as a remodel. As we went through the process we didn’t necessarily want to pay the prices and do the work to underground utilities, put in fire sprinklers, lift the house, and do all this stuff, so it became a discussion point with the Planning

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
Department of like what if we were able to do a new
project, what would be the things we’d have to do that we wouldn’t be required to do as a renovation? So, the design of the house as a renovation was completed and essentially approvable to come to the Planning Commission, but there were not changes from the design after we’d made those
decisions. I hope that answers the question.

MEREDITH REICHERT: I can add, I think the FAR
has more to do with the lot size, and that’s consistent with other houses on Olive Street. So again, we just tried to make that consistent with the neighborhood so it wasn’t a big, mammoth house sitting in the middle, but a house that would work for our family but still fit with the
neighborhood.

And again, yes, the 3 foot setback on the side
was because we started as a remodel, and now that we’re a new build I get that theoretically you could think like let’s change that, but to change that means either a
noncompliant garage or shifting our house in a way that affects the setback on the other side, which doesn’t work, or we build a narrow house, but that doesn’t work for an actual livable kitchen, so it’s hard to come up with a
successful solution on that one.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
JAY PLETT: I’d also say on sheet A-1.1, if you
look at the neighborhood plan, the lots are small so no matter what we do… If you look, there’s a 4-foot setback at 112 Olive, and 114 Olive is 10 feet. Across the street 133 Olive has a 7-foot front setback. We have a smaller setback at 131 Olive. 125 Olive has a 5-foot front setback, no
driveway.

What we have done is we’ve designed a house that
is very much in the pattern of the neighborhood, and we are not asking for the greatest floor area, the greatest FAR, nor the smallest, shortest setback on a side, nor the
smallest, shortest setback on the front. The house that we have designed falls right in the middle pattern of what the neighborhood is like. That’s why Staff found the project worthy of approval, because it fits in the neighborhood.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you, and may I ask one
follow up on that?
CHAIR HANSSEN: Go ahead.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I remember from our previous
meeting that the reason you reduced the front setback even though you had a large enough setback was you wanted to have a back yard area, and so would you consider
maintaining the front setback and having a smaller back yard in order to appease some of the neighbors concerns?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
MEREDITH REICHERT: I think that shifts the
problem then to our back neighbor. That was a little bit of the comment from Thomas to the previous question, that they had requested that we don’t come closer, as well as
maintaining the space. If it meant we could build our house or not, we would go back and revisit that conversation with the back neighbor, absolutely, but we believe this still fits the neighborhood as it is.

THOMAS REICHERT: And I think the back neighbor
is similar to us. They have kids and they play back there, and we hear each other’s kids bouncing on the trampoline and singing back there. Potentially our windows would look over into their back yard, and I think that’s a valid
concern similar to how we’re making concessions with 120 Olive to not have our patio in the front. It’s really hard to appease everyone that we’ve heard, there are a handful of neighbors, so I think Meredith’s point is of course if it only meant we can do it, I think there would be reason, but I don’t think pushing one person’s problem onto another was the approach that we were taking when we designed the house.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: I actually hadn’t realized
you had talked to the back neighbor, so that’s good
clarification. Thank you.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
CHAIR HANSSEN: Did you get your questions
answered, Commissioner Clark?
COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes, thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just wanted to loop back
regarding the setback on the garage side. As I recall, one of the drivers for that was to create a conforming garage to enable the cars to be parked in the garage or in the driveway—well, that doesn’t affect the setback—instead of being parked on the street. Could the Applicant please
confirm that that was the motivation for widening the
garage, so that you can alleviate some of the parking
issues?
THOMAS REICHERT: I would say I don’t know if it
was the chicken or the egg, but as part of the Planning Department review before we even were up for Planning
Commission, it all happened together, yes. And the 3-foot is only on the first floor.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I made a note that there are
four homes in the immediate neighborhood that have larger FARs. Can you confirm that?

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I just wanted to confirm along
the lines of Vice Chair Barnett’s questioning. If I recall from the last hearing, you had documented that there were multiple other neighbors within the immediate neighborhood that had exceeded the floor area ratio, and also I thought that you had a chart with people that had similar side and front setbacks, is that correct?
THOMAS REICHERT: That’s also correct.

CHAIR HANSSEN: My recollection was that you had
established that there was consistency with the
neighborhood for the exceptions that you were asking for.

THOMAS REICHERT: That’s also my understanding of
the takeaway of the last meeting, yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Do any other Commissioners have
questions for the Applicant before I close the public
hearing? I don’t see any hands raised, so I’m going to
close the public hearing and ask if any Commissioners have questions for Staff, wish to comment on the application, or wish to make a motion? Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. I think that the
Applicant did what we requested them to do, which would be to provide opportunities for more neighborhood outreach.

They did make a couple of changes to the plans that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
enhanced the privacy for neighbors. That’s why I feel
satisfied that the Applicant conducted their work to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission.

Regarding the concerns of setback, this is an
overly-constrained problem and any direction of improving the setbacks to meet Town Code will create a problem for another neighbor on one side or other or the back. Given that the setback of 3 feet is on the side, one story only, and it’s the garage side and it creates a conforming
garage, I’m comfortable with approving that reduced
setback.

I also don’t have an issue with the floor area
ratio.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that. Do any other
Commissioners have questions for Staff or wish to comment on the application? Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Thank you. I agree with
Commissioner Janoff that they did what we asked of them and definitely to our satisfaction. They gave extensive reports of the outreach that they did.

But I did find some of the comments from
neighbors concerning, and I think that it’s worth
discussing some of the concerns that were brought up.

Something that I was particularly struck by was the comment

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
about the concern that if it becomes a precedent for
cottage purchases to become tear-downs to build larger
homes, that could start being a pattern that we see. And they did, they bought this property very recently, probably knowing that this was the plan, and it’s important to have this variety of homes and to have these cottages that stay cottages, so that people will be able to afford them. While I think that in this case they did their due diligence and I think they do have reasonable reasons to expand their property, I think it is something to keep in mind going forward.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for your comments. I
think that was very helpful. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you for bringing up
the issue, Commissioner Clark, of whether or not this sets a precedent. I wanted to look back to our prior meeting when there was also discussion around does this set a
precedent, and we hear a lot of complaints about oversized houses, reduced setbacks, and so forth.

One thing that we didn’t mention at the last
meeting regarding these questions, and yours tonight, is the responsibility of the Planning Commission to hear each application as a brand new, stand on its own merits,
application. We specifically don’t apply the decisions that

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
we’ve made on houses in the same neighborhood. We look at each application on its own terms and it’s own merits.

Every application in unique, and so the guidance that we’ve always been given and provided to each other is that we are looking at these de novo, that there isn’t a precedent to be set, and so I think that’s helpful going forward and that’s the way I see this particular application tonight, but it’s a good question and we should keep talking about it.

CHAIR HANSSEN: I will also comment, because I
was the one that made the motion to continue the item at our last meeting, if I recall. The Commission’s general feeling was that the plans were appropriate for the project and the neighborhood, and that the only issue was making sure that the neighbors had an opportunity to be heard.

From my point of view I felt that the Applicant
did a good job of reaching out to the neighbors. It’s
really impossible for anyone to be in a situation where they could possibly know to address every concern of every single neighbor, but they did open up their property to talk to people, and I felt like they did an excellent job of documenting all the conversations that they had.

I don’t know that anything has changed from where
we were before, which was that this is relatively modest,

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
given the size of the house growth for the family, and that it isn’t going to exceed any of the existing boundaries in the neighborhood, which is the floor area ratios of other properties that have exceeded, as well as the setbacks.

From my perspective, I think the Applicant has done what we asked.

As far as the renderings are concerned, one of
the speakers did bring it up, maybe we could have but we did not ask the Applicant to produce renderings
specifically for the neighborhood outreach. It was to help the Commission understand, and those are a matter of public record as well, so it’s not that no one could have seen them, but it wasn’t part of our direction that I recall that they had to produce those specifically for the
neighborhood outreach.

Do any other Commissioners have any comments that
they’d like to make, or would any Commissioner like to make a motion? Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: I have a comment and I’m
prepared to make a motion.

The comment is that I’m very sympathetic to the
concerns regarding loss of view, but we’ve been told
repeatedly by the Town Attorney that that’s not an imbedded legal right, and I don't know if the attorney is online

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
here today so we could confirm that, but that’s been his legal advice on a number of matters to date.

JOEL PAULSON: Through the Chair, Mr. Schultz is
not able to join us, but I can confirm that Vice Chair
Barnett’s statement is accurate. He has stated that
repeatedly.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Does that answer your question,
Vice Chair Barnett?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Would anyone else want to comment
on the application or make a motion? Vice Chair Barnett, you said you would be prepared to make a motion. Do you have other questions that you’d like answered?
VICE CHAIR BARNETT: No, I’m prepared to proceed.

Concerning 118 Olive Street, I move approval of the
demolition of the existing single-family residence and
construction of a new single-family residence to exceed the floor area ratio standards with reduced front and side yard setbacks on nonconforming property zoned R-1D. APN 410-15- 022. Architecture and Site Application 5-21-013. Property owners Thomas and Meredith Reichert.

In terms of the findings:

One, I can make the finding that the proposed
project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
guidelines for the implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303, New Construction.

Two, I can make the findings as required by
Section 29.10-0903(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of the existing structure.

Three, I can make the finding that the project
complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code with the exception of the request to exceed the FAR standards for reduction of the front and side setbacks, and for an exemption from the parking requirement.

