Agenda packet — Los Gatos City Council, January 16, 2024 (part 7 of 7)

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 4

OUR TEAM
Jackie Gomez-Whiteley, Police Chief (Ret.)
Principal, Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC
Background
Chief Jackie Gomez-Whiteley is a 33-year public safety professional having served with distinction in Orange, Los Angeles, and Monterey Counties. In 1986, she began her sworn career at the Orange Police Department where she worked in all three divisions:

Patrol, Investigations, and Administration. She was the department’s first woman motor officer, as well as sergeant and lieutenant. In 1989, Jackie was involved in an officer-involved shooting of a kidnap and attempted murder suspect. Because of her courageous actions, she was awarded the Medal of Valor.

After 23 years at Orange PD, she accepted a position as Captain at the Cypress Police Department where she oversaw both divisions: Operations and Support Services. In 2011, she was appointed Chief of Police and the first woman to serve as Police Chief of a municipal agency in Orange County. Under her leadership, the Cypress Police Department was recognized by Crime Survivors as the Community-Policing Organization of the Year for 2012 and received the 2013 Community-Policing Award from the Orange County Human Relations Commission. In 2014, Chief GomezWhiteley was awarded the Spurgeon Award for her contributions to youth in law enforcement from Exploring Learning for Life of Orange County. She retired in 2015 and shortly thereafter, served as Interim Police Chief for the Alhambra Police Department in Los Angeles County from 2016-2017. In 2019, she served as Interim Police Chief for the Pacific Grove Police Department in Monterey County. In 2020, Chief Gomez-Whiteley was awarded the California Police Chiefs Association, Joe Malloy Memorial Award for her outstanding service and dedication to the policing profession.

Chief Gomez-Whiteley obtained her Master of Arts degree from Chapman University in Organizational Leadership with a certificate in Public and Non-Profit Leadership. She has a Bachelor of Arts degree from Loyola Marymount University in Psychology with a minor in Alcohol and Drug Studies. In 2007, Jackie graduated from the P.O.S.T.

Command College, where she published an article in Police and Security News Magazine titled: Dirty Bombs: Calculating the Threat.

Chief Gomez-Whiteley has been an adjunct instructor at various police training centers throughout the state for 29 years and is Program Director for the prestigious California Police Chiefs Executive Leadership Institute at Drucker (Claremont Graduate University). Chief Gomez-Whiteley is a Principal and Co-Founder of Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC specializing in training, consulting, expert testimony, strategic planning, organizational assessments, and leadership development for police agencies

Page 1214 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 5 throughout the country. Chief Gomez-Whiteley consults and trains Police Chiefs and City Managers throughout the United States.

Mark Yokoyama, Police Chief and City Manager (Ret.)
Principal, Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC
Background
Mark Yokoyama began his career in public service in 1987 when he became a Police Officer with the La Palma Police Department in Orange County, California. Over the course of 30 years Yokoyama worked for California police departments in La Palma, Newark, Cypress and Alhambra working varied assignments, supervisory and command positions and serving the last eight years of his policing career as the Chief of Police in the City of Cypress and the City of Alhambra.

Throughout his policing career, Yokoyama has been credited with enhancing Community-Oriented Policing and community engagement through various community programs and innovative outreach initiatives, as well implementation of contemporary policing practices and policies. During this time, he has also received awards and national/international accolades for his progressive and contemporary use of technology in effort to build police community relations and policing practices.

In 2016, Yokoyama was appointed the City Manager for the City of Alhambra in Los Angeles County where he oversaw the day-to-day operations of 10 City departments, including municipal police and fire departments.

During his short tenure as City Manager, he focused on strategic planning for the city, implementation of fiscal reforms and initiatives, city-wide infrastructure projects, organizational reform, utility and energy efficiency projects and social service improvement projects.

After more than 30 years of a public service career in municipal government, Yokoyama retired in 2017 and accepted the position of Academic Dean with the School of Public Safety at Rio Hondo College.

During the course of his professional career, Yokoyama has also maintained a successful private consulting practice covering a large scope of services from training programs, management services and assessment, corporate investigations, emergency planning, policy development, security assessments, pre-employment background investigations, law enforcement liaison services, and critical incident risk management response, to name a few.

In addition to working with a number of municipal communities and special districts, his clients also include law firms, private business, as well as a large international

Page 1215 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 6 hospitality corporation. Yokoyama holds a Master’s Degree from the University of Southern California and California State University Dominguez Hills and a Bachelor’s Degree from the University of La Verne.

He is a graduate of the FBI National Academy, P.O.S.T. Command College, and the Senior Management Institute for Police.

Yokoyama has been an adjunct faculty member to several community colleges in Southern California as a lecturer and police academy instructor for 30 years. He is also the Past-President of the California Peace Officers Association and is a past board member for the California Police Chiefs’ Association.

Professionally he is a member of the FBI National Academy Associates, the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Society of Industrial Security.

Eve Berg
Director, Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC
Background
Chief Eve R. Berg began her law enforcement career with the Inglewood Police Department in 1984 after graduating from the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Academy. As an officer, she worked a variety of assignments including: Patrol, Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and Detectives. As a Detective, Chief Berg became a nationallyrecognized expert in the area of Domestic Violence and worked assignments in Sex Crimes, Child Abuse, Major Assaults, and Robbery.

Chief Berg was promoted to the rank of Sergeant in 1994 and worked a variety of assignments as a front-line supervisor in both the Patrol and Administrative Bureaus.

Chief Berg was promoted to the rank of Lieutenant in 1999 where she commanded the Community Affairs Section, Internal Affairs and was the Press Information Officer.

Chief Berg was later promoted to the rank of Captain in 2003.

In 2011, she was appointed Chief of Police for the Manhattan Beach Police Department and served in that capacity for six and one-half years. In January 2018, she was appointed Chief of Police for the Torrance Police Department. She served as a member on the California Police Chiefs' Association Law & Legislation Committee and the Training Committee, and was the Los Angeles County Police Chiefs Association's representative on the Los Angeles County Peace Officers Memorial Foundation. Chief Berg also served as a board member on the Governor’s Medal of Valor Committee. In 2019, Chief Berg was appointed by Governor Newsome as a Commissioner for the California Peace Officers Standards and Training and served in that capacity until her retirement in 2021.

Page 1216 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 7 Chief Berg holds a Bachelor's Degree in Business from the University of Redlands and a Master of Business Administration from the University of La Verne. Chief Berg has been an adjunct instructor at a number of law enforcement training centers throughout California. She trains police supervisors and managers in strategic planning.

John Clark, Sheriff Captain (Ret.)
Senior Associate, Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC Background
Captain Jim Clark (Ret.) served with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for over 33 years. His broad experience includes command, administrative, operational and tactical assignments in Patrol, Detective, Custody, Court and Administrative divisions, with his last eight years being spent at command level posts.

As Captain, he was in command of various units including internal investigations, financial and cyber-crimes, custody operations and inmate transportation; and responsible for the administrative and operational management of each. Clark also managed the Southern California High Tech Taskforce comprised of Federal, State and local agencies as part of his command duties. Throughout his career, Captain Clark was a command and operations level member of a county-wide team responsible for managing all department resources during natural disasters, civil disturbances and other high-profile events such as political conventions and sporting events.

During his career, Clark was a member of the International Association of Financial Crimes Investigators, the Southern California Jail Managers Association, the Los Angeles Superior Court Management Group, and the San Gabriel Valley Peace Officers Association. He also served as an adjunct faculty member for a local community college.

In 2015, Clark entered the consulting field and has conducted over 25 organizational assessments of police and sheriff departments ranging from small rural agencies to large urban agencies focusing on improving their effectiveness and efficiency.

Captain Clark holds a Bachelor of Arts in Criminal Justice from the California State University, Fullerton.

Page 1217 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 8 Craig Junginger, Police Chief (Ret.)
Senior Associate, Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC Background
Chief Craig Junginger has served multiple communities over the course of a 40-year career, serving the last nine years as Chief of Police. Junginger has over 20 years of law enforcement executive experience, in addition to 20 years of line level experience in Community Policing, Internal Affairs, K-9, SWAT, CNT, Beach Detail, Narcotics, Vice/Intelligence, Motorcycle Traffic Officer, Personnel, and Patrol. He began his career at the City of Bell in Los Angeles County, CA, and spent the majority of his career at the Huntington Beach Police Department in Orange County, CA. where he rose through the ranks to Captain. In 2008, he was hired as the 11th Chief of Police for the City of Gresham, Oregon and spent the next eight years building stronger bonds with the community through community policing and improving the department through education, training and technology. Through his leadership, he developed a city-wide program involving multiple city departments which improved the quality of life for the members of the community.

Junginger retired in 2016, and subsequently served as Interim Chief of Police for two different law enforcement organizations. For the last 10 years, he has maintained a private consulting business conducting approximately 40 police department organizational assessments ranging from small rural departments to large urban departments focusing on improving their effectiveness and efficiency. He has also built a successful practice of conducting personnel investigations involving employee misconduct for public entities throughout the State of California.

Junginger obtained his Master of Arts Degree from California State University, Long Beach in Emergency Services Management, and a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of La Verne in Political Science. He also attended the FBI National Academy for police executives, West Point Leadership Program, and P.O.S.T. Command College, where he published an article on providing law enforcement training to the millennial generation.

Chief Junginger has been an adjunct instructor at Mt. Hood Community College in Gresham, OR, and Golden West Community College in Huntington Beach, CA.

David Makin, Ph.D. Criminal Justice and Criminology
Data Scientist, Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC
Background
David A. Makin, Ph.D., has nearly two decades of experience in translational research helping police departments, and other public safety agencies, in operationalizing existing data and implementing new data collection practices. As a mixedPage 1218 Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 9 methodologist, he has implemented research programs in a variety of police departments conducting quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis to support evidence-based decision-making. He has experience coordinating and conducting research in a diverse range of environments including projects within the states of Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, Montana, California, Idaho, and Washington. Additionally, Dr. Makin through his comparative and international research has conducted research in China, Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Caribbean.

As a researcher, he has nearly 50 peer-reviewed publications and has received over $3 million dollars in research funding, including research funded by the National Institute of Justice, National Science Foundation, and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). He has demonstrated success in developing and implementing private-public partnerships to support technology development, implementation, and integration within police departments. He is as an expert in programmatic implementation and evaluation, technology assessments, and is among a select group of researchers actively working with police departments to integrate body-worn camera (BWC) footage into supervision, risk management, and training.

In addition to his research, statistical, and disciplinary expertise, he has completed a 40-hour POST certified Crisis Intervention Team training, a two-year Fellowship at the Southern Police Institute at the University of Louisville and holds several awards for research, teaching, and service across several institutions of higher education where he has worked.

Dr. Makin graduated from Pennsylvania State University in 2002 with a Bachelor of Science, received a Master of Science in Administration of Justice from the University of Louisville in 2004, and in 2012 received a PhD in Criminal Justice and Criminology from Washington State University.

Currently, Dr. Makin works with police departments to align body-worn camera technology, and other technologies, into existing practice, and revising policy to improve integration and operationalization. His work has been featured in a range of print and media outlets including national, state, and local news agencies and publications. Examples of this research include contextualizing use of force and procedural justice through body-worn camera footage, the Pullman police department smart policing initiative public safety camera project, national evaluation of genetic evidence within property crime scenes, the impact of recreational cannabis legalization on police practice, and research examining how public health interventions influence public safety.

Page 1219 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 10

PROJECT TEAM
Project team subject to change; in that case agency to be notified.

Jackie Gomez-Whiteley
Project Manager
Eve Berg
Director
Craig Junginger
Senior Associate
David Makin
Data Scientist
Mark Yokoyama
Co-Founder
John Clark
Project Lead

Page 1220 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 11

OUR ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Meliora PSC has developed a comprehensive approach to conducting organizational assessments. Our process is unparalleled in that it provides the agency a finished report with recommendations and includes three-year data analysis along with a Data Analysis Toolkit: a program department staff can use to replicate the charts and tables for comparison in the ensuing years. This positions the leaders of the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department to upload CAD data and produce the same types of information to contrast and compare from preceding years. This value add means the data analysis can be repeated in-house rather than expending more resources to conduct the data analysis in the future.

The first step is a request for information to include documents, reports, worksheets and data. These informational sources will form the foundation for determining a baseline of activities of the department’s existing systems and processes, performance efficiencies, risk management capabilities, and community policing strategies.

Concurrently, our Data Scientist will work with department staff to collect three years of computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data, clean and analyze the data, synthesize the data and provide a data analysis report that looks beyond the outcomes of response time and deeper into the types of calls for service, number of units, emergency versus non-emergency calls, etc. The data report will include details regarding patrol workload, calls for service, response times, and deployment throughout the years as well as examined through seasons of the year, months and days of the week. In an effort to help the organization enhance the ability to analyze data moving forward, Meliora PSC offers the added benefit of providing a program so annual CAD data can be analyzed using the same program giving the agency’s leadership team the ability to recreate the same tables and charts for future comparisons and analysis.