Four, I can make the finding as required by
Section 29.40-075(c) of the Town Code for granting approval of an exception to the FAR standards.

Five, I can make the findings as required by
Section 29.10-265, subparagraph 3, of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots,
including setback requirements.

Six, I can make the finding as required by
Section 29.10.150(h)(2) of the Town Code for reducing
parking where it can be shown that the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required.

Seven, I can make the finding as required by the
Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
Eight, I can make the consideration as required
by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site Application.

Nine, I approve Architecture and Site Application
S-21-003 with the condition contained in Exhibit 3 and
development plans in Exhibit 11.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that very thorough
motion. Do we have a second for Vice Chair Barnett’s
motion? Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I second the motion as
presented.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Very good. Are there any
Commissioners that wish to make any additional comments before I call the question? I don’t see any hands raised, so I will call the question. By roll call please vote yes, no, or abstain. Commissioner Clark.

COMMISSIONER CLARK: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Vice Chair Barnett.

VICE CHAIR BARNETT: Yes.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/9/2022
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
And I vote yes as well, so the motion passes 5-0.

Director Paulson, are there appeal rights for this action by the Commission?
JOEL PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair Hanssen.

Anyone who is not satisfied with the decision of the
Planning Commission could appeal that decision to the Town Council. Forms are available online and in the Clerk’s
Office. There is a fee for filing the appeal. The appeal must be filed in ten days, and the deadline on the tenth day is 4:00p.m. for submittal.

CHAIR HANSSEN: Thank you for that, Director
Paulson.

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
February 10, 2022
Jay Plett, Architect
213 Bean Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Via Email
RE: 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 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.

At its meeting of February 9, 2022, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission approved the above referenced application subject to the attached conditions of approval.

The attached conditions of approval will not be final until the Planning Commission has approved the February 9, 2022 meeting minutes at their next meeting, confirming any additional or modified conditions of approval for the project in the underlined font. You will be notified in writing once the Planning Commission has approved the minutes.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Section 29.20.275 of the Town Code, this approval may be appealed to the Town Council within 10 days of the date the approval is granted. Therefore, this action for approval should not be considered final, and no permits by the Town will be issued until the appeal period has passed.

If you have any questions, I can be contacted by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Sean Mullin, AICP
Senior Planner
Cc: Thomas and Meredith Reichert, via email
N:\DEV\PC\PC ACTION Letters\2022\02-09-22 [118 Olive St - Item #2; Approved].docx

CIVIC CENTER
110 E. MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CA 95030
ATTACHMENT 7

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.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.

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

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx

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 the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics.

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx

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.

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

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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 betterthan 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 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

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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 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

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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 construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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.

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

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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 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.

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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 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

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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 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

N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - PC - 01-12-22 DRAFT - Copy.docx 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

Town of Los Gatos Town Council March 14, 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 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision which is dated February 22nd 2022 regarding 118 Olive Street.

Basis of Appeal: Appellant claims the approval was based on incomplete or inaccurate information at Planning Commission.

Abstract Summary: There is no new information in this appeal from the appellant, all arguments were heard and ruled upon during the decision for approval. If any errors or emissions are deemed, we object that the basis of any finding would not have changed the outcome of the decision. Fundamentally, the applicants project to have FAR and front/side yard setbacks exceptions are in line with the existing neighborhood pattern and all public comments in written and verbal communications were considered in the Planning Department and/or Planning Commission decision.

Background: The project had an initial Planning Commission meeting on January 12, 2022 in which the proposed project at 118 Olive resulted in a continuation for a hearing on February 9, 2022.

Summary of the continuance reasoning: The Planning Commission had support from all members to proceed with an approval, but asked that further due diligence of the applicants needed to be conducted, specifically to do more outreach to the 2 neighbors to each side and the 5 across the street. However, the Commission Members noted the project was unlikely to change given the constraints of the applicant’s project and that the project rightfully received support of approval from the Planning Department. During the discussion, one item was marked as a concession, a proposed roof terrace was eliminated per the request of 120 Olive.

Summary of the Planning Commission meeting on February 9th, 2022: The Planning Commission confirms the applicant completed all the requested due diligence and unanimously approved the project in accordance with Planning Department support for approval.

Project Summary:

The project parcel, like every Olive Street parcel is non-confirming in terms of area and dimensions for its designated zoning. The projects setbacks are in line with the context of the neighborhood, most of the homes have less front and side setbacks. We looked closely at the existing development standards of the neighborhood, then worked with the Town Design Guidelines, Town Staff, Town Consulting Architect, Planning Commission and with the neighbors, including with neighbors’ input to eliminate the front terrace as well as maximize ATTACHMENT 9

privacy balancing all sides of the home to gain unanimous approval of the project with the Town. There are many neighbor supporters of the project, which some of whom voiced opinions during the first Planning Meeting.

To clarify: The project is not the largest (or smallest if that is the desired metric) on the block in terms of any planning metric- FAR, dimension, height, basement, setbacks etc. This project is intentionally designed through much work with the above mentioned parties to fit in the neighborhood.

Responses to Appeal:

Appeal Item 1:

Response item 1:

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.

Appeal Item 2:

Response item 2:

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.

Appeal Item 3:

Response item 3:

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

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.

Appeal Item 4:

Response item 4:

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:

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.

Appeal Item 5:

Response item 5:

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.

Appeal Item 6:

Response item 6:

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 Olive 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’
Other Appeal Documents:

Response to Letter included in Appeal of Planning Commission Decision from Resident at 110 Olive dated February 20th, 2022:

As stated in our desk item, submitted prior to the February 9th, 2022 Planning Commission meeting: We understand everyone is entitled to voice their opinions, including changing their mind. Regarding Jim’s letter, we have specially talked with him on two separate occasions where he agreed with supporting our project if we didn’t use a specific contractor for whom he has strong negative feeling. We are very aware some neighbors may choose to change their

mind to avoid potential conflict when deciding to support an appeal or approval, but are pointing out that all our interactions with him have been represented accurately.

Response to desk item, inadvertent left out during Planning Commission meeting:

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.

Other Notable Context:

In the last decade(s) on this block, only 1 other home has been approved for new construction project versus a renovation. The rules to be approved are cumbersome and can also be cost prohibitive. However, in the only other example of new constriction, all of the same FAR, basement allowance and setbacks exceptions occurred similar to our approved plans. The reason for this is because the code allows these exceptions on non-conforming parcels, which the Town Planning Department has reviewed and approved in accordance with as part of their recommendations.

Likewise, the existing home at 120 Olive Street (the Appellant) has all of the same exceptions on their property that the applicant has on their proposed approved plans. Specifically, FAR is exceeded, the front setback is less than 15’, the side yard setback is 3’ and additionally has a non-conforming driveway. Furthermore, as noted, the other community members who signed the appeal letter also have these exceptions on their properties.

To clarify, as noted in several of the Appeal Responses items, every home on this block has some variation of an exception to at least 1, but almost in every case, multiple exceptions to the planning code because they are all uniformly non-conforming lots. If a house on this block were to be required to meet all of these planning guidelines, without use of these exceptions: It would not fit into the neighborhood fabric and streetscape. By evidence: not one single house on this block has been built in compliance with a new build or renovation project nor is any existing house in compliance as grandfathered into today’s guidelines.

Sincerely,
The Reichert Family

118 Olive St.

Public Hearing, Tuesday, April 5, 2022
By Shelli Baker & Supporting Neighbors
ATTACHMENT 10

New Home to Comply with Minimum Front and Side Setbacks of 15 and 5 feet Respectively or Remove Basement from Plans ▪ Reposition the house five feet toward the rear maintaining 15 ft front setback
▪ Reposition the house two feet to the east maintaining a 5 ft side setback which would require minimal design changes
▪ Although other homes have smaller setbacks, the majority of homes on Olive St. are smaller single story original bungalow style constructed in the 1920-1940’s and obviously would not meet today’s guidelines and lifestyles
▪ NO other home have been torn down resulting in brand new construction on Olive St.
▪ There are NO other homes with basements on Olive St.
▪ The intent behind building basements is to minimize, not maximize, what’s above ground
▪ If building a basement, reduced setbacks are not warranted

Left Photo: Netting between 118 & 120 Olive St. shown at reduced 3 ft. setback location

New Home Not to Encroach into Setbacks or Basement to be Removed from the Plans
• FAR calculations for a non-conforming lot is
already adjusted to a higher allowable
coverage than conforming lots
• The house exceeds FAR by 308sf
(approximately 23%)
• The 1,195sf basement is in addition to the
allowable FAR
• The intent behind allowing basements outside
of the FAR calculations is to minimize the
impact on the neighborhood without
designing homes using excessive mass and out
of scale design

Provide a Minimum 20-foot Driveway for Off-Street Parking that Does Not Include the Public Right of Way & Implement the Car Lift as Specified on the Plans
• Olive St. is very narrow and the parking is
inadequate
• A house of this size warrants an increased
number of occupants, drivers and visitors
and therefore, viable on-site parking is of
utmost importance
• The driveway length should be calculated,
excluding the Public Right of Way, as the
building code states to ensure room for a
sizable vehicle
• The car lift is on the plans and therefore any
approvals should enforce the plans as drawn
• Perhaps a redesign with a two car wide
driveway would be appropriate

Vehicles of Olive St. Occupants and Visitors Overflow onto San Benito Avenue

Vehicles of Olive St. Occupants and Visitors
Regularly Overflow onto San Benito Avenue

Missing Netting on East Side

RESOLUTION 2022-

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION 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.

APN 410-15-022
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-21-013
PROPERTY LOCATION: 118 OLIVE STREET
APPELLANT: SHELLI BAKER
PROPERTY OWNER: THOMAS AND MEREDITH REICHERT
APPLICANT: JAY PLETT, ARCHITECT
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered 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. The Planning Commission continued the Architecture and Site application to a date certain and provided direction to the applicant.

WHEREAS, on February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the continued 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. The Planning Commission approved the Architecture and Site application subject to conditions of approval.

WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the 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.

WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on April 5, 2022, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.

WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents.

ATTACHMENT 11
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for their meeting on April 5, 2022, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission 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 is denied and the application is approved.

2. The Town Council hereby adopts all findings, considerations, and conditions of approval set forth in the documents attached as Exhibits A and B.

3. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by state and federal Law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 5
th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
N:\DEV\RESOS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - Deny Appeal.docx

TOWN COUNCIL – April 5, 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 A

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.

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.

TOWN COUNCIL – April 5, 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 B

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 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.

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 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 Page 590 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 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 Page 591 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 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.

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 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 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 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]

RESOLUTION 2020-___

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

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 AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION.

APN 410-15-022
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-21-013
PROPERTY LOCATION: 118 OLIVE STREET
APPELLANT: SHELLI BAKER
PROPERTY OWNER: THOMAS AND MEREDITH REICHERT
APPLICANT: JAY PLETT, ARCHITECT
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered 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. The Planning Commission continued the Architecture and Site application to a date certain and provided direction to the applicant.

WHEREAS, on February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the continued 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. The Planning Commission approved the Architecture and Site application subject to conditions of approval.

WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the 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.

WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on April 5, 2022, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.

ATTACHMENT 12
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for their meeting on April 5, 2022, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission 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 is granted and the application is remanded to the Planning Commission for further consideration.

2. The decision does not constitute a final administrative decision and the applications will be returned to Planning Commission for further consideration.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
N:\DEV\RESOS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - Remand.docx

RESOLUTION 2022-___

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

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.

APN 410-15-022
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-21-013
PROPERTY LOCATION: 118 OLIVE STREET
APPELLANT: SHELLI BAKER
PROPERTY OWNER: THOMAS AND MEREDITH REICHERT
APPLICANT: JAY PLETT, ARCHITECT
WHEREAS, on January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered 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. The Planning Commission continued the Architecture and Site application to a date certain and provided direction to the applicant.

WHEREAS, on February 9, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered the continued 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. The Planning Commission approved the Architecture and Site application subject to conditions of approval.

WHEREAS, on February 22, 2022, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the 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.

WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on April 5, 2022, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law.

ATTACHMENT 13
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

WHEREAS, the Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Town Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report for their meeting on April 5, 2022, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission 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 is granted and the application is denied.

2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by state and federal Law.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 5th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
N:\DEV\RESOS\2022\Olive Street, 118 - Grant Appeal.docx Page 600 PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Finance Director, and Director of Parks and Public Works
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/5/2022
ITEM NO: 15

ADDENDUM
DATE: April 4, 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.

REMARKS:

Attachment 14 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, March 31, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Previously received with the April 5, 2022, Staff Report:

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

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: April 4, 2022
ATTACHMENTS (continued):

13. Draft Resolution to Grant Appeal and Deny Project
Received with this Addendum Report:

14. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, March 31, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2022

From: michael thomas < >
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 8:06 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: 118 Olive St. Los Gatos Proposed Project Application

EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear Members of the Los Gatos Town Council,
As a resident on Olive Street for over 25 years, I am requesting that the project as proposed, not be approved. Olive Street is very narrow and with limited parking. This project is to build a large home on very small lot. This project will cause construction traffic problems, parking issues, and privacy concerns for neighbors.

Thank you for your time and and hoping that our neighborhood concerns be addressed.

Sincerely,
Michael Thomas
Olive Street, Los Gatos
ATTACHMENT 14 Page 603

PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Finance Director, and Director of Parks and Public Works
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 4/5/2022
ITEM NO: 15

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 5, 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.

REMARKS:

Attachment 15 includes a letter signed by Shelli Baker (appellant and property owner of 120 Olive Street), Thomas Reichert (property owner of 118 Olive Street), Lynn Woodford (neighbor at 116 Olive Street), and Andrew Coven (property owner of 39 Ashler Avenue). This letter indicates that all parties have reached a compromise on the project, which would result in the following project revisions:
 Increase the west side yard setback from three feet to four feet;  Reduce the east side yard setback from the required five feet to four feet; and  Increase the front yard setback from 10 feet to 12 feet, six inches.

The letter indicates that the appellant is willing to withdraw their appeal of the Planning Commission approval of the project if these project revisions are implemented; however, the revised project includes a reduced east side yard setback of four feet where five feet is required, and this reduced setback was not considered by the Planning Commission or included in their approval of the project. Withdrawing the appeal would allow the project approved by the Planning Commission to stand and would allow for minor changes that are in substantial compliance with the approved plans (per Condition of Approval 1) to be approved by staff during Building Permit review. These changes could potentially include the proposed increase

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: April 5, 2022
REMARKS (continued):
in front and west side yard setbacks, since the residence would not be closer to the property lines than what was approved. However, because the Planning Commission approval did not include reduced east side yard setbacks, withdrawing the appeal would not allow staff to approve a Building Permit that included the revised east side setback. The Council could consider the project revisions detailed in Attachment 15, receive public testimony, and discuss whether the revised project is consistent with the Town Code and compatible with the neighborhood. If the Council finds merit in the revised project, the Council could include the following additional Condition of Approval:

Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the development plans shall be revised to include east and west side yard setbacks of no less than four feet and a front setback of no less than 12 feet, six inches.

In addition to the letter discussed above, Attachment 16 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2022.

ATTACHMENTS:

Previously received with the April 5, 2022, Staff Report:

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
Previously received with the April 5, 2022, Addendum Report:

14. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, March 31, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2022

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 118 Olive Street/S-21-013
DATE: April 5, 2022
ATTACHMENTS (continued):

Received with this Desk Item Report:

15. Email from 118 Olive Street property owner with attachment, dated April 4, 2022

16. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 4, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 5, 2022

From: thomas reichert < >
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 9:52 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Shelli.

Cc: Meredith Reichert < >; Jay Plett <j >; ;
lynn.woodford
Subject: 118 Olive appeal: reached compromise to withdraw appeal and proceed with approval

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi Sean,
We’ve included the appellant, and our other 2 direct adjacent property owners to this e-mail as well as our architect. We have all discussed these compromises and agree to proceed. See attached docusign letter for reference.

If the Town Planning Department finds our compromise acceptable, we ask for full approvals to proceed with the project and have the appeal withdrawn.

Conditions to consider:
1) The current design of the home has a 3’ side yard setback on the 120 Olive home and a 5’ side yard setback on the 116 Olive home. We propose centering 118 Olive in the middle of the lot and make each side yard setback 4’.
2) The current design of the home has a 10’ front yard setback. We propose making it 12’6” as a front yard setback.

All other aspects of the home remain the same, basically moving the house to one side and back to help address neighbors concerns.

A special thank you to the Town Council who helped bridge gaps in conversations that were left undone to this point, and to the neighbors as we really do appreciate all the conversations over the past week to help get to an agreement.
-Thomas and Meredith Reichert

Town of Los Gatos Town Council April 4, 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 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision which is dated February 22nd 2022 regarding 118 Olive Street.

The appellant, applicant and the 2 direct effected adjacent property owners have all discussed compromises and agree to proceed to withdrawal the appeal and ask the Town Council to add conditions of approval to proceed with the project.

Conditions to consider:
1) The current design of the home has a 3’ side yard setback on the 120 Olive home and a 5’ side yard setback on the 116 Olive home. We propose centering 118 Olive in the middle of the lot and make each side yard setback 4’.
2) The current design of the home has a 10’ front yard setback. We propose making it 12’6” as a front yard setback.

All other aspects of the home remain the same, moving the house to one side and back to help address neighbors’ concerns.

Thank you,
Appellant:

Name Signature Address
Applicant:

Name Signature Address
Next door neighbor:

Name Signature Address
Backyard neighbor:

Name Signature Address
120 Olive St. Los Gatos Shelli Baker
Thomas M. Reichert 118 olive st Los Gatos
Lynn Woodford 116 Olive Street. Los Gatos
39 Ashler Avenue. Los Gatos ANDREW COVEN

From: AnnMarie Zimmermann < >
Sent: Monday, April 4, 2022 2:03 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Cc: Ralph Cell Zimmermann < >
Subject: Fwd: Opposing 118 Olive Plans

EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello Sean and Los Gatos Planning,
We are unable to go to the public hearing and therefore using our option to submit our opposition via email. It is unpleasant for us to do this and we wish the Reicherts the best but we believe in the rules you put in place for conforming lots (such as ours) and the reasons why you have them. That's why we fully obliged during our restoration. When a lot is non-confirming is when we believe you need those rules the most.