Crime and clearance data reported to the FBI will also be reviewed, as well as investigations case management systems and processes. The Meliora team will review support functions in the organization such as dispatch, records, and property and evidence, as well as risk management functions to include personnel, training, professional standards, and policy.

Next, Meliora PSC staff will initiate phone and/or video conferences with key personnel in the department to further explore the inner-workings of the Los GatosMonte Sereno Police Department. It is important that we learn the areas that meet or exceed best practices as well as identify opportunities for improvement and/or greater efficiencies.

Meliora PSC will conduct a two-day site visit as part of the assessment. Internal focus group meetings with professional staff, sworn, and supervisor/managers will be

Page 1221 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 12 conducted during the visit. We recognize that department members are dedicated to serving their community and often have a unique perspective on addressing and improving the service delivery model to the community, as well as overall systems and processes, organizational culture, and department performance. Additionally, we will meet with key staff members at the department and Town as part of the organizational assessment as needed.

Seeking input from external stakeholders in the community is a key component to a holistic assessment process. During the site visit, the Meliora PSC team will conduct a community focus group meeting to elicit feedback from community stakeholders on the department’s performance and identify where expectations are met and can be enhanced.

Upon completion of the visit, Meliora PSC will generate an in-depth, comprehensive organizational assessment report addressing key observations and recommendations covering operations, investigations, administration, organizational culture, and performance management. Our data scientist will provide the data analysis program so staff can insert the ensuing year’s CAD data and subsequently prepare the charts and tables from the data analysis report in the organizational assessment report for comparison. The program can be used for future years as well so the leadership team at the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department can strategically align the department for the needs of the community.

Page 1222 ends

Meliora Public Safety Consulting, LLC |PO Box 71 Pullman, WA 99163 | 714-334-5831 | www.MelioraPSC.com 13

PROPOSED FEES
The quotation of proposed fees shall remain in effect for 90 days from the date of proposal submission.

Meliora PSC will conduct a comprehensive organizational assessment of the Los GatosMonte Sereno Police Department and provide the Data Analysis Toolkit for $77,000, exclusive of travel. The project would be billed in three installments: 40% ($30,800) upon contract signing; 40% ($30,800) upon completion of site visit; and the remaining 20% ($15,400) with delivery of the final report. Upon delivery of the draft report, the department will have 30 days to provide feedback regarding accuracy and the final report will be returned within 30 days of the comment period.

Travel expenses will be billed as incurred at actual cost with no overhead or administrative fees applied. Mileage will be billed at current IRS rate.

All reports will be provided to the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department for review in electronic format. A draft report will be finalized after review and input from the Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department. Upon finalization of the report, ongoing staff support, preparation, presentations, attendance at virtual or in-person meetings, and consulting services will be billed at $250 per hour/per person plus travel expenses. Any travel would again be billed as incurred at actual cost with no overhead or administrative fees applied. The organizational assessment will serve as the framework for a future needs assessment and strategic plan that can be conducted separately as an additional Meliora PSC service.

Page 1223 ends

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

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/16/2023
ITEM NO: 15
DATE: January 9, 2024
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Consider Whether the Town Should Retain a Separate Building Board of Appeals and Provide Direction to Staff.

RECOMMENDATION:

Consider whether the Town should retain a separate Building Board of Appeals and provide direction to staff.

BACKGROUND:

The Town currently has a Building Board of Appeals. As authorized by Section 1.8.8 of the California Building Code, the Town’s Building Board of Appeals was established in 1991 to hear appeals from decisions of the Town’s Building Official. Examples of appealable decisions are:
the application or interpretation of specific California Building Code provisions, such as those related to occupancy load, exiting, or accessibility; or the rejection of requests to use alternative materials or methods not explicitly authorized by the California Building Code. The Building Board of Appeals does not have the ability to waive California Building Code requirements altogether. Since the Building Board of Appeals was established, no appeals have been submitted or heard.

Section 1.8.8 of the California Building Code does provide that a Town Council can assume the duties of hearing appeals from decisions of the Building Official instead of having a separate Building Board of Appeals.

DISCUSSION:

This topic has been scheduled for a discussion of the Town Council to determine whether:
1) A separate Building Board of Appeals should be retained; or

Page 1224 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: Building Board of Appeals
DATE: January 9, 2024
DISCUSSION (continued):
2) The existing Building Board of Appeals should be disbanded and provide that the Town Council will assume the duties of the Building Board of Appeals and hear appeals from decisions of the Building Official.

If the Town Council votes to assume the duties of the existing Building Board of Appeals, a resolution rescinding the enabling resolution (Attachment 1) will be drafted and return to the Town Council for consideration.

COORDINATION:

This report was coordinated with the Town Manager, Community Development Director, and Building Official.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The discussion and possible action will not affect the Town’s Budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

This is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.

Attachment:

1. Resolution 2021-40

Page 1225 ends

RESOLUTION 2021-040

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

AMENDING THE BUILDING BOARD OF APPEALS ENABLING RESOLUTION AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2016-053
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos established the terms and conditions for appointment to and conduct of the Board of Appeals to hear and decide appeals of orders, decisions, or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the technical codes.

WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos hereby amends the power and duties of the Board of Appeals.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: that the terms and conditions for appointment to and conduct of a Board of Appeals are hereby established as follows:

1. Membership - Organization
a. The Board of Appeals shall consist of three (3) members who are qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters pertaining to building construction and building service equipment and who are not employees of the Town of Los Gatos. The Building Official shall be an ex officio member and shall act as secretary to said Board but shall have no vote upon any matter before the Board. The Fire Marshall shall act as an ex officio, non-voting member for issues related to the fire code. The Board of Appeals shall be appointed by the Town Council.
b. The members shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Town Council and shall serve a term of (4) years.
c. The terms of office shall be staggered and overlapped in such a manner that the term of no more than one (1) member expires each year.
d. Residency requirements shall conform with all current Town Resolutions and Policies. e. The Board shall establish rules and procedures relative to the conduct of business before the Board, and the election and term of officers. f. The Board shall elect a chair and a vice-chair, both of whom shall serve at the pleasure of the Board.
g. The Board of Appeals shall hold meetings as necessary. The Board shall call and conduct its meetings in compliance with the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code Sections 54950 and following).
h. A majority of the total number of filled seats on the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting the business of the Board.
i. Minutes of the actions taken during its meetings shall be kept permanently and shall be a public record.
j. Meeting attendance requirements will conform with all current Town Resolutions and Policies.
1 of 2
Resolution 2021-040 September 21, 2021
ATTACHMENT 1 Page 1226
k. Board members shall serve without compensation, provided that, with advance budgetary approval of the Town Council, the actual and necessary expenses (if any) incurred by the members in the conduct of Town business shall be reimbursable pursuant to current Town Council Resolutions and Policies.

2. Powers and Duties
The duties of the Board of Appeals shall be to hear and decide appeals or orders, decisions or determinations made by the Building Official relative to the application and interpretation of the technical codes. The Board of Appeals shall have no authority relative to interpretation of the administrative provisions of the codes nor shall the Board be empowered to waive code requirements.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution 2021-053 is hereby rescinded.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the 21st day of September 2021 by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

Mary Badame, Matthew Hudes, Rob Rennie, Maria Ristow, Mayor Marico Sayoc None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST:
��

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: lD jr3 t / cQOaJ.

Resolution 2021-040
2 of 2
SIGNED:
ti YMC7-i,�
MAYOR OF TH�OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: to/ 1·0 /,1_,/
September 21, 2021

Page 1227 ends

Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/16/2023
ITEM NO: 16
DATE: January 11, 2024
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Gabrielle Whelan, Town Attorney
SUBJECT: Provide Direction Regarding Potential Amendments to the Historic Preservation Committee Ordinance and Enabling Resolution RECOMMENDATION:

Provide direction regarding potential amendments to the Historic Preservation Committee Ordinance and Enabling Resolution.

BACKGROUND:

Town Code Section 29.80.225 currently provides that the Historic Preservation Committee acts as an advisory body to the Planning Commission on all matters pertaining to historic preservation. Section 29.80.225 also provides that two Planning Commissioners are to be appointed to serve on the Historic Preservation Committee.

DISCUSSION:

Town Code Section 29.80.227 provides that Historic Preservation Committee’s powers and duties consist of the following:
1) Regularly review and make recommendations to the Planning Commission concerning the determination of all matters pertaining to historic preservation which come before the Planning Commission.
2) Review and make recommendations to the Community Development Director concerning the determination of a minor residential development permit for properties with a Landmark and Historic Preservation (LHP) overlay zone or structures which were built prior to 1941.

Page 1228 ends

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Committee
DATE: January 9, 2024
DISCUSSION (continued):
3) Determine and issue approval for minor residential and commercial exterior alterations not covered under the architecture and site approval process or the minor residential development permit, for designated properties with a LHP overlay zone pursuant to subsection 29.20.485.
4) Upon request of the Planning Director, review pending or proposed building permits dealing with historic structures when it is questionable that the work proposed meets the guidelines for pre-1941 structures.
5) May, on request of the property owner, advise with respect to any proposed work requiring or not requiring a Town permit on any historic structure, a designated landmark site or in a designated historic district. Examples of the work referred to are additions, demolitions, painting and repainting of exterior surfaces, roofing, fencing, landscaping, glazing, and installation of lighting fixtures. In advising, the Historic Preservation Committee shall be guided by the purposes and standards specified in this division and other applicable ordinances and/or development standards. This subsection does not impose regulations or controls on any property.

While most of the powers and duties are advisory only, Subsection (3) does provide that the Historic Preservation Commission renders decisions with regard to some minor residential and commercial exterior alterations. By practice, the Historic Preservation Committee also makes determinations on requests to remove pre-1941 properties from the Historic Resources Inventory. In accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.258, these decisions and determinations are appealable to the Planning Commission. Such appeals are rare. In 2023, there were two appeals of Historic Preservation Committee decisions to the Planning Commission.

Government Code Section 1099 codifies the common law “incompatible offices” doctrine and prohibits individuals from serving on both an initial decision-making legislative body and a legislative body with the ability to review those decisions. Government Code Section 1099 applies only to decision-making bodies and does not apply when one of the legislative bodies is advisory in nature.

In addition, Procedural Due Process principles require that applicants for quasi-adjudicatory planning approvals receive “notice and a fair hearing.” Quasi-adjudicatory decisions are those that require a decision-maker to apply the law to facts and make findings. A “fair hearing” requires unbiased decision-makers [Clark v. City of Hermosa Beach, 48 Cal.App.4th 1152 (1996)].

It will be challenging for Planning Commissioners to hear an appeal of a decision in which they initially participated or for which they made a recommendation and appear unbiased. In order to provide a “fair hearing” when an appeal is

Page 1229 ends

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: Historic Preservation Committee
DATE: January 9, 2024
DISCUSSION (continued):
filed, the best practice is that any decision-maker who participated in the original decision recuse themselves from the appeal of that decision.

Given these recommendations, the Town Council’s options are to:
1) Amend Town Code Section 29.80.225 (a) to remove Planning Commissioners from the composition of the Historic Preservation Committee; or
2) Retain Town Code Section 29.80.225 (a) which provides that Planning Commissioners serve on the Historic Preservation Committee, revise Town Code Section 29.80.227 to provide that the Historic Preservation Committee is advisory in nature, and advise Planning Commissioners serving on the Historic Preservation Committee to recuse themselves when Historic Preservation Committee decisions are appealed to the Planning Commission.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends option #2 because experience has shown that it is helpful to have Planning Commissioners on the Historic Preservation Committee. Staff also recommends that the Council direct staff to draft amendments to the Town Code to codify that it is the duty of the Historic Preservation Committee to review and make recommendations to the Community Development Director on requests for removal of properties from the Historic Resources Inventory.

If the Council should provide alternate direction to staff, any amendments to the Town Code should include assigning the duty of making determinations on requests for removal of pre1941 properties from the Historic Resources Inventory to the appropriate deciding body as determined by the Council.

COORDINATION:

The Town Attorney’s Office, Town Manager’s Office, and the Community Development Department coordinated this report.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The discussion and/or direction will not affect the Town’s Budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

Providing direction to staff is not a project defined under CEQA, and no further action is required.

Page 1230 ends

PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
__________________________________________________________________________________________ Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 1/16/2024
ITEM NO: 17
DATE: January 11, 2024
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request at 124 Garden Hill Drive for the Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23- 084. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities.

Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni. Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich.

Project Planner: Ryan Safty.

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a Fence Height Exception request at 124 Garden Hill Drive for the construction of a six-foot tall fence located with the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle on property zoned R-1:8.

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is located at the southwestern corner of Garden Hill Way and Garden Hill Drive, one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17 (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1). The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential properties.

Over the past few years, the subject property has been sold and redeveloped. A summary of this history is provided below:

Page 1231 ends

PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: January 11, 2024
BACKGROUND (continued):
 November 15, 2017, the previous owner emailed the Town, asking if they can move their approximately five-foot tall fence out to the front and street-side property lines.