In additions to items in the below first email:
• We've attached the picture of cars parked in the middle of the day on Ashler. Parking in this neighborhood is impacted by the funeral home, the DMV, Bywater, La Esquina, Kickboxing studio, Enoteca Direct and other businesses within the two block radius. The area cannot support the parking we have today and it will only get worse without requiring on-site side by side parking.
• Privacy and noise concerns by these houses being so close and overbearing (as seen in the picture of the window at 114 Olive overlooking our patio and kitchen even as only a one story renovation)
• I understand that you review every application individually therefore precedence setting is not an argument we can use to oppose this. If that is the case, then you should not be allowed to use precedence (nearby homes with exceptions) to build a case in favor. • This was a historic area of Los Gatos with small cottages where workers lived and supported the houses in Almond Grove. We are losing that history and charm.

Ralph and AnnMarie Zimmermann
Los Gatos, CA 95030
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: AnnMarie Zimmermann < >
Date: Sun, Oct 31, 2021 at 6:57 AM
Subject: Opposing 118 Olive Plans
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Ralph Cell Zimmermann < >
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

From: Don Wilhelm < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 8:18 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: My SUPPORT of the APPEAL of Planning Commission decision approving proposed reconstruction of 118 Olive Street

EXTERNAL SENDER
Attn: Los Gatos Town Council,
My Support of the Appeal Re: 118 Olive Street
I support the opposition of neighbors of 118 Olive Street to the Planning Commission's decision approving demolition of the existing single-family cottage residence at 118 Olive Street and construction of a new & much larger single-family residence to exceed FAR standards and with reduced front yard & side yard setbacks on a non-conforming property.

In particular, I support them in objecting to the reduced setbacks for this proposed project -- regardless of precedents (examples) of relaxed (reduced from Code) setbacks on that street.

Los Gatos is replete with examples of setbacks all around property boundaries that are non-compliant with the Code's standards. But this does not, and should not, mean that any applicant can, or should, have their way with their desires for expanding their house upward and outward in all directions -- to the detriment of neighbors; i.e., without regard for the impacts on the adjacent neighbors -- the encroachments on the neighbors' properties & living spaces! From my perspective, the Planning Division is altogether too willing to approve applicants' requests for reduced setbacks.

Background for My Support
For example -- I invite the Town Council to please look carefully at the "remodel" under reconstruction now at the tiny non-conforming 481 Woodland Avenue property. Please drive by that property, get out of your cars and look at the house and property carefully and seriously -- and also review the history of that project.

In particular, please note the unwarranted 2-ft setback on the north side (from 483 Woodland Ave.) and the super-generous 15-ft setback on the south side. FYI -- the actual true structure of the original 481 Woodland house had an 8-ft setback from the adjacent 483 Woodland Avenue property.

I consider this 2-ft northside setback from the 483 Woodland Avenue property to be a travesty in the interpretation and application of the Town's Codes -- and I so stated this opinion to Planning in my October 12, 2017 e-mail to Planning. Of course my objections were ignored by Planning, as Planning was proceeding under its "ministerial authority" for "remodels." I have been interacting with Planning for almost 10 years on behalf of the owner of 483 Woodland Avenue -- ever since the 481 Woodland Avenue owner's 2014 proposal to demolish and reconstruct his

original cottage as a 2-story home. That plan was discouraged by the Planning Commission in October 2014. (FYI the 481 Woodland applicant purchased the property in 2012.) And by the way, that 2014 plan was put forth with a code-compliant northside 5-ft setback. So it is mindboggling that Planning could & would make a quantum leap from a code-compliant setback in 2014 to a flagrant Code-violating 2-ft northside setback for the "remodel" project now under construction. I contend that Planning used twisted logic to justify this 2-ft setback.

Conclusion
From my perspective it appears that Los Gatos has become a mecca for buyers looking for cottages to tear down and rebuild as 2-story homes as close to the property boundaries as possible -- without regard for the impacts on the adjacent neighbors -- especially those on each side. And without regard for & concern about preserving the character & quality of the neighborhood they are buying into.

Questions for the Town Council
Do planners ever get out into the neighborhoods they are "planning" and walk the streets -- like old time COPS on their beats -- and get to know the local homeowners & residents they might be impacting? Do any of the Town's Planners actually live in and understand Los Gatos? I believe that to become a Town Council Member, one must be a Los Gatos resident. But can Planners come from anywhere? Would any of the Town Council Members like to have the kind of the side setback travesty that has been permitted at 481 Woodland Avenue be permitted on a property right next to you? And with a height that would block out a lot of your sunlight and views?
A comparable travesty is pending at 118 Olive Street.

The End
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Don Wilhelm
Los Gatos, CA 95032

P.S. The 483 Woodland Ave. owner's request in early 2020 for an appeal of Planning's determinations about the 2-ft setback for 481 Woodland was effectively thwarted and nullified by the apparent impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the town's operations, openness, and ability of certain key Town Government people to keep track of and follow-through on their responsibilities to facilitate that appeal.

Moreover, neither I nor the owner of 483 Woodland were ever voluntarily informed by Planning that an appeal option actual exists -- until we asked about such an option in a private meeting with planning in late 2019.

So, we can't help wondering if such "denial of basic information and right-to-know" is a common practice in such situations -- by which it benefits the Town to "prevent" appeals.

Perhaps you on the Town Council, or the Town's Attorney, might know more about this.

From: Leesa Gidaro < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 5, 2022 1:28 AM
To: PublicComment <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item #5 - 118 Olive Street

EXTERNAL SENDER
Olive Street is a unique location with several issues which impact the larger neighborhood.

This street is unusually narrow with limited parking. In addition, the lots are typically less than 5,000 square feet so many homes lack garages for historical reasons. As a result, there are extensive parking issues.

These problems are only exacerbated when houses are built which exceed setback and FAR regulations, and contributes to crowded and unhappy neighbors. An underground garage will not help alleviate this situation as there's already not enough parking for those who live on Olive, and it's resulted in spillover parking onto neighboring streets.

Thank you for the regulations that the Town has put in place... we appreciate them and know they were put in place for a reason. So please, for the health of our neighborhood, let's not disregard them. We love the home improvements that have taken place over the years, and completely understand the need for larger homes to fit growing families, but the best way to keep neighbors happy is to build homes which meet regulations and don't exceed FARs.

Sincerely,
--
Leesa Gidaro
Cell:

PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Community Development Director, Town Attorney, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/05/2022
ITEM NO: 16
DATE: March 31, 2022
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval of a Planned Development for Construction of a Senior Living Community, Removal of Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R:PD. Located at 110 Wood Road. APN 510-47-038. Planned Development Application PD-20-001 and Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002. APPLICANT: Rockwood Pacific.

PROPERTY OWNER: Covia Communities.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that the Town Council accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny the Planned Development (PD) application for construction of a senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a grading permit on property Zoned R:PD located at 110 Wood Road.

BACKGROUND:

The subject site is approximately 10.84 acres consisting of two underlying parcels at the intersection of Wood Road and South Santa Cruz Avenue (Attachment 5, Exhibit 3). The site has been occupied by the Los Gatos Meadows since 1971, a senior living development approved under a PD ordinance in 1968.

On April 9, 2008, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) reviewed a preliminary proposal for redevelopment of the subject property. The staff report and minutes of the CDAC meeting are attached as Attachment 5, Exhibits 6 and 7.

In February 2019, the Los Gatos Meadows facility initiated a month’s long closure and transition process to relocate all residents. By September 2019, the facility was vacant. While the property owner, Covia Communities, has completed the closure process, the property continues to be staffed to provide on-going maintenance and to ensure security of the property.

PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/ PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
DATE: March 31, 2022
BACKGROUND (continued):

On February 12, 2020, an application was filed by Frank Rockwood of Rockwood Pacific requesting a new PD zoning for the property for the purpose of building a new senior living community (Attachment 5, Exhibit 15). The existing zoning is Residential, Planned Development (R:PD) and the General Plan Land Use designation is Medium Density Residential.

A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project was prepared and circulated for a 45- day public review period from May 28, 2021, through July 12, 2021 (Attachment 5, Exhibit 1).

The Final EIR, which includes the Response to Comments, was distributed on September 3, 2021 (Attachment 5, Exhibit 2).

On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the application (Attachment 5, Exhibits 5 through 8) and forwarded a recommendation of denial to the Council based on several concerns identified in the Discussion section of this report.

Additionally, the Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final EIR because it is based on a project that the Planning Commission found to be inappropriate, and environmental review is not required for denial of a project.

Should the Town Council choose an alternative action to certify the Final EIR and approve the PD ordinance, future required approvals include an Architecture and Site application, Certificate of Lot Merger, Building Permits, a Grading Permit, and a Tree Removal Permit.

DISCUSSION:

A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing a new PD to allow for the demolition of all existing buildings, construction of a new senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit (Attachment 5, Exhibit 15). The senior living community would operate as a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC) and would be licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) under the California Department of Social Services. The project would be restricted to persons aged 62 and older, providing 24/7 assisted living services to the residents. The senior living community would provide coordinated health care services, including 17 supporting care units. These proposed services would be similar to the uses offered in the previous community that closed in 2019.

Approval of the PD application would establish the regulations through an ordinance (which would include the development plans) under which the following actions would be allowed:

PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/ PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
 Demolition of all existing buildings on the site;
 Construction of a new senior living community;
 Removal of 192 trees, including 8 large protected trees; and  Site improvements requiring a Grading Permit.

A comparison of the existing and proposed PD conditions is provided in the table below.

Comparison of Planned Development Conditions
Original 1968 PD Proposed PD
Site Coverage 24.6 percent 22.5 percent
Total Number of
Independent Living Units
184 174
Total Units Permitted 222 191
Open Space 75.4 percent 77.5 percent
Building Setbacks from
Property Line
Front: 20 feet
Side: 15 ft and 27 feet
Rear: 15 feet
Front: 34.83 feet
Side: 40.83 feet and 60 feet
Rear: 32.92 feet
Parking 111 spaces 78 standard spaces
122 tandem spaces
Height Predominantly 2-story with
some basement or below
grade space for infirmary,
parking, storage, and
mechanical. Heights vary
between 30’-9” and 55’-2”±.
3-5 stories with below grade
space for parking, storage,
and mechanical. Heights
vary between 59’-0” and 85’-
6”±.

A full discussion and analysis of the application is provided in the January 12, 2021, staff report to the Planning Commission (Attachment 5).

B. Planning Commission
On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission considered the application and received public comment (Attachments 5 through 7). Verbatim minutes are included as DISCUSSION (continued):

Attachment 8. Following discussion, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the application based on the following concerns:

PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/ PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):
 Building heights;
 Tree removal;
 Lack of diversity in housing types;
 Concentration of luxury housing units; and
 Ratio of the number of units (fewer than existing) to the overall height (greater than existing).

Additionally, the Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final EIR because it is based on a project that the Planning Commission found to be inappropriate, and environmental review is not required for denial of a project.

C. Applicant response to Planning Commission
Following the January 12, 2022 Planning Commission hearing, the applicant submitted a letter responding to the Planning Commission discussion and recommendation (Attachment 9). In this letter, the applicant requests the opportunity to return to the Planning Commission to address the concerns. The letter provides the Council with a summary of the applicant’s response to the Planning Commission’s concerns, which includes:
 Reducing the height and massing of Villas A and C;
 Reducing the number of two-bedroom/den units and increasing the number of onebedroom/den units and one-bedroom units;  Reducing excavation and net off-haul quantities;
 Designating seven below market rate units; and
 Expanding on the discussion of the need for the proposed tree removal.

D. Environmental Review
An EIR was prepared for the project. As part of the environmental review process, a number of technical reports were prepared, including: species lists and database reviews; tree evaluations and arborist reports; geotechnical investigations; and traffic analyses.

Reports that were prepared by outside consultants were peer reviewed by Town consultants.

The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on February 1, 2021, for a 30-day comment period. Comments received on the NOP are included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR (Attachment 1).

PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/ PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
DATE: March 31, 2022
DISCUSSION (continued):

The Notice of Completion and Availability for review of the Draft EIR was released on May 28, 2021, with the 45-day public review period ending on July 12, 2021. On June 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft EIR. No comments were received at this meeting. Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from the applicant, one public agency, and three individuals. The Final EIR, with Response to Comments, was completed in August 2021 (Attachment 2).

Through the Initial Study/EIR process, no significant and unavoidable impacts were identified. All identified significant impacts that would result from the project can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) that has been prepared for the project as required by CEQA (Attachment 2). The MMRP includes a list of all mitigation measures and the Town Department(s) responsible for ensuring that the mitigation measures are properly implemented. All mitigation measures are included as performance standards within the draft PD Ordinance (Attachment 4).

On January 12, 2022, The Planning Commission voted not to certify the Final EIR because it is based on a project that the Planning Commission found to be inappropriate.

Environmental review is not required for denial of a project.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Story poles and signage have been maintained on the site since the noticing for 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. Public comments received after the preparation of the Planning Commission Desk Item Report, between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 12, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 31, 2022, are included as Attachment 11.

CONCLUSION:

A. Summary
The applicant is proposing a new PD to allow demolition of all existing buildings, construction of a new senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit. The senior living community would be restricted to persons aged 62 and older, providing 24/7 assisted living services to the residents. The facility would provide coordinated health care services, including 174 independent living units and 17 supporting care units. These proposed services would be similar to the services offered in the previous community that closed in 2019. The proposal would

PAGE 6 OF 7
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/ PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
DATE: March 31, 2022
CONCLUSION (continued):
maintain the R:PD zoning of the property and the new PD would provide new performance standards for the project. The project complies with the General Plan, the Planned Development requirements in the Town Code, Hillside Specific Plan.

B. Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended denial of the application based on concerns discussed above and to not certify the Final EIR because it is based on a project that the Planning Commission found to be inappropriate. Therefore, it is recommended that the Town Council accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation and deny the application.

C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Town Council may:

1. Certify the Final EIR and approve the PD application by taking the following actions:
a. Adopt a resolution to certify the Final EIR, make the CEQA Findings of Fact (Attachment 4, Exhibit A), and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment 4, Exhibit B);
b. Make the required finding that the zone change is internally consistent with the General Plan and its elements, and other required findings (Attachment 3) and approve the application (PD-20-001) subject to the performance standards and development plans (Attachment 10, Exhibit B), or as otherwise modified by the Town Council;
c. Waive the reading of the Ordinance and ask the Town Clerk to read the title of the proposed Ordinance; and
d. Introduce the Ordinance effecting the zone change; or

2. Continue the PD application to a date certain with specific direction; or

3. Remand the PD application to the Planning Commission with specific direction.

COORDINATION:

The Community Development Department coordinated with the Town Attorney’s Office, Parks and Public Works Department, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department in the review of the project.

PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: 110 Wood Road/ PD-20-001 AND EIR-21-002
DATE: March 31, 2022
ATTACHMENTS:

Attachments previously received under separate cover:

1. May 2021 Draft Environmental Impact Report (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad)

2. August 2021 Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (available online at www.losgatosca.gov/110WoodRoad) Attachments received with this Staff Report:

3. Required Findings

4. Draft Resolution to certify the Final EIR, make the required CEQA Findings of Fact (included as Exhibit A), and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (included as Exhibit B)

5. January 12, 2022 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 3-14)

6. January 12, 2022 Planning Commission Addendum Report (with Exhibits 16-17)

7. January 12, 2022 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 18-19)

8. January 12, 2022 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

9. Letter from the Applicant, dated March 17, 2022

10. Planned Development Ordinance with Exhibit A Rezone Area and Exhibit B Development Plans, July 27, 2021

11. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., January 12, 2022, and 11:00 a.m., March 31, 2022

TOWN COUNCIL – April 5, 2022
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
110 Wood Road
Planned Development Application PD-20-001
Environmental Impact Report EIR-21-002
Requesting Approval of a Planned Development for Construction of a Senior Living Community, Removal of Large Protected Trees, and Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R:PD. APN 510-47-038.

APPLICANT: Rockwood Pacific.

PROPERTY OWNER: Covia Communities.

FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the proposed development. The Town Council make the CEQA Findings of Fact, certify the Final EIR, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

Required consistency with the Town’s General Plan:
■ That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in that the proposed development provides much needed senior housing and continuing care services to the Town.

Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
■ The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the site has served as a senior living facility since 1971 and would continue to do so under the proposed PD. The project includes modernization of the facility, circulation system, and safety characteristics; an increase in the open space area; and would include a similar number of living units, staff levels, and traffic generation. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria included in the plan.

Required finding for the adoption of a Planned Development Ordinance:
■ As required by Section 29.80.095 of the Town Code for adoption of a Planned Development Ordinance:

1. The proposed Planned Development complies with Chapter 29, Article VIII, Division 2 of the Town Code.

2. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the General Plan in that the development provides much needed senior housing and continuing care services to the Town.

ATTACHMENT 3

3. The proposed Planned Development is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the project includes: modernization of the existing facility, circulation system, and safety characteristics; an increase in the open space area; and would include a similar number of living units, staff levels, and traffic generation to the existing facility.

4. The proposal is consistent with the development criteria included in the plan. The Planned Development Ordinance provides a public benefit to the Town by providing much needed senior housing and continuing care services.

N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2022\WOOD ROAD, 110 - 04-05-22 TC.DOCX

RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL

OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND

MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS REQUIRED BY THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT IN CONNECTION WITH A ZONE CHANGE FROM R:PD TO R:PD

FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT
110 WOOD ROAD (APN 510-47-038)
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: PD-20-001
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT: EIR-21-002
WHEREAS:

A. The applicant, Rockwood Pacific, proposes a Planned Development to rezone the property located at 110 Wood Road from R:PD to R:PD, to allow for the demolition of all existing buildings, construction of a new senior living community, removal of large protected trees, and site improvements requiring a Grading Permit. The project includes a Planned Development application (PD-20-001) and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR-21-002).

B. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Planned Development (PD-20-001) was distributed on February 1, 2021, for a 30-day comment period.

C. A Notice of Completion and Availability for review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) was prepared and issued for agency and public review and comment on May 28, 2021, for a 45-day public review period ending on July 12, 2021.

D. On June 23, 2021, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to accept comments on the Draft EIR. No comments were received at this meeting. Written comments on the Draft EIR were received from the applicant, one public agency, and three individuals.

E. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and the implementing Guidelines adopted therefore (CEQA), the Town prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR), incorporating responses to comments on the Draft EIR which was issued in August 2021.

ATTACHMENT 4
Draft Resolution to be
modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

F. The Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on January 12, 2022, at which time the Commission considered the public testimony, the staff report prepared for that meeting (Staff Report), and all other documentation related to the Planned Development and Final EIR, and forwarded a recommendation that the Town Council not certify the Final EIR (EIR-21-002) and deny the Planned Development (PD-20-001).

G. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on April 5, 2022, at which time the Town Council considered the public testimony, the Staff Report, and all other documentation related to the Planned Development and Final EIR and made a motion to certify the Final EIR.