Town staff informed them that this was not allowed per the Fence Ordinance in effect at the time as the area was within the corner sight triangle (Attachment 1, Exhibit 10);  April of 2018, the property was sold;
 August 6, 2019, the Town adopted a new Fence Ordinance with stricter regulations regarding front yard and street side yard fence heights and locations, along with a new exception process;
 August 24, 2020, Building Permit application B20-0574 was submitted for a 969-square foot addition to the front and rear of the residence (Attachment 1, Exhibit 4). Town staff provided the following plan correction on September 2, 2020, during the review:
“There is an existing five-foot high non-conforming fence located in the front yard setback. Generally, fences located in the front setback are required to be a maximum of three feet in height. In the future, should you wish to maintain or replace this fence, it shall be done in kind pursuant to Section 29.40.0325 of the Town Code.” The building permit was issued on January 10, 2021, and finaled by Town staff on June 29, 2022;  November 23, 2021, Building Permit application B21-1157 was submitted for an outdoor barbeque, arbor, and perimeter wall and fence (Attachment 1, Exhibit 5). Town staff provided the following correction on December 14, 2021, during the review: “Sheet L-4, reduce the height of the corner wall and fence to a maximum of three feet when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director.” Following this comment, the plans were revised to show a fence and wall that complied with the Town’s height requirements.

The building permit was issued on April 12, 2022, and finaled by Town staff on May 2, 2023;
 On February 24, 2022, after receiving the comments from staff and amending the plans to show three-foot tall fencing within the front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle, the owners applied for a Fence Height Exception (FHE-22-001).

After working with staff and learning that staff could not support the exception request, the application was withdrawn on April 12, 2022;
 On August 4, 2023, following a complaint, the Town issued an administrative warning (Attachment 1, Exhibit 6) regarding an unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive;
 On September 7, 2023, the subject Fence Height Exception application (FHE-23-005) was submitted (Attachment 1, Exhibits 7 and 8), requesting approval to install a six-foot tall fence along the front and street-side property lines and within the corner sight triangle;  On September 27, 2023, the Community Development Director and Town Engineer determined that the required exception findings could not be made, and denied the request (Attachment 1, Exhibit 9); and

Page 1232 ends

PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: January 11, 2024
BACKGROUND (continued):
 On October 5, 2023, the applicant and owners appealed this decision to the Planning Commission (Attachment 1, Exhibit 11).

On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission considered an appeal of a Community Development Director denial of an exception request for construction of a six-foot tall fence located within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle for the subject property. The Planning Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Community Development Director denial of the fence height exception request.

On November 17, 2023, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the applicant (Martin Lettunich) on behalf of the property owner (Rushikesh Kulkarni). Consideration of the appeal by Town Council was scheduled for December 19, 2023.

On December 1, 2023, the appellant made a request for a continuance of the item to a date certain of January 16, 2024. Because this item was publicly noticed and because the Town Code Section 29.20.280 requires that the Town hold a public hearing within 56 days of an appeal (in this case by January 3, 2024), the Town Council opened the public hearing on December 19, 2023 and continued the appeal hearing to January 16, 2024. No one provided testimony on December 19, 2023.

Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.295, in the appeal, and based on the record, the appellant bears the burden to prove that there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, or that its decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. If neither is proved, the appeal should be denied. If the appellant meets the burden, the Town Council shall grant the appeal and may modify, in whole or in part, the determination from which the appeal was taken or, at its discretion, return the matter to Planning Commission. If the basis for granting the appeal is, in whole or in part, information not presented to or considered by the Planning Commission, the matter shall be returned to the Planning Commission for review.

DISCUSSION:

A. Project Summary
The property owner has requested a fence height exception for construction of a six-foot tall wooden fence on top of an approximately two-foot tall retaining wall along the front corner of the property. The application requests exceptions to the required front yard setback, street side setback, and corner sight triangle. Currently, there is an unpermitted three-foot tall bamboo screen attached to the approved three-foot tall wooden fence along the corner of the property.

Page 1233 ends

PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: January 11, 2024
DISCUSSION (continued):

As noted in the Background Section above, the property has undergone substantial remodel and redevelopment over the past few years. Building Permit B21-1157 allowed construction of an outdoor patio; a six-foot tall fence along the southern (rear yard) and western (internal side yard) property lines and outside of the required front setback, street side setback, and corner sight triangle; and allowed construction of a three-foot tall garden wall along the eastern (street side yard) property line and a two-foot tall retaining wall along the northern (front yard) property line. As retaining walls adjust the grade behind them, fence height is measured from the higher grade; per Town Code, a three-foot fence can be built above the retaining wall in the front or street-side setback if it complies with the Town Engineer’s corner sight triangle requirements (Attachment 1, Exhibit 10).

Town staff visited the site to take pictures, and prepared Attachment 1, Exhibit 12 to highlight which areas of the perimeter fencing is approved and compliant versus nonpermitted and non-compliant. The area in green identifies the areas of the perimeter fence and wall that are compliant with code, while the area in red shows the portion of the fence that does not comply with code and requires an exception or modification. The front property line and street-side property lines are differentiated from each other, and the corner sight triangle area is also highlighted.

Per Town Code Section 29.40.0315, fences and gates are limited to six feet in height with one foot of lattice on top (seven feet total), but are limited to, “three feet in height when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director.” The proposed fence is limited to three feet by Code, as it is within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle.

Town Code Section 29.40.0320, provided below, allows an exception to any of the fence regulations if a property owner can demonstrate that one of the following conditions exist.

Sec. 29.40.0320. - Exceptions.

Page 1234 ends

PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: January 11, 2024
DISCUSSION (continued):
(1) A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening; or
(2) A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem. (c) At public utility facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency access locations, exceptions may be granted where strict enforcement of these regulations will result in a security or safety concern.
(d) A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives.
(e) A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship.

The November 8, 2023 Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1) discusses the applicant’s justification and staff analysis of the proposed fence in relation to these findings.

B. Planning Commission
On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission opened the public hearing and considered testimony from the appellant, and the public (Attachment 3). After asking questions, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the appeal. The Commission discussed the appellant’s concerns. The Commission determined that the property was in-fact a corner lot and subject to the corner sight triangle requirements. The Commission did not see substantial evidence that there was a security concern or a special privacy circumstance associated with the property configuration that isn’t applicable to other propertiesin the Town.

Additionally, the fence being located within the required corner sight triangle was referred to by the Commission as a safety issue. After completing their deliberations, the Commission denied the appeal and upheld the Community Development Director denial of the Fence Height Exception application.

C. Appeal to Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on November 17, 2023 by Martin Lettunich on behalf of Rushi Kulkarni (Attachment 4). The appellant stated that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion and that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. The appeal did not provide any supporting evidence for these two statements and for this reason, and because the property owner has since submitted a revised justification letter in place of these claims, there is no staff analysis.

In addition, the appeal states that the owners are having a traffic study done to show that there is not a public safety issue. This item is discussed in more detail below. Finally, the

Page 1235 ends

PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: January 11, 2024
DISCUSSION (continued):
appeal states that the fence along the north side of the property was reviewed and approved in the field. While conversations with inspectors have been described by theapplicant, the approved plans do not reflect the current fence height and no Planning Division review or approval was issued for the increased fence height.

Following the November 17, 2023 appeal submittal, the property owner began working with Town staff and a traffic consultant to review the corner sight triangle concern. As a result of preliminary conversations with the traffic consultant and Town staff, it became apparent that the corner sight triangle requirements were applied correctly; and therefore, the height requirements shown in Attachment 1, Exhibit 10 do apply.

On January 9, 2024, the property owner provided a revised justification letter for their appeal and Fence Height Exception request (Attachment 5). The request is now two-fold.

First, they are requesting approval of a fence height exception to allow the six-foot tall solid fence along the front (north) property line to remain. Second, they are requesting to use a combination of the approved three-foot solid fence topped by a three-foot open-view fencing along the sight corner to increase visibility for drivers and address their concerns with “coyote sightings right along the curbside by my property” and “strangers that regularly frequent the street to access Vasona Park trail.” In regards to the first part of this request, the height of the fence within the front setback would require an exception, and is not substantially in a different location from the previous fencing that could have been maintained or replaced in kind. This portion of the fence is not within the corner sight triangle. Therefore, staff finds that granting of an exception would not result in a traffic safety concern.

In regards to the second part of the request, the proposal does improve visibility within the corner site triangle by proposing an open view fence for those portions above the threefoot height limit; however, it still exceeds the maximum height allowed in the corner sight triangle and required front and street side setback areas. Therefore, even for the revised proposal, an exception would not be granted.

CONCLUSION:

A. Recommendation
For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Town Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution denying the appeal (Attachment 6).

Page 1236 ends

PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: January 11, 2024
CONCLUSION (continued):

B. Alternatives
Alternative One: if the Council finds merit in the appeal it should continue the application to the next meeting and provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution to grant the appeal, grant the exception to the Town’s fence regulations with direction on specific modifications, and identification of the facts that support the following required 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 (e): New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Required findings for granting an exception to the Town’s fence regulations:
■ A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives; or
■ A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship.

Required findings for granting an appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission:
■ There was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission; or ■ The Planning Commission decision is not supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Alternative Two: Grant the appeal and remand the item back to the Planning Commission given that the applicant/appellant is now exploring design options that were not considered by the Planning Commission. In addition, review by the Parks and Public Works staff concluded that if the existing wooden fence within the corner site triangle were to be reduced to be no more than three feet in height, as measure from top of the curb or edge of pavement, then staff would not object to the proposed open view fencing above that height.

If the Council choses either of these or another alternative, staff will return at a subsequent meeting with the appropriate resolution. The Council should put into the record all facts that it used to make the required findings as noted in this report so they can be properly documented in the resolution.

Page 1237 ends

PAGE 8 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: January 11, 2024
PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Written notice of the Town Council hearing was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property.

COORDINATION:

The Community Development Department coordinated with the Parks and Public Works Department in the review of the fence height exception.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. November 8, 2023, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 1 through 12

2. November 8, 2023, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 13

3. November 8, 2023, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

4. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision, received November 17, 2023

5. Revised Justification Letter

6. Draft Resolution to Deny the Appeal and Deny the Project

Page 1238 ends

PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY
Associate 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: 11/08/2023
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: November 3, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 124 Garden Hill Drive. APN 424-23-084. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005.

Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni. Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty.

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for construction of a six-foot tall fence within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle on property zoned R-1:8, located at 124 Garden Hill Drive.

PROJECT DATA:

General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:8 – Single-Family Residential
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan, Residential Design Guidelines Parcel Size: 8,712 square feet
Surrounding Area:

Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8

Page 53 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1239 ends

PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 3, 2023
CEQA:

FINDINGS:
 The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities; and  As required by Section 29.40.320 of the Town Code for granting a Fence Height Exception.

ACTION:

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

BACKGROUND:

The subject property is located at the southwestern corner of Garden Hill Way and Garden Hill Drive, one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17 (Exhibit 1). The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential properties.

Over the past few years, the subject property has been sold and redeveloped. A summary of this history is provided below:
 November 15, 2017, the previous owner emailed the Town, asking if they can move their approximately five-foot tall fence out to the front and street-side property lines.

Town staff informed them that this was not allowed per the then current Fence Ordinance as the area is within the corner sight triangle (Exhibit 10);  April of 2018, the property was sold;
 August 6, 2019, the Town adopted a new Fence Ordinance with stricter regulations regarding front yard and street-side yard fence heights and locations, along with a new exception process;
 August 24, 2020, Building Permit application B20-0574 was submitted for a 969-square foot addition to the front and rear of the residence (Exhibit 4). Town staff provided the following plan correction on September 2, 2020, during the review: “There is an existing five-foot high non-conforming fence located in the front yard setback. Generally, fences located in the front setback are required to be a maximum of three feet in height. In the future, should you wish to maintain or replace this fence, it shall be done in kind pursuant to Section 29.40.0325 of the Town Code.” The building permit was issued on January 10, 2021, and finaled by Town staff on June 29, 2022;

Page 54 ends

PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 3, 2023
BACKGROUND (continued):
 November 23, 2021, Building Permit application B21-1157 was submitted for an outdoor barbeque, arbor, and perimeter wall and fence (Exhibit 5). Town staff provided the following plan correction on December 14, 2021, during the review: “Sheet L-4, reduce the height of the corner wall and fence to a maximum of three feet when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street, driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director.” Following this comment, the plans were revised to show a fence and wall that complied with the Town’s height requirements. The building permit was issued on April 12, 2022, and finaled by Town staff on May 2, 2023;  On February 24, 2022, after receiving the comments from staff on B20-0574 and B21- 11157 and amending the plans to show three-foot tall fencing within the front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle, the owners applied for a Fence Height Exception (FHE-22-001). After working with staff and learning that staff could not support the exception request, the application was withdrawn on April 12, 2022;
 On August 4, 2023, following a complaint, the Town issued an administrative warning (Exhibit 6) regarding an unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive;
 On September 7, 2023, the subject Fence Height Exception application (FHE-23-005) was submitted (Exhibits 7 and 8), requesting approval to install a six-foot tall fence on top of a retaining wall along the front and street-side property lines and within the corner sight triangle;
 On September 27, 2023, the Community Development Director and Town Engineer determined that the required exception findings could not be made, and denied the request (Exhibit 9); and
 On October 5, 2023, the applicant and owners appealed this decision to the Planning Commission (Exhibit 11).

Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.255, any interested person as defined by Town Code Section 29.10.020 may appeal to the Planning Commission any decision of the Planning Director. For residential projects, an interested person is defined as, “a person or entity who owns property or resides within 1,000 feet of a property for which a decision has been rendered and can demonstrate that their property will be injured by the decision.” The appellant/owner meets the requirements.

Page 55 ends

PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 3, 2023
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located at the southwestern corner of Garden Hill Way and Garden Hill Drive, one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17 (Exhibit 1).

The immediate neighborhood consists of single-family residential properties.

B. Project Summary and Zoning Compliance
The property owner is appealing the Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for the construction of a six-foot tall wooden fence on top of an approximately two-foot tall retaining wall within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle.

DISCUSSION:

A. Fence Height Exception
The property owner has requested a fence height exception for construction of a six-foot tall wooden fence on top of an approximately two-foot tall retaining wall along the front corner of the property. The application requests exceptions to the required front yard setback, street-side setback, and corner sight triangle. Currently, there is an unpermitted three-foot tall bamboo screen attached to the approved three-foot tall wooden fence along the corner of the property.

As noted in the Background Section above, the property has undergone substantial remodel and redevelopment over the past few years. Building Permit B21-1157 allowed construction of an outdoor patio; a six-foot tall fence along the southern (rear yard) and western (internal side yard) property lines and outside of the required front setback, street side setback, and corner sight triangle; and allowed construction of a three-foot tall garden wall along the eastern (street side yard) property line and a two-foot tall retaining wall along the northern (front yard) property line. As retaining walls adjust the grade behind them, fence height is measured from the higher edge of grade; per Town Code, a three-foot fence can be built above the retaining wall in the front or street-side setback if it complies with the Town Engineer’s corner sight triangle requirements (Exhibit 10).

Town staff visited the site to take pictures, and prepared Exhibit 12 to highlight which areas of the perimeter fencing is approved and compliant versus non-permitted and noncompliant. The area in green identifies the areas of the perimeter fence and wall that are compliant with code, while the area in red shows the portion of the fence that does not comply with code and requires an exception or modification. The front property line and

Page 56 ends

PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 3, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):
street-side property lines are differentiated from each other, and the corner sight triangle area is also highlighted.

Town Code Section 29.40.0320, provided below, allows an exception to any of the fence regulations if a property owner can demonstrate that one of the following conditions exist.

Sec. 29.40.0320. - Exceptions.

An exception to any of these fence regulations may be granted by the Community Development Director. A fence exception application and fee shall be filed with the Community Development Department and shall provide written justification that demonstrates one (1) of the following conditions exist:
(a) Adjacent to commercial property, perimeter fences or walls may be eight (8) feet if requested or agreed upon by a majority of the adjacent residential property owners. (b) On interior lots, side yard and rear yard fences, walls, gates, gateways, entry arbors, or hedges, behind the front yard setback, may be a maximum of eight (8) feet high provided the property owner can provide written justification that either:
(1) A special privacy concern exists that cannot be practically addressed by additional landscaping or tree screening; or
(2) A special wildlife/animal problem affects the property that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. Documented instances of wildlife grazing on gardens or ornamental landscaping may be an example of such a problem. (c) At public utility facilities, critical infrastructure, and emergency access locations, exceptions may be granted where strict enforcement of these regulations will result in a security or safety concern.
(d) A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives.
(e) A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship.

Page 57 ends

PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 3, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

The Letter of Justification (Exhibit 8) cited conditions (b)(1) related to a special privacy concern, (b)(2) related to a special wildlife problem, (d) related to security, and (e) related to a special circumstance associated with the property configuration for justification of the exception request.

For conditions (b)(1) and (b)(2), staff could not support the exception as subsection (b) only applies to the side and rear fences on interior lots. This is a corner lot, and the exception is for the front and street side yards; therefore, subsection (b) of Town Code Section

29.40.0320 is not applicable.

For condition (d), the provided justification is as follows: “It is also a special security concern given the fact that my client has three young children who have no place to play outside but in that area. We see no alternative ways to address the safety of my client’s children other than to have a tall fence to keep the children in and the coyotes out […]. The fence at 3 feet high is not workable to avoid the threat from the coyotes.” Town staff could not support the exception request under condition (d) as the property is located in an urbanized, residential subdivision. If the potential of a coyote sighting were deemed a “special security concern,” then most properties in the Town would be eligible. Additionally, the owners are allowed to construct a six-foot tall fence with one-foot of lattice above (seven feet total) if they move the fence location back to the meet the required front and street side yard setbacks. As noted in the Background Section above, the owners were notified before and throughout their remodel process that the fence height at this location is limited to three feet. They proceeded with their house addition and remodel plans, which impacted which areas of the lot were available for outdoor use.

For condition (e), the provided justification is as follows: “My client is of East Indian descent.

He belongs to a religion which places special importance on the sun and its east west passage through the sky. According to the tenants of his religion, he is to hold prayer sessions on the east side of his yard. He has tried to do so, but, prior to erecting the bamboo fence, the neighbors would stop and watch his private prayer sessions with his family. The lack of privacy with a short fence made it very difficult and uncomfortable for my client and his family to practice their faith.” Town staff could not support the exception request under condition (e). As noted in the Background Section above, the owners were notified before and throughout their remodel process that the fence height at this location is limited to three feet. They proceeded with their house addition and remodel plans, which impacted which areas of the lot were available for outdoor use. Additionally, the owners are allowed to construct a six-foot tall fence with one-foot of lattice above (seven feet total) if they move the fence location back to the meet the required front and street side yard setbacks.

Page 58 ends

PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 3, 2023
DISCUSSION (continued):

The Letter of Justification also argues that this is not a true road intersection, but instead a bend of a road, and therefore the corner sight triangle requirements should not be applicable. As a part of the Town’s review, the Town Engineer reviewed the request and confirmed that the corner sight triangle requirements are valid at this location, and also denied the exception request. For the reasons outlined in this section, the Town denied the exception request on September 27, 2023 (Exhibit 9).

B. Appeal Analysis
The Decision of the Community Development Director to deny the fence height exception was appealed on October 5, 2023 (Exhibit 11).

The appeal form did not provide any additional reasoning for the request for the Town or Planning Commission to consider. The Planning Commission should review the previous exception justification points listed above to determine if the exception request can be approved.

C. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities.

PUBLIC COMMENTS:

Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the subject property. At the time of preparation of this report, no public comment has been received.

CONCLUSION:

A. Summary
The property owner is requesting that the Planning Commission reconsider the Community Development Director’s decision to deny the fence height exception to allow a new six-foot tall wooden fence within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner sight triangle.

Page 59 ends

PAGE 8 OF 8
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 3, 2023
CONCLUSION (continued):

B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the Community Development Director decision to deny the fence height exception application based on the reasoning provided in this report.

C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:

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

2. Grant the appeal and approve the fence height exception with the findings in Exhibit 2 and the draft conditions provided in Exhibit 3; or

3. Grant the appeal with additional and/or modified conditions.

EXHIBITS:

1. Location Map

2. Required Finding

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted

4. Building Permit B20-0574 Approved Plans

5. Building Permit B21-1157 Approved Plans

6. Administrative Warning, Dated August 4, 2023

7. Project Plans, Received September 7, 2023

8. Letter of Justification, Received September 7, 2023

9. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter, Dated September 27, 2023

10. View Area Diagrams

11. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision, Received October 5, 2023

12. Pictures of Subject Property

Page 60 ends

LARK AV
SB HIGHWAY 17
NB HIGHWAY 17
NB 17 RAMP 85

ARROYO GRANDE WY
NB 17 RAMP LARK

GARDEN HILL DR

LAS ASTAS DR

IVY HILL WY

LA CANADA CT

LA CIENEGA CT

HOLLY HILL WY
124 Garden Hill Drive
0 0.125 0.25
Miles
°
EXHIBIT 1

Page 61 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 62 ends

C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser6\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp2F7F.tmp PLANNING COMMISSION – November 8, 2023
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
124 Garden Hill Drive
Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23-084. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni.

Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty.

Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.

Required findings for granting a Fence Height Exception:

Per Town Code Section 29.40.0320, the applicant has provided written justification that demonstrates one of the following conditions exist:
■ A special security concern exists that cannot be practically addressed through alternatives. ■ A special circumstance exists, including lot size or configuration, where strict enforcement of these regulations would result in undue hardship.

EXHIBIT 2

Page 63 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 64 ends

C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser6\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp9937.tmp PLANNING COMMISSION – November 8, 2023

DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
124 Garden Hill Drive
Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005
Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23-084. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15305: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15301: Existing Facilities. Property Owner: Rushikesh Kulkarni.

Applicant/Appellant: Martin Lettunich. Project Planner: Ryan Safty.

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 intensification beyond this authorized use requires a Conditional Use Permit amendment.

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 per Section

29.20.335 of the Town Code. Reasonable extensions of time not exceeding one year may be granted upon application, and can be granted if approved by the deciding body prior to the expiration date. Therefore, it is recommended that applications for a time extension be filed with the Community Development Department at least 60 days prior to the expiration date of the approval.

3. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement (“the Project”) from the Town shall defend (with counsel approved by Town), indemnify, and hold harmless the Town, its agents, officers, and employees from and against any claim, action, or proceeding (including without limitation any appeal or petition for review thereof) against the Town or its agents, officers, or employees related to an approval of the Project, including without limitation any related application, permit, certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, compliance or failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations, and/or processing methods (“Challenge”). Town may (but is not obligated to) defend such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at applicant’s sole cost and expense.

Applicant shall bear any and all losses, damages, injuries, liabilities, costs, and expenses (including, without limitation, staff time and in-house attorney’s fees on a fully-loaded basis, attorney’s fees for outside legal counsel, expert witness fees, court costs, and other litigation expenses) arising out of or related to any Challenge (“Costs”), whether incurred by Applicant, Town, or awarded to any third party, and shall pay to the Town upon EXHIBIT 3 Page 65 Page 1251
C:\Users\MeetingsOfficeUser6\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp9937.tmp demand any Costs incurred by the Town. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in such Challenge as Town, in its sole discretion, determines appropriate, all at the applicant’s sole cost and expense. No modification of the Project, any application, permit certification, condition, environmental determination, other approval, change in applicable laws and regulations, or change in processing methods shall alter the applicant’s indemnity obligation.

Page 66 ends

GENERAL project NOTES/requirements
ShEET INDExX - notes

GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
vICINITY mAP
PARCEL mAP
jurisdiction approval stamp(s)
Britt Rowe shall retain all rights
and ownership to all drawings
and specifications. The contents
of the drawings may not be used
in whole, or in part, without
expressed written consent given
by Britt Rowe. All construction
shall comply with all local &
national building codes. All
contractors shall verify all
conditions to assure
conformance to these codes.

REVISIONS: #
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

Project Info
12/15/20
Noted
A0.1
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

PROJECT CONSULTANTS
special notes
Professional Stamp
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032

1. GOVERNING CODES: All work shall conform to the following codes and standards:

A) 2019 California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, Part 2 (Based on 2018 IBC) B) 2019 California Residential Code (CRC) Title 24, Part 2.5 (Based on 2018 IRC) C) 2019 California Electric Code (CEC) Title 24, Part 3 (Based on 2017 NEC) D) 2019 California Mechanical Code (CMC) Title 24, Part 4 (Based on 2018 UMC) E) 2019 California Plumbing Code (CPC) Title 24, Part 5 (Based on 2018 UPC) F) 2019 California Energy Code Title 24, Part 6
G) 2019 California Fire Code (CFC) Title 24, Part 9 (Based on 2018 IFC) H) 2019 CalGreen Building Code Title 24, Part 11
In addition to the codes referenced above, all work shall conform to all local ordinances and codes as applicable. Cross reference all code numbers and verify consistency as required.

2. All work done pursuant to these drawings and specifications shall comply with all ordinances and regulations which apply to the work and shall in any case conform to the latest edition(s) of the CRC/IRC/CBC/IBC (CA Residential Code/ International Residential Code & California Building Code/International Building Code) currently enforced and all city, county and/or state codes as applicable.

3. Britt Rowe shall not be held responsible for the design, coordination and/or implementation of any and all “Design-Build” work, including but not limited to the following: See the appropriate code references below for design and installation requirements.

A) Electrical: Per CEC (California Electric Code) current edition.

B) Mechanical: Per CMC (California Mechanical Code) current edition.

C) Plumbing: Per CPC (California Plumbing Code) current edition.

D) Fire Sprinklers: CFC (California Fire Code)
Verify and address all additional local ordinances and codes which may apply to the specific “Design-Build” application as required.