H. The Town Council recognizes the Town’s obligation, pursuant to the Public Resources Code § 21081.6 subdivision (a), to ensure the monitoring of all adopted mitigation measures necessary to substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects of the project. Such monitoring will occur pursuant to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

I. The location and custodian of the documents or other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Town Council’s decision is based is in the office of the Town Clerk, 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

A. That the Town Council hereby certifies the Final EIR, adopts the CEQA Findings of Fact attached hereto as Exhibit A, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto as Exhibit B. In certifying the Final EIR, the Town Council specifically finds that:

1. The document has been completed in compliance with CEQA;

2. The document was presented to the Town Council as the decision-making body of the lead agency, and as such, the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained therein; and

3. The Final EIR reflects the Town’s independent judgment and analysis.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 5
th day of April, 2022, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS
GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
N:\DEV\RESOS\2022\Wood Road, 110 RESO 04-05-22.docx

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

D R A F T

CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT
for
110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior
Living Community
Planned Development Application PD-20-001
SCH # 2021020007
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
October 2021

EXHIBIT A

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR ii Draft – October 2021

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 iii

CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................... 1 III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION.................................................................................. 3 A. Project Location and Current Use ........................................................................ 3 B. Project Objectives................................................................................................. 3 C. Project Characteristics.......................................................................................... 3 IV. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES................................ 3 A. Air Quality............................................................................................................. 4 B. Biological Resources............................................................................................ 6 C. Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 12 D. Geology and Soils .............................................................................................. 13 E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................... 14 F. Wildfire Hazards ................................................................................................. 15 V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES............................................................................. 16 A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – Existing (Closed) Senior Living Community.................................................................................... 17 B. Alternative 2: No Project - Residential Project Consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use Designation ............................................ 17 C. Alternative 3: Reduced Scale - Removal of Villas B and C from Proposed Site Plan............................................................................................. 17 D. Environmentally Superior Alternative.................................................................. 18 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM .......................... 18 VII. RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS................................................................. 18 VII. SUMMARY........................................................................................................ 19

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR iv Draft – October 2021

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 1
I. INTRODUCTION
The Draft EIR prepared for the 110 Wood Road - Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community Project (also referred to as the Project or proposed Project) identified several potentially significant environmental effects that the proposed project may cause. All of these significant effects can be fully avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15090, the Town Council of Los Gatos (Council) hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the 110 Wood Road - Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community project (proposed Project) has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), that the Final EIR was presented to the Council, and that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the proposed Project, as set forth below. As part of this certification, the Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Council and approves the Final EIR.

II. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) requires state and local government agencies to consider the environmental consequences of projects for which they have discretionary authority. This document, which has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.), sets forth the findings of the Town of Los Gatos (Town), the lead agency under CEQA, regarding the 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community project.

The primary source for this document is the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR; SCH #2021020007) for the proposed Project, and the documents that have been incorporated into the Final EIR directly or by reference. Full descriptions of the proposed Project, associated environmental impacts, mitigation measures, Project alternatives, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the proposed Project, and other features required under CEQA are contained in the Final EIR itself.

To determine the scope of the EIR, the Town prepared a Notice of Preparation. On February 4, 2021, the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project were distributed to trustee and responsible agencies, members of the public, other interested parties, and the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse. This began the 30-day public review period, which ended on March 8, 2021. These comments were considered during the preparation of the Draft EIR (see below) and are included in their entirety in Appendix A to that document.

The Draft EIR, with an accompanying Notice of Completion (NOC), was circulated to the State Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, other government agencies, and interested members of the public for a 45-day review period, extending from May 28, 2021 through July 12, 2021. On June 23, 2021, the Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission held a public hearing to receive oral comment on the Draft EIR.

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 2 Draft – October 2021
Comments on the Draft EIR, a list of commenters, and the Town’s responses to comments are contained in the Final EIR, dated August 2021. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), the Final EIR was made available for review by trustee and responsible agencies that provided written comments on the Draft EIR for a 10-day period from September 3, 2021 through September 13, 2021
The Final EIR for the Project consists of the following:

A. Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”), issued May 28, 2021; B. All appendices to the Draft EIR;
C. Final EIR, dated August 2021, containing all written comments and responses on the Draft EIR, refinements and clarifications to the Draft EIR, the MMRP, and technical appendices;
D. All of the comments and staff responses entered into the record orally and in writing, as well as accompanying technical memoranda or evidence entered into the record.

The Final EIR did not provide any significant new information regarding proposed Project or cumulative impacts or mitigation measures beyond that contained in the Draft EIR.

In conformance with CEQA, the Town has taken the following actions in relation to the EIR:

A. On January 12, 2022, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing on the Project and the EIR, and recommended that the Town Council certify the EIR and approve the redevelopment of the 10.84-acre site with a senior living community that would replace the existing Los Gatos Meadows senior living community. The project would include 174 independent residential apartments plus 17 supporting care units. The project, a Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC), would be licensed as a Residential Care Facility for the Elderly (RCFE) under the California Department of Social Services. The project would be restricted to persons age 62 and older and would provide 24/7 assisted living services to the residents. The project would provide coordinated health care services, including 17 supporting care units. These proposed services would be similar to the use offered in the previous community.

B. On April 5, 2022, at a duly and properly noticed public hearing, the Town Council certified the EIR and adopted findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program related to the Planned Development application filed by the applicant requesting a “Planned Development” overlay be applied to the site’s existing “Residential Planned Development” zoning designation.

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 3
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. Project Location and Current Use
The project site is located at 110 Wood Road in the Town of Los Gatos. The property is accessed directly off Wood Road (via South Santa Cruz Avenue). The project site’s Assessor’s parcel number is 510-47-038, and is generally located between single family residences along Broadway to the northeast and Wood Road to the south. The site is zoned “Residential Planned Development (R:PD)” and has a General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential. The General Plan land use designation of Medium Density Residential allows for a maximum density of 12 dwelling units per acre. A senior living community has been operating on the site since 1971 with 10 residential buildings and other support facilities and amenities. The site has three access points: two from the south off of Wood Road and one from the north via a driveway (referred to as Farwell Lane) connecting with Broadway. The facility has been closed since February 2019, after a rigorous facilities assessment concluded that continuing operations of the facility in its present form presented too great a risk to its residents. Although the facility has completed the closure process, the facility continues to be staffed to provide on-going maintenance and security of the property.

B. Project Objectives
The objective of the proposed project is to approve a new/updated Planned Development (PD) to rebuild a state-of-the art senior living community on a 10.84-acre site consistent with the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, Town of Los Gatos zoning code and in the spirit of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.

C. Project Characteristics
The Project applicant is requesting approval of the following:
 Planned Development (PD) Overlay permit (PD-20-001)
A Planned Development application has been filed by the applicant requesting a “Planned Development” overlay be applied to the site’s existing “Residential Planned Development” zoning designation. A subsequent Architecture and Site application will be required if the Planned Development application is approved by the Town Council. In accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.140(d), the Architecture and Site approval is required for purposes of approving the development plan for the new senior living community to ensure conformance with Town regulations related to the height, width, shape, proportion, siting, exterior construction and design of buildings and to ensure that they are architecturally compatible with their surroundings.

IV. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR analyzed proposed Project impacts in the following six environmental topic areas: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Wildfire Hazards. With implementation of proposed Project-specific

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 4 Draft – October 2021
mitigation measures, potentially significant impacts would be reduced to less than significant impacts.

The following discussion elaborates on potentially significant impacts identified in the 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community Final EIR and mitigation measures proposed for those impacts.

A. Air Quality

1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 6-5: Construction Activity Would Expose Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants
Sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of construction activities would be exposed to construction TAC emissions volumes that exceed the air district significance thresholds for infant/child cancer risks and PM2.5 concentrations. These are significant impacts.

Implementation of the following Mitigation Measures would reduce the impact to a less-thansignificant level.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure 6-5a During construction, the project contractor shall implement the following measures to reduce emissions of fugitive dust and engine exhaust DPM, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. These measures shall be included in the project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered three (3) times per day and at a frequency adequate to maintain minimum soil moisture of 12 percent. Moisture content can be verified by lab samples or moisture probe;
b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered;
c. Avoid tracking visible soil material on to public roadways by employing the following measures if necessary: (1) Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from public paved roads shall be treated with a 6 to 12-inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel and (2) washing truck tires and construction equipment prior to leaving the site;
d. 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. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited;
e. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to five (5) mph; f. All roadways, 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;
g. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to five (5) minutes (as required by the California

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 5
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points;
h. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation; i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph and visible dust extends beyond site boundaries;
j. Wind breaks (e.g., trees, fences) shall be installed on the windward side(s) of actively disturbed areas of construction adjacent to sensitive receptors. Wind breaks should have no greater than 50 percent air porosity;
k. 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;
l. The simultaneous occurrence of excavation, grading, and ground-disturbing construction activities on the same area at any one time shall be limited. Activities shall be phased to reduce the amount of disturbed surfaces at any one time; and m. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Town of Los Gatos regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The air district’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.

Mitigation Measure 6-5b Prior to the issuance of the demolition permit, the project developer shall prepare, and the project contractor shall implement, a demolition and construction emissions avoidance and reduction plan demonstrating a 78 percent reduction of DPM emissions and a 60 percent reduction of PM2.5 exposures at the MEI to meet the air district’s risk thresholds.

The plan shall be prepared prior to the issuance of a demolition permit and shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. The plan shall be accompanied by a letter signed by a qualified air quality specialist, verifying the equipment included in the plan meets the standards set forth in this mitigation measure. The plan shall include the following measures:
a. All mobile diesel-powered off-road equipment operating on-site for more than two days and larger than 50 horsepower shall, at a minimum, meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) particulate matter emissions standards for Tier III engines or better. Prior to the issuance of any demolition permits, the project applicant shall submit specifications of the equipment to be used during construction and confirmation this requirement is met;
b. Use alternatively fueled equipment or equipment with zero emissions (i.e., aerial lifts, forklifts, and air compressors, etc., shall be either electrified or fueled by liquefied natural gas/propane);
c. Provide line power to the site during the early phases of construction to minimize the use of diesel-powered stationary equipment, such as generators; and d. Other demonstrable measures identified by the developer that reduce emissions and avoid or minimize exposures to the affected sensitive receptors.

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 6 Draft – October 2021
Finding
All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts on air quality will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: 6-5a and 6-5b
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

B. Biological Resources

1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 7-2: Potential Effect on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species (San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat)
If San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat is present within the 0.3 acres of oak/bay woodland or

5.2 acres of mixed woodland within the proposed project impact area, loss or disturbance of woodrats due to midden removal during construction and fire safety activities would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 7-2 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for woodrat middens within the development footprint and fire defensible space. These surveys shall be conducted no more than 15 days prior to the start of construction. In the event that construction activities are suspended for 15 consecutive days or longer, these surveys shall be repeated. All woodrat middens shall be flagged for avoidance of direct construction impacts and fire defensible space where feasible.

If impacts cannot be avoided, woodrat middens shall be dismantled no more than three days prior to construction activities starting at each midden location. All vegetation and duff materials shall be removed from three feet around the midden prior to dismantling so that the occupants do not attempt to rebuild. Middens are to be slowly dismantled by hand in order to allow any occupants to disperse.

Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented by a qualified biologist and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of a demolition and grading permit.

Impact 7-3. Potential Effect on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species (Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat)
Potential habitat for pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs in mature, hollow trees and around structures present within the project site. If special-status bats are present on the site, tree removal and other construction activities could result in the loss of individual animals. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 7
following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 7-3 Within 14 days prior to tree removal or other construction activities such as a demolition, the project developer shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, within structures proposed for demolition, and in trees and structures within 50 feet of the development footprint. In the event that construction activities are suspended for 15 consecutive days or longer, these surveys shall be repeated. These surveys shall include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within and 50 feet around the project site. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas.

If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence shall be submitted by the biologist to the Town of Los Gatos prior to issuance of tree removal and demolition permits and no further mitigation is required.

If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents shall be provided by the biologist to the Town of Los Gatos prior to issuance of tree removal and demolition permits and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures shall be implemented:
a. If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they shall be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they shall be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats shall be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season. Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife) shall be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance shall occur until after the nursery season.
b. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures within 50 feet of project disturbance activities, the individuals shall be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist. If preconstruction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees or structures to be removed, exclusion structures (e.g. one-way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qualified biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 8 Draft – October 2021
season. Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the CDFW prior to construction. If needed, other removal methods could include:
carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance within 50 feet of any structures shall be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night shall be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/disturbance activities). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation.
c. Bat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. If roosting habitat is identified, a Bat Mitigation and Monitoring plan will be prepared and implemented to mitigate for the loss of roosting habitat. The plan will include information pertaining to the species of bat and location of the roost, compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts, including specific mitigation ratios and a location of the proposed mitigation area, and monitoring to assess bat use of mitigation areas. The plan will be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to the bat eviction activities or the removal of roosting habitat.

Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of grading and demolition permits.

Impact 7-4: Potential Effect on Candidate, Sensitive, or Special-Status Species (Nesting Raptors and Migratory Birds)
If nesting birds protected by state and federal regulations are present on or adjacent to the site during construction activities including vegetation removal and site preparation including building demolition, the proposed project may directly result in loss of active nests, or indirectly result in nest abandonment and thereby cause loss of fertile eggs or nestlings. This would be a significant adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 7-4 Prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits, to avoid impacts to nesting birds during the nesting season (January 15 through September 15), construction activities within or adjacent to the project site boundary that include any tree or vegetation removal, demolition, or ground disturbance (such as grading or grubbing) shall be conducted between September 16 and January 14, which is outside of the bird nesting season. If this type of construction occurs during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project activities.

If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), or if construction activities are suspended for at least 14 days and recommence during the nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys.

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 9
a. Two surveys for active bird nests shall occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the final survey conducted within 48 hours prior to construction.

Appropriate minimum survey radii surrounding each work area are typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors.

Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. Locations off the site to which access is not available may be surveyed from within the site or from public areas. A report documenting survey results and plan for active bird nest avoidance (if needed) shall be completed by the qualified biologist prior to initiation of construction activities. b. If the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.

Developers shall be responsible for implementation of this mitigation measure with oversight by the Town of Los Gatos. Compliance with this measure shall be documented and submitted to the Town, prior to issuance of tree removal, demolition, and grading permits.

Impact 7-5: Effect on Federally- and State-Protected Wetlands or Waters of the U.S. (Intermittent or Ephemeral Drainage)
The Town of Los Gatos General Plan 2020 requires for all development to “protect wetlands and riparian corridors, including intermittent and ephemeral streams.” The on-site drainage feature may also fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW. Impacts to jurisdictional wetland and waterway features are considered significant adverse environmental impacts. The following mitigation measures would assure that this potentially significant impact is reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measures 7-5a To avoid impacts to a the potentially jurisdictional drainage feature, a minimum 10-foot setback from the drainage shall be maintained during tree removal, demolition, and construction activities. The drainage and setback area shall be shown on all demolition and construction plans.

Mitigation Measure 7-5b If disturbance will occur within ten feet of the drainage, prior to issuance of a grading permit within the project boundary, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to determine the extent of potential wetlands and waterways regulated by the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW. If the USACE claims jurisdiction, the applicant shall retain a qualified biologist to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit. If the impacts to the drainage features do not qualify for a Nationwide Permit, the applicant shall proceed

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 10 Draft – October 2021
with the qualified biologist in obtaining an Individual Permit from the USACE. The applicant shall then retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the RWQCB to obtain a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification. If necessary, the applicant shall also retain a qualified biologist to coordinate with the CDFW to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement.

To compensate for temporary and/or permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S. that would be impacted as a result of the proposed project, mitigation shall be provided as required by the regulatory permits. Mitigation would be provided through one of the following mechanisms:
 A Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be developed that will outline mitigation and monitoring obligations for temporary impacts to wetlands and other waters as a result of construction activities. The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan would include thresholds of success, monitoring and reporting requirements, and site-specific plans to compensate for wetland losses resulting from the project.

The Wetland Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall be submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for review and approval during the permit application process.  To compensate for permanent impacts, the purchase and/or dedication of land to provide suitable wetland restoration or creation shall ensure a no net loss of wetland values or functions. If restoration is available and feasible, a minimum 1:1 mitigation to impact ratio would apply to projects for which mitigation is provided in advance.

Impact 7-6: Damage or Removal of Regulated Trees
The Arborist Report Update re-evaluated the potential impacts to trees as a result of the project as shown on the Planning Submittal Set (10/8/2020) and the Preliminary Drainage Plan (6/30/2020). The disposition of each tree is shown in the exhibit attached to the Arborist Report Update, and summarized in Table 7-3, Trees Planned for Removal and Preservation, below.

Table 7-3 Trees Planned for Removal and Preservation
Protected Large Protected Total
Trees Planned for
Removal
205 8 213
Trees Planned for
Preservation
109 9 118
Source: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 2020
The proposed project could remove up to 213 regulated trees. This would be a significant potential adverse environmental impact. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the potential impact to a less-than significant level.

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 11
Mitigation Measure 7-6 Prior to issuance of a tree removal permit and/or a grading permit, developers shall retain a certified arborist to develop a site-specific tree protection plan for retained trees and supervise the implementation of all proposed tree preservation and protection measures during construction activities, including those measures specified in the 2018 project arborist report and 2020 arborist report update (HortScience Bartlett Consulting). Also, in accordance with the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance, the developer shall obtain a tree removal permit for proposed tree removals on each development lot prior to tree removals and shall install replacement trees in accordance with all mitigation, maintenance, and monitoring requirements specified in the tree removal permit(s) or otherwise required by the Town for project approvals.

Impact 7-8: Effect on Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities potentially present on the site are limited to highly impacted drainage channels and oak woodland. Prior mitigation measures require the developer to determine the extent of potentially regulated drainage channels and regulated trees prior to initiation of ground disturbance or construction activities. To compensate for temporary and/or permanent impacts, mitigation shall be provided as required by regulatory permits.

No additional mitigation measures are necessary.

General Plan policies ENV-1.5 and ENV-1.7 prohibit the use of invasive species listed by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) for all new construction and requires new development to use native plants or other appropriate non-invasive plants to reduce maintenance and irrigation costs and the disturbance of adjacent natural habitat. The spread of invasive species is considered a significant potential impact. The following mitigation measure would assure that this potentially significant impact is reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 7-8 On-site landscaping shall be limited to drought-tolerant species, fire-resistant species, and species capable of increasing soil stability; with preference to plant species endemic to Santa Clara County. Species from the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory (Cal-IPC 2020) shall be removed if present and not included in any new landscaping.