4. Britt Rowe is not responsible for the design, coordination, or implementation of any work performed by consultants, including but not limited to, structural engineering, soil engineering, civil engineering, land surveying, electrical engineering, landscape architecture and/or Title 24 Energy compliance.

5. In addition to inspections required by CBC 110, the owner, contractor and/or structural engineer of record, acting as the owner’s agent, shall employ one or more special inspectors or jurisdiction approved Testing Agencies, who shall provide “Special Inspections” during the course of construction for the following types or work per CBC 1704, 1707 or 1708 including but not limited to:

A) Concrete: Where the structural design exceeds a (F’c) of 2500 PSI B) On site structural welding, including welding of reinforcing steel.

C) Drilled piers, caissons and structural masonry.

D) Retrofit epoxy set hold downs and/or anchor bolts.

Special inspector’s approvals/credentials shall be provided to the local jurisdiction upon request.

6. All general contractors and/or subcontractors shall be licensed with possession of the appropriate insurance policies ie: Workman’s Compensation, Liability, etc... and a valid business license within the jurisdiction of the subject property project site.

7. Britt Rowe is not responsible for the erection, fabrication and/or relative job safety. The general contractor and/or subcontractors shall comply with all required safety orders per CAL-OSHA requirements and regulations.

8. The general contractor and/or subcontractors are to verify ALL existing conditions and/or discrepancies before commencing with work in order to ensure conformance with the “Construction Documents”. ALL discrepancies shall be brought to the attention of Britt Rowe and/or the Structural Engineer of Record prior to commencement of construction. All requests for “Change Orders” shall be submitted in writing to Britt Rowe for approval.

9. Regardless of dimensions shown, all new work shall align exactly with existing work with respect to floor elevations, column centerlines, wall faces, etc... (UNO)

10. Layout for new work is largely based upon relationships to existing conditions of the site and/or existing structures. Any questions regarding the intent related to the layout of the new work shall be brought to the attention of Britt Rowe, prior to the commencement of any work. The contractor shall immediately notify Britt Rowe of all discrepancies prior to the commencement of any work.

11. Preference shall be given to written/figured dimensions on the drawings over scaled measurements. The “Plans, Specifications and General Notes” are intended to agree and supplement one another. Anything indicated in one and not the other, shall be executed as if in all. In cases of direct conflict, the most restrictive shall govern.

12. All work shall be plumb, square and true and shall be of good “Workmanlike” quality as acceptable to the appropriate trade’s standard practices and those of the trade’s councils and/or organizations.

13. Any work and/or item not specifically called for in the drawings, but required for a complete and fully functioning installation consistent with the intent of the “Construction Documents” shall be supplied by the general contractor and/or subcontractors as required.

14. The intent of the “Construction Documents” is to include ALL labor, materials, equipment and transportation necessary for the complete and proper execution of the work.

15. The project “Specification Book” shall take precedence over noted specifications when applicable.

16. Civil, Soil and Structural Engineering specifications shall take precedence over any other specifications.

17. Britt Rowe retains all rights and ownership to all drawings and specifications.

These documents may not be used in whole, or in part, without the expressed written consent from Britt Rowe.

18. The Owner/Developer/Client reserves the right to make alterations to the design during the course of construction. All changes shall be approved by the local building official and shall, in any case, comply with the current editions of the CRC, CBC, CMC, CPC, CFC, CEC and/or CES as required.

19. New Construction or remodeling is largely dependent upon existing site conditions and therefore a “Site Survey” is recommended and if provided, shall be generated by a licensed Land Surveyor or Registered Civil Engineer and shall contain the following information: Property corners, property lines, existing building(s), easements, topography lines, utilities and/or significant trees. If a Site Survey is NOT provided, Britt Rowe will not be held responsible for any and all discrepancies relating to the site and existing conditions. In any event, Britt Rowe shall not be responsible for work performed by others and provided for the purpose of completing the project.

20. all “deferred submittals” shall first be submitted to the registered design professional who shall review them and forward them to the building official with notation indicating the deferred submittal documents have been reviewed and have been found to be in general conformance with the design of the building. The deferred submittal items shall not be installed until the deferred submittal documents have been approved by the applicable building official.

BUILDING DESIGNER
BRITT • ROWE
108 N. Santa Cruz Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
(408) 354.6224 (office)
(408) 656-4732 (mike cell)
(408) 656-1983 (tony cell)
(415) 595-3458 (David Cell)
[email protected]
T24 ENERGY ANALYST
FRI ENERGY CONSULTANTS, INC.

Mr. Nicholas Bignardi
21 N. Harrison Avenue, Suite 210
Campbell, CA 95008
(408) 866-1620
[email protected]

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
charles williams r.c.e.

Mr. Charles Williams P.E.

PO Box 1152
Mountain View, CA 94042
(650) 279-8756
[email protected]
124 Garden Hill Dr - Google Maps 9/12/19, 1'08 PM
Map data ©2019 200 ft
124 Garden Hill Dr
Owner: Rishi and ashi kulkarni
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, CA 95032

[email protected]
Project Address: 124 garden hill drive
los gatos, CA 95032
APN: 424-23-084
Lot Size: 8,976 sf (.21 acres)
Lot Slope: flat
Zoning: r-1:8
Tract: 1520 (lot x)
Occupancy Group: R3/U
Type of Construction: V-B
NOTE: CORNER LOT: LOT ORIENTATION IS DETERMINED BY LOT GEOMETRY AND NOT BY ADDRESS.

SCOPE OF WORK:

New Master bedroom and bath addition to the rear of an existing single story, single family residence. see plans. Attic height is less than 7’-0”H: Remodeled area = 1214 SF.

Floor Areas
(e) Living Area 1,214 sf
(e) garage 457 SF (2-car cov.) allowable = 798 sf far: (0.0889) (n) living area addition 969 sf
(n) covered porch 16 sf @ front entry
(n) Total living Area 2,183 SF allowable = 2,856 sf far: (0.318) Setbacks Provided Required
Front (per planning) (e) 20’-3” 25’-0”
Rear (per planning) 20’-6” @ addition 20’-0"
Left Side (per planning) (e) 7’-4” 8’-0”
Right Side (per planning) (e) 7’-11" 8’-0”
Coverages Proposed
building @ grade 3464 sf dwelling, garage, porches, patios Building Height Proposed Allowed
max. ridge (N) 18’-11” 30’-0”
Sht. ID Drawing Title
A0.1 Title Sheet and General Project Info
A0.2 CalGreen Notes
misc. “Blueprint for a clean bay”
A1.1 Site Plan - notes
A1.2 Construction Management Plan
A2.1 existing floor plan - demolition
a2.2 existing exterior wall retention plan
a2.3 existing exterior elevations
A3.1 proposed floor plan
a4.1 roof plan/notes/details
A5.1 Exterior Elevations
A5.2 Exterior Elevations
A6.1 Building Cross Sections
D.1 wall framing Details
DW.1 Door/Window Schedules/notes
E.1 proposed Electrical Plan
EN.1 CA Electrical Code Notes - elect. legend
en.2 CA Electrical Code Notes
en.3 CA Energy Commission Notes
en.4 CA Energy Commission Notes
f.1 scc fire department job site safety
GN.1 ca building code Notes
GN.2 ca building code Notes
GN.3 ca building code Notes
m.1 ca mechanical notes
p.1 ca plumbing code notes
S.1 Foundation Plan - notes
1 S.3 Roof Framing Plan
SD.1 Structural Details
SD.2 Structural Details
sd.3 Structural Details
sd.4 Structural Details
sd.5 Structural Details
sd.6 Structural Details
sd.7 Structural Details
SN.1 Structural Notes
SN.2 Structural Notes
T24-1 Title 24 Energy calculations
T24-2 Title 24 Energy calculations
Sht. ID Drawing Title
2 RI
RI
RI
R2
R2
10/29/20
12/13/20
MChavarin
EXHIBIT 4

Page 67 ends

Britt Rowe shall retain all rights
and ownership to all drawings
and specifications. The contents
of the drawings may not be used
in whole, or in part, without
expressed written consent given
by Britt Rowe. All construction
shall comply with all local &
national building codes. All
contractors shall verify all
conditions to assure
conformance to these codes.

REVISIONS:
#
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

Site Plan11/11/20
Noted
A1.1
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

Professional Stamp
Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032
0 4' 8' 16'
RI
10'-0" 20'-0"
10'-0"
P.U.E.
(e) 18'-7"
8'-0"
ssb
15'-0"
street side sb
45'-5"
(e) 21'-0"
fsb
20'-0"
rsb
25'-0"
front sb
(e) 36"h picket fence (e) 6'-0H painted wood fence
6'-6"
36" min.
(e) 7'-1"
0'
-12"
site plan 1/4" = 1'-0"
124 garden hill drive
apn: 424-23-084
lot size: 8,976 sf (.21 acres)
zoning: r-1:8
tract: 1520 (lot x)
wui: no
gas
400a
elec.
120.82'
100.82'

75.00'

55.00'
124 garden hill drive
garden hill drive
6'-6"w public parkway
4'-6"w public sidewalk
(e) stamped conc. driveway
(e) residence
(e) garage
(e) free-standing
patio cover o/sand
8'-0" ssb
15'-0" street ssb
25'-0" fsb
centerline of street
s58°34'20"E
s31°25'40"w
n58°34'20"w
s31°25'40"w
(e) residence
r = 20'-0"
(n) addition
(n) addition
front orientation per planning
6" curb
edge of paving
courtyard
porch
(e) painted wood fence
corner sight triangle
(e) painted wood fence (5'-0"h)
(e) painted wood fence (6'-0"h)
ada
ramp
(n) walkway
(e) 12" lg street tree(e) 12" lg street tree
street tree (e) 2" lg
street tree (e) 2" lg
(e) 26" mty. pine
(e) painted wood fence (5'-0"h)
end of sw/pw/curb (e) 2" tree (e) brick wall (+30"h)
18"w gutter
(e) 18" multi-trunk tree
(e) 36"h painted picket fence
(e) 36"h painted
picket fence
(e) 36"h picket fence
(e) gravel
45°
ac
cond.
wm
(e) conc. apron
approach w
w
w
e
e
(e) oh elec. line gg(e) ug gas
p.u.e. line
relocate water main
w/pressure regulator
and shut off
front per planning
left street side per planning
ss
ss
install c.o. @ pl
upgrade service
as needed and
provide underground.
convert to ug utility per pge
uge
uge
provide straw wattles
around entire project
for the duration of
construction to control
storm water run-off
during construction.

SITE PLAN NOTES:

1. See Civil Engineer’s “Grading and Drainage Plan(s)” as applicable and/or required for topography, site work and underground construction (typ.) All grading shall be performed in accordance with all local codes and requirements. Civil Engineer’s plans shall take precedence over any architectural site plan(s) and/or landscape plan(s).

2. When required and as applicable, a licensed Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor shall provide written certification of setback compliance from property lines and all relative pad elevations for all new construction on the site.

3. Unless noted otherwise on Civil Engineering Plans (Grading and Drainage), the ground immediately adjacent to the foundation shall be sloped away from the building at a slope of 5% for a minimum distance of 10’-0” measured perpendicular to the face of the wall. If physical obstructions or lot lines prohibit 10’-0” of horizontal distance, a 5% slope shall be provided to an approved alternative method of diverting water away from the foundation. Drainage swale used for this purpose shall be sloped 2% where located within 10’-0” of the building foundation. Impervious surfaces within 10’-0” of the building foundation shall be sloped a minimum of 2% away from the building.

CBC1804.4. See exception for allowable finish grade slope reduction to 2% away from structure.

4. When existing sewer laterals are approved for reuse, existing lines shall be televised and approved by the local sanitation district prior to final inspection. Provide a new clean out located @ the property line with an approved back flow prevention device approved by the sanitation department (as applicable).

5. in new construction, all utilities shall be installed underground (uno). See the utility provider’s plans and specifications for layout, details and service(s) to be provided. verify w/jurisdiction for special municipal requirements.

6. All trees marked on the “Site Plan” not scheduled for removal shall be protected by the appropriate tree protection measures identified by the consulting Arborist of record or local planning jurisdiction as applicable and required as a condition of approval. No equipment, materials or work shall commence until all tree protection fencing is installed. Tree protection fencing shall remain in place until the project is ready for final inspection. Any work required within the fenced protected area shall be performed with hand tools.

7. As applicable, see consulting Landscape Architect’s drawings for flatwork, paving, recreational fixtures, proposed planting and irrigation installations.

8. R319.1 Address identification. Buildings shall he provided with approved address identification. The address identification shall he legible and placed in a position that is visible from the street or road fronting the property. Address identification characters shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall not he spelled out. Each character shall be not less than 4 inches (102 mm) in height with a stroke width of not less than

0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where required by the fire code official, address identification shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response.

Where access is by means of a private road and the building address cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address identification shall be maintained.

IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
lot size = 8,976 sf

ITEM LOCATION (E) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE (N) IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE DIFFERENCE/TOTAL (E) RESIDENCE 1,214 SF- 1,214 SF
(N) ADDITION 969 SF + 969 SF
(E) DRIVEWAY 431 SF- 431 SF
(N) front walk 128 SF + 128 SF
(n) courtyard 151 sf + 151 sf
(n) porch/pedestals 66 sf + 66 sf
(N) door landings 77 sf + 77 sf
Total 1,645 SF (18.3%) 1,391 sf (15.4%) 3,036 sf (33.9%) 10/29/20 RI

Page 68 ends

REVISIONS:
#
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

CMP12/15/20
Noted
A1.2
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

Professional Stamp
Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032
0 4' 8' 16'
RI
construction management plan 1/4" = 1'-0"
124 garden hill drive
apn: 424-23-084
lot size: 8,976 sf (.21 acres)
zoning: r-1:8
tract: 1520 (lot x)
wui: no
gas
400a
elec.
120.82'
100.82'

75.00'

55.00'
124 garden hill drive
garden hill drive
(e) stamped conc. driveway
residence
garage
(e) free-standing
patio cover o/sand
s58°34'20"E
s31°25'40"w
n58°34'20"w
s31°25'40"w
(e) residence
r = 20'-0"
edge of paving
(e) painted wood fence
(e) painted wood fence (5'-0"h)
(e) painted wood fence (6'-0"h)
(e) 12" lg street tree(e) 12" lg street tree
street tree (e) 2" lg
street tree (e) 2" lg
(e) 26" mty. pine
end of sw/pw/curb (e) 2" tree
(e) 18" multi-trunk tree
ac
cond.
(e) conc. apron
approach
e
(e) oh elec. line convert to ug utility per pge
provide straw wattles
around entire project
for the duration of
construction to control
storm water run-off
during construction.
(e) painted wood fence (6'-0"h)
#1
#2
#3
#4
#6
#5
#7
#8
#9
#10
#10
(e) wooden fence to
remain for security
(e) wooden fence to
remain for security
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
Bulk material storage and loading/unloading
access gate (chain link) installed in (e) fence.

Fence replaced upon completion
concrete wash-out
dumpster bin for daily debris loading
typ. chain link job site security fencing
project address and information signage
Chain link access gate
temporary toilet and power supply
additional secure material storage
job site parking along both streets
abutting property
Construction management plan notes:

1. solid and demolition waste management: Provide designated waste collection areas and containers on site away from streets, gutters, storm drains, and waterways. arrange for regular disposal. Waste containers shall be covered at all times, except when waste is to be deposited. See “construction waste management plan”.

2. Hazardous waste management: provide proper handling and disposal of hazardous waste materials by a licensed hazardous waster material handling contractor/hauler. Hazardous wastes shall be stored and properly labeled in sealed containers.

3. spill prevention and control: provide proper storage areas for liquid and solid materials, including chemicals and hazardous substances, away from streets, gutters, storm drains, and waterways. spills must be cleaned up immediately and
contaminated soil disposed properly.

4. Material delivery, handling and storage: in general, materials should not be stockpiled on site. where temporary stockpiles are necessary and approved by the town of Los gatos, they shall be covered with a secure covering material and located in designated areas near construction entrances and away from drainage paths and waterways. Barriers shall be provided around storage areas where materials are in potential contact with run-off.

5. handling and disposal of concrete: when concrete trucks and equipment are washed on-site, concrete waste water shall be contained in designated containers or in a temporary lined water-tight pit where wasted concrete can harden for later removal.In no case shall fresh concrete be washed into the road right-of-way.

6. Sanitary/septic water management: temporary sanitary facilities shall be located away from drainage paths, waterways, and traffic areas. only licensed sanitary and septic waste haulers shall be used.

7. inspection and maintenance: areas of material and equipment storage sites and temporary sanitation facilities must be inspected weekly. problem areas shall be identified and appropriate additional and/or alternative measures implemented immediately.

8. job site security: install a secure construction fence at the perimeter of the property with lockable access gates for vehicles and material delivery. existing residential fencing may be used as an applicable portion of the required fencing. Provide a job site informational signage facing the public street as required by the Town of los gatos building department and santa clara county fire department.
12/13/20 R2

Page 69 ends

REVISIONS:
#
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:
(e) Floor Plan11/11/20
Noted
A2.1
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

Professional Stamp
Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032
15070
310310
3636 2628 6068 26110 3638
3638 3638
3638 3638
2818
71046 3068
2868
0 2' 4' 8'
0'
-12"
left
SW
rear
NW
right
NE
Front
SE
(e) floor plan: demo 1/4" = 1'-0"
(e) garage Area: 457 SF
(e) living area: 1214 sf
(e) covered porch: 92 sf
(e) 2x DF Stud Wall to remain
gas
elec.
twh
2-car garage
family
room
entry
cov. porch
kitchen breakfast
dining
room
bath: 2
master
bedroom
bath: 1
bedroom: 3 bedroom: 2
d
w
ref. range
ws
shwr.
(e) fp opening
covered
18'-7" to pl
(rear)
20'-8" to pl
street side sideyard
21'-2" to pl
int. sideyard

1. each room is currently equipped with a mini-split local ductless htr/ac. to be removed

2. roof slope: 4/12 typ. w/asphalt shingles.

3. plaster exterior siding typ.
45'-5" to pl
(front)
cabinet
remove masonry
fireplace and chimney
(e) 2x DF Stud Wall to demolish
(n) door/window opening in (e) stud wall
partial
infill
remove
partial
infill
infill
remove
replace
remove remove remove
partial
infill infill
infill
replace
DEMOLITION NOTES: (As applicable)

1. Scope of work to be removed and/or demolished shall be indicated on the drawings and shall include the demolition, removal and/or relocation of existing materials and/or assemblies necessary to install and/or construct the project as indicated on the proposed floor plans, elevations and other plans contained within the construction document set. All demolition shall coordinate with the extent of the proposed construction indicated on the approved plans and shall, in any case, conform to all local and state building codes.

2. The general contractor shall obtain an approved
“j-number” from
the bay area air quality management district (baaqmd) as applicable prior to any demolition.

3. The general contractor and/or subcontractors shall be provided the opportunity to visit the project site to become familiar with the scope of demolition required.

4. The general contractor shall be responsible for all demolition performed and shall design, construct and provide proper shoring and structural support/bracing as required throughout the demolition process and project construction as required per CAL OSHA requirements.

5. The general Contractor shall provide protective, construction fencing around the project site and will work within the confines of the site fencing whenever possible. However, depending upon site and structure conditions, alternative methods of demolition and alternative types of equipment may be used to ensure the safest and most efficient means of operation. This may involve modification of the site fencing from time to time in order to complete the demolition activities. coordination with the Property owner shall be required in advance.

6. All existing portions of the project that are designated to remain shall be protected from damage. Any question as to what shall remain shall be brought to the attention of the architect/designer and/or property owner prior to commencement of the work.

7. In accordance with the
“construction Waste Management Plan”, all
demolition debris that will not be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse by the property owner and/or general Contractor will be loaded into semi-end dumps and hauled to a disposal facility for further recycling or landfill. The “construction Waste Management Plan
” provides detailed information on percentages of material to be recycled or disposed and the designated recycling and/or disposal facilities to be used.

8. Disconnect all electrical prior to any demolition by other trades.

Disconnect, cap and clearly identify gas lines as required prior to any demolition by other trades.

9. During the course of demolition, it shall be the responsibility of the general contractor to use whatever methods required to limit the amount of airborne dust and dirt. Follow all “Bay Area Air Quality Management District” recommendations and requirements (as applicable) for all aspects of the demolition, including, as applicable, the removal of asbestos and/or any other hazardous materials located at the project site.

10. the general Contractor shall coordinate with the property owner or their authorized representative, to determine all existing equipment and devices to be retained by the owner. the general Contractor shall carefully remove all equipment and devices to be retained, preserve and store the equipment in a location designated by the owner. the general Contractor shall be responsible for removal, preservation, storage, and protection of all equipment and devices designated to be removed and re-installed.

11. Remove and replace all dry-rotted/termite damaged framing members as required and permitted. Remove (e) walls, windows and doors as indicated on the Demolition Plan. Reconstruct, relocate and/or replace per new floor plan. Remove (e) baseboards, crown and casing where walls, windows and doors are to be removed and replace per new finish plan/schedule as applicable.

12. Remove/relocate (e) electrical fixtures, switches and outlets as required. Upgrade main panel as required to service new electrical loads. Remove (e) circuits to sub-panel or main panel or to nearest active switch or junction box. Safely tie and cap all terminations as required.

13. Remove (e) floor covering in all areas of demolition and replace per finish schedule or plan. Remove all cabinetry as indicated on plans as applicable to the new layout.

9. Remove all rough plumbing, fixtures and hardware as indicated on plans as applicable. Cap terminations as required.

10. If utility service is to be interrupted, verify and confirm w/owner regarding timing to limit inconvenience. Provide temporary service as required and permitted by local jurisdiction.

11. Provide dumpster and haul away debris as required to maintain a clean job site. All construction interference with public streets, curbs, gutters and walkways shall be approved by the local jurisdiction and shall in any case kept cleaned and free of any debris that may interfere with their normal function.

Page 70 ends

REVISIONS: #
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:
(n) Floor Plan
11/11/20
Noted
A3.1
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

Professional Stamp
Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032
W03
D03
D04
D07
W14
W04
W05
W07
W06
D05
W08 W09 W10 W11
D06
D17 D15 D16
D22
D18
D13
D14
D10
D08
D09
D12
D01
W16
W02 D02 W01
D25
W15
D19
D11
W12 W13
D21 D20
D23
D24
0 2' 4' 8'
W17
D.1
W1
D.1
W1
D.1
W4
D.1
W4
D.1
W5
D.1
W6
RI
RI
RI
3'-0"
min.
(e) 56'-10"
verify
3'-0"
32'-10" 13'-2"
addition
(e) 56'-10"
verify
11'-6"
addition
(e) 27'-6"
verify
13'-2"
addition
(e) 20'-6"
verify
13'-0" 2'-0" 7'-11" 13'-4" 2'-0" 3'-0" 8'-6"
13'-4" 2'-4" 10'-10" 2'-4" 10'-10" 17'-2"
6'-6" 4'-2" 6'-6"
5'-7" 5'-3" 5'-7" 5'-3" 3'-1" 3'-5" 3'-5" 3'-1"
5'-11" 5'-7" 8'-1" 19'-5" 2'-8" 10'-6"
3'-10" 5'-5" 1'-4" 5'-9" 7'-5"
9'-7"
2'-3" 8'-7" 4'-6" 6'-4"
5'-6"
3'-0" 2'-0" 6'-0" 6" 4'-8" 2'-8" 3'-6" 6'-1" 3'-10" 5'-5" 3'-10" 10'-8" 2'-4" 6'-2"
6'-2"
13'-6"
@ courtyard wall
14'-10" 2'-4" 3'-6" 4'-6" 10'-2"
7'-2" 3'-6" 3'-5" 9'-5" 8"
3'-6" 6'-5"
2'-4"
2'-4"
2'-0"
2'-4" 4'-1" 3'-6" 8" 1'-6"
4'-0" 4'-0"
36"
min.
36"
min.36"
min.
6'-6"
2'-4" 9'-1" 2'-0"
1'-7" 3'-10"
11'-0"
5'-5" 3'-10"
10'-10" 7'-1"
5'-5" 5'-5" 5'-0"
3'-2"
3'-10"
3'-10" 7'-2" 3'-6"
2'-4"
30"
typ.
30"
typ.
0'
-12"
LEFT
SW
Rear
NW
RIGHT
NE
FRONT
SE
(n) floor plan 1/4" = 1'-0"
(e) garage Area: 457 SF
(e) living area: 1214 sf
(n) addition: 969 sf
(n) covered porch: 16 sf
(n) 2x DF Stud Wall to construct
use 2x4 df#2 studs @ 16"oc (uno)
gas
400a
elec.(e) twh
2-car garage
entry
cov. porch
bedroom: 2 bedroom: 3
d
w
ws
linen
cl.
bath: 2
cl.
pwdr.
guest
bedroom
g. bath kitchen
family
room
living
room
(e) 2x df stud wall to remain
master
bedroom
island
ref. range
oven
seat
seat
patio
line of (e) wall
line of (e) wall
line of (e) wall
2x6 wall
2x6 wall
2x6 wall
t.
eg eg
t.
t.
dw
t.
20 min.
fr door
t.
2%
1%
2%
1%
1%
2r
2r
vaulted clg.
9'-6" clg.
tray clg.
@ 8'-10"±
9'-6" clg.
coffered clg.
plate @ 8'-0"
9'-6" clg.
9'-6" clg.
9'-6" clg.
9'-6" clg. 9'-6" clg.
m. bath
9'-6" clg.
9'-6" clg.
9'-6" clg.
4/12
7/12
7/12
7/12
(e) conc. slab to remain
infill wall where (e) masory
fireplace is to be removed
new concrete step
into house: max. riser
ht. = 7.75"
32"H ± low courtyard
wall w/adhered stone
veneer and cap
24" x 24"
uf
access
drop-down fire
rated attic
ladder access
clg.
clg.
9'-6" clg.
9'-6" clg.
clg.
line of sloping ceiling
down to 8'-0" plate ht.
clg.clg.
4040 niche
5070
3080
relocate twh and water
softener to exterior side
of wall and provide
weather protective
cabinet
t.
door @ grade
(no landing)
(e) door/window opening infill framed
t.
vent dryer to ext.
42"w prefabricated ng, direct vent
firreplace w/stone surround
and hearth per crc:
majestic: cdvr42sc7 (see d.1)
max. riser = 7.75"

LEFT SIDE PER

PLANNING DEFINITION

FRONT PER

PLANNING DEFINITION

RIGHT SIDE PER

PLANNING DEFINITION

REAR PER

PLANNING DEFINITION
8'-0" clg.
@ closet
8'-0" clg.
@ soffit
verify (e) panel size
and upgrade to
400a min. contact
pge new services
dept. and install
utility underground
as required
100asp
2x6 stud wall
cl
dining
area
9'-6" clg.
cl
desk
buffet
clg.
8'-0" plate
dormer
t.
t.
t.
t. t.
t. glass encl.
t. glass encl.
t. glass
encl.
t.
new doors and windows:

Please see sheet DW.1 for door/window
schedule for the following information:

1. door and window sizes.