The plant palette used for on-site landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos to confirm no invasive species shall be planted. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos prior to occupancy of the residential buildings.

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 12 Draft – October 2021
Finding
All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to biological resources will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5a, 7-5b, 7-6, and 7-8 Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

C. Cultural Resources

1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 8-2: Potential Destruction of a Unique Paleontological Resource or Site During Construction
While it is possible that unknown unique paleontological resources could be uncovered during site preparation and/or other site disturbance activities, implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure the impact is less than significant.

Mitigation Measure 8-2 The following measure shall be included in project plans, prior to issuance of a demolition permit:

If paleontological resources are uncovered during demolition, grading or other onsite excavation activities, construction shall stop until appropriate mitigation is implemented, to be approved by the Community Development Director.

Finding
All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to cultural resources will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: 8-2
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 13
D. Geology and Soils

1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact Geologic impacts associated with fault surface rupture, expansive soils, and land sliding and slope instability.

The geotechnical report noted several potential geologic impacts that are to be addressed through several design recommendations for the proposed project. These recommendations include, but are not limited to, providing a 25-foot setback from a mapped surface trace of a fault along the eastern edge of the property; underlaying the foundation by ground improvement or deepening the foundation to bedrock to avoid soil instability; removing alluvial fan deposits down to bedrock and replacing with engineering fill along the proposed retaining wall along the eastside of Farwell Lane for a minimum of 15 feet; removing and replacing all undocumented fill; and designing for sufficient reinforcement for slabs-on-grade.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures, as articulated in the February 2021 geotechnical peer review conducted by the Town’s geotechnical consultant, would ensure potential geologic impacts are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 13-1 The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans, ground improvement plans, shoring design criteria from a geotechnical perspective, and supporting structural details and calculations (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, etc.,) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The project geotechnical consultant should review and approve appropriate performance testing for proposed ground improvement measures.

The results of the geotechnical plan review should be summarized by the project geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to issuance of building permits.

Mitigation Measures 13-2 The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to:
 site preparation and grading;
 ground improvement;
 shoring measures and design;
 site surface and subsurface drainage improvements; and  excavations for foundations prior to placement of steel and concrete.

In addition, the project engineering geologist shall inspect opened excavations to confirm bedrock conditions are consistent with those anticipated.

The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project, including ground improvement measures and placement of engineered fill, should be described by the

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 14 Draft – October 2021
geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to final (as-built) project approval.

Specialty/design-build consultants and contractors (shoring, ground improvement, etc.) shall also submit construction reports confirming satisfactory construction of the specific aspects of the project that they are responsible for.

Finding
All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to geology and soils will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: 13-1 and 13-2
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

E. Hazards and Hazardous Materials

1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact Hazardous materials impacts associated with exposure or release of asbestos and/or lead-based paint associated with demolition of existing structures.

According to the environmental site assessment, lead-based paint was banned in 1978. The existing senior community was constructed prior to 1978; therefore, lead-based paint may be present in the existing structures on the project site. Lead is a known carcinogen and its release during grading or other ground disturbing activities could pose hazards to public health and safety. This is a potentially significant impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would ensure potential impacts from the release of asbestos and lead-based paint into the environment as a result of demolition activities are reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 13-3 The applicant shall consult with Bay Area Air Quality Management District to determine permit requirements. Removal of asbestos-containing building materials is subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 11, Rule 2: Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing. Release of lead into the atmosphere is subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s Regulation 11, Rule 1: Lead.

Prior to the commencement of demolition activities on the site, the applicant shall provide evidence of meeting the permitting requirements of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 15
Finding
All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: 13-3
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

F. Wildfire Hazards

1. Potentially Significant Impacts Reduced to Less Than Significant Levels Impact 12-1: Short-Term Construction-Related Traffic Activity That Has The Potential to Impair an Adopted Emergency Response Plan or Emergency Evacuation Plan
As noted previously, the Town of Los Gatos has, in conjunction with the County of Santa Clara and several other neighboring cities, an adopted EOP, which comprises, along with the 2017 Santa Clara County Operational Area Hazard Mitigation Plan, the entirety of emergency planning activities that governs emergency response and evacuation on and around the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan, but construction activities associated with the proposed project could result in short-term, temporary impacts on street traffic because of roadway improvements and potential extension of construction activities into the right-ofway. This could result in a reduction in the number of lanes or temporary closure of certain roadway segments near the project site. While any such impacts would be limited to the construction period and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections, the impact would be potentially significant. Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.

Mitigation Measure 12-1 In order to adequately address any potential conflicts with emergency access or evacuation routes during construction, the applicant shall prepare and implement a site-specific construction traffic management plan for any construction effort that would require work within existing roadways. The traffic management plan shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to issuance of demolition permit(s) and shall be prepared to the satisfaction of Town Public Works and County Fire Department staff.

Impact 12-4: Expose People or Structures to Significant Risks, including Downslope or Downstream Flooding or Landslides, as a Result of Runoff, PostFire Slope Instability, or Drainage Changes.

As noted in Section 13.0, Effects Not Addressed Further in this EIR, the 2007 Draft Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation for Los Gatos Meadows prepared by Cornerstone Earth

CEQA Findings of Fact Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community EIR 16 Draft – October 2021
Group (Appendix F of the Draft EIR), the project site and surrounding areas are moderately steep to steep slope with slope inclination up to 40 degrees and noted that portions of the site are located within a State of California Earthquake-Induced Landslide Hazard Zone.

However, the 2020 Geotechnical Investigation and Geologic Hazards Evaluation (geotechnical report) (Appendix F) also prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, conducted site-specific subsurface explorations which revealed soil characteristics (alluvial fan deposits underlain by shallow bedrock) that would not suggest the existence of previous landslides through the project site. As noted in the geotechnical report, the proposed project would create relatively deep vertical, retained cuts into the terrace that encompass the developed portion of the site.

Localized groundwater seepage may be encountered where the cuts intersect the bedrock surface and installing a network of subdrains and water proofing would address this. The geotechnical report also found the proposed grading plan for the project to be acceptable from a safety standpoint with the exception of a lower slope (below proposed structures) area that may experience a lack of stability with the existing alluvial fan deposit soils there. The geotechnical report recommends removal of these alluvial fan deposits at this location down to bedrock to be replaced by engineered fill. Compliance with this recommendation as incorporated in Mitigation Measures 13-1 and 13-2 found in Section 13.0 of this EIR (under discussion of “Geology and Soils”) would ensure this potentially significant impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.

Finding
All of the proposed Project specific environmental impacts related to wildfire hazards will be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures.

Mitigation Measures: 12-1, 13-1, and 13-2
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the proposed Project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR.

V. PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR evaluated three alternatives to the proposed Project. These were evaluated based on their ability to (1) reduce the significant impacts of the proposed Project, and (2) attain proposed Project objectives. As described earlier in this findings document, the Project applicant’s objectives are to approve a new/updated Planned Development (PD) to rebuild a state-of-the art senior living community on a 10.84-acre site consistent with the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan, Town of Los Gatos zoning code and in the spirit of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.

The alternatives evaluated were:

1. Alternative 1: No Project – Existing (Closed) Senior Living Community;

Town of Los Gatos I 110 Wood Road – Los Gatos Meadows Senior Living Community CEQA Findings of Fact Draft – October 2021 17

2. Alternative 2: No Project – Residential Project Consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan Designation; and

3. Alternative 3: Reduced Scale (Removal of Villas B and C from Proposed Site Plan).

A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative – Existing (Closed) Senior Living Community
This no project alternative investigates if the proposed project were not approved and the existing senior living community facilities were left in place though closed and vacant. The project site is currently developed with 10 residential buildings ranging from one to four stories, which include a total of 205 independent residential apartments and supporting health care units. The existing facility includes a dining and commons building, an infirmary, garage and services building, a multi-purpose building, and two cottages. This alternative does not meet any of the basic project objectives, as it would not allow redevelopment of the project site with a revitalized and enhanced senior living community consistent with the density allowed under the site’s existing PD entitlement.

B. Alternative 2: No Project - Residential Project Consistent with the Project Site’s General Plan Land Use
Designation
This no project alternative investigates what could be reasonably expected to occur on the project site in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. The project site has a General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential. Under this designation, the project site could be developed with a multi-family, duplex, and/or small single-family residential project with a density range of 5 to 12 dwelling units per net acre with up to 24 persons per acre. Conceivably, such a project could include a range of home product types including townhomes, condominiums, and/or apartments. This alternative project considers the site constraints of the 10.84-acre site, much of which is steep, heavily wooded hillside that could not reasonably accommodate residential buildings. To determine a probable number of Medium Density Residential dwelling units that the site could accommodate, this alternative utilizes approximately 50 percent of the total net acreage or approximately 5.42 acres.

Therefore, a Medium Density Residential project with a maximum of 65 units would be possible. Assuming an average of 2.51 persons per household (U.S. Census 2021), such a project would result in 163 new residents, substantially less than the 233 total residents anticipated as part of the proposed project. This alternative does not meet any of the basic project objectives, as it would not allow redevelopment of the project site with a revitalized and enhanced senior living community consistent with the density allowed under the site’s existing PD entitlement.

C. Alternative 3: Reduced Scale - Removal of Villas B and C from Proposed Site Plan
The reduced scale alternative (“reduced scale alternative”) consists of a reduction in development capacity sufficient to avoid or reduce significant, but mitigable, impacts associated with grading and removal of trees required to accommodate Villas B and C and a