2. door and window material.
attic access doors in the attic
shall be 1-3/8" min. solid core
or 20 minute rated panels, w/
self (or automatic) -closing
and self-latching @ separation
walls between the garage and
residence.
attic
erv
attic
fau
ge 7.8cf elec.
dryer w/90 feet
of long run
venting: see specs
@ this sheet:

Y
A6.1
Y
A6.1
X
A6.1
X
A6.1
GE® 7.8 cu. ft. Capacity Smart Front Load Electric Dryer with Steam and Sanitize Cycle - GFD85ESPNRS - GE Appliances 10/29/20, 4)14 PM https://www.geappliances.com/appliance/GE-7-8-cu-ft-Capacity-Smart…ont-Load-Electric-Dryer-with-Steam-and-Sanitize-Cycle-GFD85ESPNRS Page 5 of 7 Dryer Cycles Bulky / Bedding
Cottons
Delicates
Mixed Loads
Perm Press
Quick Dry
Sanitize
Steam Dewrinkle
Steam Refresh
Timed Dry
Towels
Washer Link
Long Vent Capability Up to 90 feet
Temperature Options High/Medium/Low/Extra Low/No Heat
Control Type Capacitive Touch
Power On/Off
Rotary-Electronic w/LEDs
Start/Pause
Moisture Sensor Sensor Dry
Style Front-Loading
Dual Thermistors Yes
Additional Cycles Air Fluff
Delay Dry - up to 24 hours
EcoDry
Reduce Static
Remote Start
Sanitize
Steam Dewrinkle
Steam Refresh
Dryness Levels Damp
Dry
Extra Dry
Less Dry
More Dry
Timed Dry 120 Minutes
Less Time -
More Time +
Presets (10,20,40,60,90)
Wrinkle Care Cycle Yes
Communication Washer Link
Pedestal Optional
Steam Dewrinkle Yes
SteamRefresh Yes
WiFi Connect Built-In
24 49-3000206 Rev 1
Installation Instructions
EXHAUSTING THE DRYER (cont.)
• DO NOT bend
or collapse
ducting.

Use elbows
if turns are
necessary.
• DO NOT use
excessive
exhaust
length. Cut
duct as short
as possible.
• DO NOT
crush duct
against
the wall.
• DO NOT
set dryer
on duct.
• DO cut duct as short
as possible and
install straight into
wall.
• DO use elbows
when turns are
necessary.

Elbows
Using exhaust longer than specified length will:
• Increase the drying times and the energy cost.
• Reduce the dryer life.
• Accumulate lint, creating a potential fire hazard.

The correct exhaust installation is YOUR
RESPONSIBILITY.

Problems due to incorrect installation are not
covered by the warranty.

The MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE length of the exhaust
system depends upon the type of duct, number of turns,
the type of exhaust hood (wall cap) and all conditions
noted on the chart.
• Internal elbows added for side or bottom vent
conversions must be included in the total elbow count.
• Any elbow greater than 45° should be treated as a 90° elbow; one elbow of 45° or less may be ignored.
• Two 45° elbows will be treated like one 90° elbow.
• For the side exhaust installations, add one 90° elbow to the chart.
• For every additional 90° elbow, reduce the allowable
vent system length by 10 feet.
• When calculating the total vent system length, you
must add all the straight portions and elbows of the
system (including the transition duct).

EXHAUST LENGTH

EXHAUST
LENGTH
FOR
NORMAL
VENT
MODELS

RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM LENGTH
Exhaust Hood Types
Recommended Use only for short run
installations
4" DIA.
4"
4" DIA.

4" DIA.
2-1/2"
No. of 90° Elbows Rigid Metal Rigid Metal
090 Feet 60 Feet
160 Feet 45 Feet
245 Feet 35 Feet
335 Feet 25 Feet
425 Feet 15 Feet

EXHAUST
LENGTH
FOR
LONG
VENT
MODELS

RECOMMENDED MAXIMUM LENGTH
Exhaust Hood Types
Recommended Use only for short run
installations
4" DIA.
4"
4" DIA.

4" DIA.
2-1/2"
No. of 90° Elbows Rigid Metal Rigid Metal
0 200 Feet 175 Feet
1 185 Feet 165 Feet
2175 Feet 155 Feet
3165 Feet 145 Feet
4155 Feet 135 Feet
5145 Feet 125 Feet
RI
RI
GE Dryer: GFD85ESPNRS
10/29/20
A durable placard (minimum size of 4.5") must be permanently affixed on a wall near and visible from the dryer location. The placard shall state the actual length of the installed dryer exhaust vent and include the following language:
warning:
check the manufacturer installation instructions for any domestic dryer than will be installed at this location. the instructions should allow the dryer to be connected to an exhaust duct (vent) that is a maximum ___ feet long.
do not remove this placard.

Page 71 ends

REVISIONS:
#
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

Roof Framing Plan
11/11/20
Noted
A4.1
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

Professional Stamp
Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032
0 2' 4' 8'
A4.1
FL1
A4.1
FL3
A4.1
FL3
A4.1
FL1
roof plan 1/4" = 1'-0"
roof slope: 7/12 typ. (uno)
roofing material: class a, asphalt shingles typ.
overhang: 12" typ.
4/12
7/12
7/12
valley
flat roof:
sloped 2% min.
slope 2%
ib pvc single ply-80 membrane
valley
hip
hip
hip
valley
ridge
ridge
hip
ridge
shed roof
(3) "velux" fs-c04 tempered
glass skylights
(icc: esr-0199)ridge
valley
valley
fl1 flashing: eave @ gutter
standard
Roofing material per
exterior elevations.

See Plans.

Roof sheathing (CDX
plywood or OSB) and
specified underlayment.

Underlayment laps over
metal eave flashing.
26GA G.I. (or copper)
flashing w/drip
extending up roof a min.
of 4". Flashing laps
fascia (and gutter as
applicable).

Gutter (as occurs). See
Roof Plan and
exterior elevations.

Some gutter products
have eave flashing as
an integral part of
their construction.

Roof rafters
per framing
plans.

Fascia per
exterior
elevations.
5"
min.
fl3 flashing: valley
Roofing material per
exterior elevations and
specified underlayment
(CDX plywood or OSB).

Maintain 5" clearance
between roofing
material @ valley.

Valley rafter.
26GA G.I. (or copper)
valley flashing w/hemmed
edges turned up, full
length w/1" crimp @ center
Roofing material
overlaps valley
flashing 4" min.

In locations of severe
weather, provide bituminous
sheet waterproofing,
lapped over valley
flashing @ both sides for
full length of valley.
attic ventilation calcs (crc r806)
new roof area
Area of Accessible
Roof to be Ventilated
2,336 sf
Length of Eave (LF) w/RR
@ 16”OC
148’-11” lf
Length of Eave (LF) w/RR
@ 24”OC
Number of Blocks w/(3) 2”
Dia. Holes
none: attic is insulated w/ccsf
insulation (icc: esr-3159)
number of Blocks w/(4) 2”
Dia. Holes
Ventilation Provided by
Eave Blocks
n/a
Additional Ventilation
Provided by
Alternative Means
n/a
Total Venting Required n/a
Total Venting Provided n/a
roof material/FRAMING NOTES
Roof Slope 7/12 (Typ.)
Roofing Material Class A, 40 year asphalt roofing shingles. Color selected by owner.

Overhang 12
” typ. (uno)
Sheathing 1/2
” CDX plywood, nailed w/10d @ 6”OC edge and 10”OC field. Use 19/32” OSB sheathing as option. Provide radiant barrier plywood as required per T24 Calculations
Underlayment 30# Asphalt roofing paper or equal. Install per manufacturer’s specifications
Flashing Provide 26GA G.I. metal flashing @ ALL valleys, ridges, roof to wall intersections and roof penetrations per CBC Section 1503.2

1. rafters shall be provided with full depth closed cell spray foam insulation (icc: esr-3183) throughout attic: no venting required: see t24 and ca energy code for required hers inspection and verification.

2. Provide attic access per CRC R807.1. Minimum access opening shall be 22 ” x 30”.

RI
RI
10/29/20

Page 72 ends

REVISIONS: #
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

Ext. Elevations
11/11/20
Noted
A5.1
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

Professional Stamp
Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032
8'-0"
wall plate
18'-11"
ridge ht.
10'-0"
@ family room shed (beyond)
2'-9"
3'-3"
7'-8"
(n) Front elevation (SE) 1/4" = 1'-0"
left side per planning
7/12
class a, asphalt
roofing shingles typ.
@ all roof planes.
g.i. gutters: profile
per owner:
option: copper
7/8" (3-coat) plaster
siding typ. texture
approved by owner
adhered stone veneer @
courtyard site wall:
pattern and color to be
approved by owner.
plaster siding @
porch plinths
2x painted fascia w/1x2
shingle mold and g.i.
"z" edge flashing
decorative louvered
attic vents: cosmetic
only
returned eaves typ.
sectional roll-up
garage door
fixed window @
garage gable
18'-11"
garage
2'-9"
(n) left side elevation (SW) 1/4" = 1'-0"
rear side per planning
7/12
class a, asphalt
roofing shingles typ. @
all roof planes.
g.i. gutters: profile
per owner:
option: copper
adhered stone veneer @
courtyard site wall:
pattern and color to be
approved by owner.
plaster siding @
porch plinths
7/8" (3-coat) plaster
siding typ. texture
approved by owner
exterior landing per crc
w/max. riser ht. = 7.75"
exterior elevation finish schedule
roofing
Class A, asphalt shingles, o/minimum 30# building paper or equal, o/CDX or OSB “radiant barrier” roof sheathing as required by t24 calculations as applicable. Roof material colors and/or manufacturers shall be selected and approved by the property owner. Where roof slopes are less than 4/12, use (2) layers of roofing underlayment. CRC R905.2.2 and R905.7.2
exterior siding
Exterior Walls: 7/8”, (3-coat) plaster siding, o/g.i. expanded metal lath, o/(2) layers of grade “d” building paper or equal, o/CDX plywood or osb wall sheathing, nailed @ 6/12 minimum. See engineer’s “Shear Wall Schedule” for specified plywood thickness and minimum nailing requirements.

Non Shear Walls: Provide a minimum of 3/8” CDX plywood wall sheathing, “Full Wrap”. Nail w/8d @ 6/12 minimum. For remodel projects, only new walls shall receive full wrap sheathing (UNO).

Wall Base: A minimum 0.019-inch (0.5 mm) (No. 26 galvanized sheet gauge), corrosion-resistant weep screed or plastic weep screed, with a minimum vertical attachment flange of 3-1/2 inches (89 mm) shall be provided at or below the foundation plate line on exterior stud walls in accordance with ASTM C 926. The weep screed shall be placed a minimum of 4 inches (102 mm) above the earth or 2 inches (51 mm) above paved areas and shall be of a type that will allow trapped water to drain to the exterior of the building. The weather-resistant barrier shall lap the attachment flange. The exterior lath shall cover and terminate on the attachment flange of the weep screed.
doors & windows
All exterior doors (with glass) and windows shall be constructed with dual paned, low “E” glazing. Tempered glazing shall be required per CRC Sections R308 and R311. Door and window manufacturer shall be selected and approved by the property owner. See Sheet DW.1 and DW.2 for additional door and window notes and schedules. accents
See Exterior Elevations for additional wall and roof details and specifications. 10/29/20 RI

Page 73 ends

REVISIONS: #
408.354.6224 (office)
408.354.6514 (fax)
www.britt-rowe.com
108 N. Santa Cruz Ave.

Los Gatos, CA 95030
BR
DRAWING:
printed:

SCALE:DRAWN BY:

Ext. Elevations
11/11/20
Noted
A5.2
Britt • Rowe
m.a.r.

Professional Stamp
Jurisdiction Stamps and/or Red Line Notes
m.
kulkarni

RESIDENCE
124 garden hill drive
los gatos, ca 95032
18'-11"
mx. ridge
8'-0"
(e) wall plate
(n) rear elevation (NW) 1/4" = 1'-0"
right side per planning
class a, asphalt
roofing shingles typ.
@ all roof planes.
g.i. gutters: profile
per owner:
option: copper
g.i. foundation drip
screed @ base of
structure per crc.
7/8" (3-coat) plaster
siding typ. texture
approved by owner
7/12
4/12±
2x painted fascia w/1x2
shingle mold and g.i. "z"
flashing
returned eaves
@ gable ends
"velux" fixed ventilating,
tempered glass
skylights (icc:esr-0199)
8'-0"
wall plate
10'-0"
@ shed roof
18'-11"
ridge ht.
(n) right side elevation (nE) 1/4" = 1'-0"
front side per planning
verify height of kitchen
counter and splash (as
applicable) before ordering
this window
exterior landing per crc
w/max. riser ht. = 7.75"
class a, asphalt
roofing shingles typ. @
all roof planes.
g.i. gutters: profile
per owner:
option: copper
see sheet dw.1 for door
and window information
g.i. foundation drip
screed @ base of
structure per crc.
7/8" (3-coat) plaster
siding typ. texture
approved by owner
exterior elevation finish schedule
roofing
Class A, asphalt shingles, o/minimum 30# building paper or equal, o/CDX or OSB “radiant barrier” roof sheathing as required by t24 calculations as applicable. Roof material colors and/or manufacturers shall be selected and approved by the property owner. Where roof slopes are less than 4/12, use (2) layers of roofing underlayment. CRC R905.2.2 and R905.7.2
exterior siding
Exterior Walls: 7/8”, (3-coat) plaster siding, o/g.i. expanded metal lath, o/(2) layers of grade “d” building paper or equal, o/CDX plywood or osb wall sheathing, nailed @ 6/12 minimum. See engineer’s “Shear Wall Schedule” for specified plywood thickness and minimum nailing requirements.

Non Shear Walls: Provide a minimum of 3/8” CDX plywood wall sheathing, “Full Wrap”. Nail w/8d @ 6/12 minimum. For remodel projects, only new walls shall receive full wrap sheathing (UNO).

Page 74 ends

* Air Admittance Valve not Permitted
*Island Loop Vent not Permitted.
*Vent Pipe for the outdoor sink installation shall extend not less than 10 feet above the surrounding ground and shall be securely supported. CPC Section 906.4
* Provide a cover for the outdoor sink, which is required by the Town Building Division to allow the sink that is open to the sky to discharge into the sanitary sewer system per CPC Section 714.2
*The Sanitary Sewer Drainage System of the new outdoor
kitchen must be separate and independent from the main
dwelling with an independent connection with the public or private sanitary sewer system downstream from the main
house sewer line to the street. CPC Section 311.0
2019 California Building Code, Vol. 1 & 2
2019 California Residential Code
2019 California Plumbing Code
2019 California Mechanical Code
2019 California Electrical Code
2019 California Energy Code
2019 California Existing Building Code
2019 California Historical Building Code
2019 California Green Building Standards
2019 California Fire Code
2018 International Code for Property
Maintenance
2018 International Existing Building Code*
*Chapters 9, 14 & Appendices A2, A3, A4
& A5 only

REVISION
M.C.

Page 75 ends

Page 76 ends

Page 77 ends

Page 78 ends

Page 79 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 80 ends

Community Development Department • 110 E. Main Street408.354.6872 • www.losgatosca.gov • www.facebook.com/losgatosca

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION
August 4, 2023
Rushikesh Kulkarni and Ashwini Bhave
124 Garden Hill Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Administrative Warning
Re: Code violation at 124 Garden Hill Dr, Los Gatos
The Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department has received a concern regarding the above referenced property. The concern is regarding a sight distance issue with a six-foot-tall fence located on the corner of Garden Hill Drive. After consulting with the Town’s traffic Engineer, it was determined that the fence height must be brought down to no taller than three (3) feet in height in the corner sight triangle area.

Pursuant to Town Code section 29.40.0315. - Height, materials and design, and location. (3) Fences, walls, gates, and hedges may not exceed three (3) feet in height when located within a required front or side yard abutting a street (as required by the zone), driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle unless an exception is granted by the Town Engineer and Community Development Director. Trees, hedges, and vegetation within a corner sight triangle shall meet the requirements of section 26.10.065.

EXHIBIT 6

Page 81 ends

Building plan B21-1157 above indicates where the fence is to be three feet in height.

Accordingly, we are asking that the fence on the corner of Garden Hill Drive be maintained to a height no taller than three feet in height by September 1, 2023. I can be reached at [email protected] or 408-399-5746 if you should have any questions regarding this notice.

Respectfully yours,
Allen Meyer
Code Compliance Officer
Town of Los Gatos

Page 82 ends

EXHIBIT 7

Page 83 ends

Page 84 ends

Page 85 ends

Page 86 ends

EXHIBIT 8

Page 87 ends

Page 88 ends

Page 89 ends

Page 90 ends

Page 91 ends

Page 92 ends

Page 93 ends

Page 94 ends

Page 95 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 96 ends

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

PLANNING DIVISION
(408) 354-6872 Fax (408) 354-7593
September 27, 2023
Martin Lettunich
455 Los Gatos Blvd, Suite 101
Los Gatos, CA 95032
RE: 124 Garden Hill Drive
Fence Height Exception (FHE-23-005)
Requesting Approval for an Exception to Construct a Six (6) Foot Tall Fence Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street-Side Yard Setback, and Corner Site Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 424-23-084.

APPLICANT: Martin Lettunich
PROPERTY OWNER: Rushikesh Kulkarni
The Los Gatos Community Development Department and the Town Engineer of the Parks and Public Works Department have reviewed the referenced application for a fence height exception pursuant to Section 29.40.0320. On September 27, 2023, the Los Gatos Community Development Department and Town Engineer have denied the request as the required findings could not be made. Additionally, the Town Engineer could not support the exception to the corner sight triangle per Town Code Section 26.10.065 – Obstructions at corners of intersecting streets.

PLEASE NOTE: Pursuant to Section 29.20.255 of the Town Code, this decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 10 days of the denial date. Any interested person may appeal this decision to the Planning Commission. Appeals, with the completed Appeal Form and appeal fee payment, must be submitted within 10 days from the date of denial, or by 4:00 p.m., October 9, 2023.

If you have any questions concerning this decision, please contact Project Planner Ryan Safty at (408) 354-6802 or via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
N:\DEV\PLANNING PROJECT FILES\Garden Hill Drive\124\FHE-23-005\Closing Documents\Action Letters\124 Garden Hill Drive - FHE-23-005 - Denial Action Letter 09-27-23.docx

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

Page 97 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 98 ends

30’

RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE
30’

NOT TO SCALE
STREET
STREET
CL
30’
30’
LEGEND:

Corner Sight Triangle

CORNER SIGHT TRIANGLE
200’

EDGE OF ROADWAY/FACE OF CURB

RIGHT-OF-WAY/PROPERTY LINE

NOT TO SCALE
STREET
STREET
CL
200’
200’
LEGEND:

Traffic View Area

TRAFFIC VIEW AREA

EDGE OF ROADWAY/FACE OF CURB
200’
15’
15’
EXHIBIT 10

Page 99 ends

DRIVEWAY VIEW AREA

FRONT AND STREET SIDE YARD AREA

NOT TO SCALE

NOT TO SCALE STREET

SIDE YARD SETBACK

REAR YARD SETBACK

FRONT YARD SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE
LEGEND:

Driveway View Area
LEGEND:

Front and Street
Side Yard Area
STREET

SIDEWALK

PROPERTY LINE

DRIVEWAY
10’
10’
Sidewalk Example
STREET

PROPERTY LINE

DRIVEWAY
10’
10’
No Sidewalk Example STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK STREET

Page 100 ends

Page 101 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 102 ends

Page 1289 ends

Page 104 ends

Page 105 ends

Page 106 ends

Page 107 ends

Page 108 ends

Page 109 ends

Page 110 ends

PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 11/8/2023
ITEM NO: 2

DESK ITEM
DATE: November 8, 2023
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Community Development Director Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for Construction of a Six-Foot Tall Fence Located Within the Required Front Yard Setback, Street Side Yard Setback, and Corner Sight Triangle on Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 124 Garden Hill Drive. APN 424-23-084. Fence Height Exception Application FHE-23-005.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 13 includes neighbor support letters, received from the applicant on November 7, 2023.

EXHIBITS:

Previously received with the November 8, 2023, Staff Report:

1. Location Map

2. Required Finding

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval if Appeal is Granted

4. Building Permit B20-0574 Approved Plans

5. Building Permit B21-1157 Approved Plans

6. Administrative Warning, Dated August 4, 2023

7. Project Plans, Received September 7, 2023

8. Letter of Justification, Received September 7, 2023

9. Fence Height Exception Denial Letter, Dated September 27, 2023

10. View Area Diagrams

11. Appeal of the Community Development Director Decision, Received October 5, 2023

12. Pictures of Subject Property
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1297 ends

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 124 Garden Hill Drive/FHE-23-005
DATE: November 8, 2023
Received with this Desk Item Report:

13. Neighbor Support Letters, Received November 7, 2023

Page 1298 ends

Page 1299 ends

Page 1300 ends

Page 1301 ends

Page 1302 ends

Page 1303 ends

Page 1304 ends

Page 1305 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 1306 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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:

Jeffrey Barnett, Chair
Melanie Hanssen
Kathryn Janoff
Emily Thomas
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:

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

Page 1307 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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 BARNETT: We’ll now move on to Item 2 on our
agenda for tonight in which we are asked to consider an appeal of a Community Development Director decision to deny a fence height exception request for construction of a 6’ tall fence located within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner side triangle on
property zoned R-1:8.

Located at 124 Garden Hill Drive. APN 424-23-084.

Fence Height Exception Application is FHE-23-005.

Categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures, and Section 15301, Existing Facilities.

The property owner is Rushikesh Kulkarni, the
Applicant/Appellant is Mr. Martin Lettunich, and the
project planner is Ryan Safty.

Can I see a show of hands from Commissioners who
have visited the property? That’s unanimous. Any
disclosures? There are no disclosures.

Mr. Safty, do you have a Staff Report for us
tonight?
RYAN SAFTY: Yes, thank you, Commissioners. Before
you is an appeal of a Community Development Director

Page 1308 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
decision to deny a fence height exception request at 124 Garden Hill Drive. The property is located in a singlefamily residential neighborhood one block south of Lark Avenue and one block west of Highway 17.

The property owner is requesting approval to
construct a 6’ tall wooden fence within the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and corner side triangle. The fence would be located along both the front and street side property lines.

Per Town Code, fences and gates are limited to 3’
in height when located within any of these areas: the front yard, the street side yard, or the corner side triangle.

As noted in the Staff Report, the property has
been redeveloped with two Building Permits over the past few years. During both of these Building Permit reviews the project plans originally showed a 6’ tall fence out on the corner of this property. Town Staff provided written
comments on both of these Building Permits informing the property owners of our rules, and in both times the fence was reduced to the Town maximum 3’ height. Both Building Permits were issued and finaled.

On August 4th the Town received a complaint that
the fence at this property was over 6’ tall, and therefore on September 7th we issued an administrative citation.

Page 1309 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
An exception request was submitted for the
exception. The Applicants cited several conditions: B-1, B2, D, and E.

Conditions B-1 and B-2 are only applicable to the
side and rear property lines of interior lots, so therefore we could not consider those.

For Condition D, which is special security
concern, the Applicant claims a taller fence is needed as there have been coyote sightings within the neighborhood and in order to protect their children playing within this front yard area the 3’ fence would not quite do it.

However, Staff could not support the request under
Condition D, as the property is located in an urbanized residential subdivision. If a coyote sighting were deemed a special security concern, then most of the properties in the Town would be eligible for an exception.

The owners are also allowed to install a taller
fence if they move it back to meet our setback
requirements.

Lastly, as noted in the report, the owners were
notified before and throughout the remodel process that the fence height at this location is limited to 3’. They
proceeded with the housing and remodel addition, which

Page 1310 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
impacted which areas of the lot were available for outdoor use.

For Condition E, which is special circumstances
associated with the property configuration, the Applicant cited religious freedom, stating that their religion
requires them to hold prayer sessions on the east side of the yard, and doing this with a 3’ fence caused privacy concerns. However, similar to the reason cited for
Condition D, Staff could not support the request. The
owners are allowed to move the fence back and increase the height, and additionally, they were aware of our fence
height requirements during this process.

In addition to Planning not being able to support
the height exception, the Town Engineer also cannot support the exception to the corner side triangle.

For these reasons, the Town denied the exception
request on September 27th. On October 5th this denial was appealed, however, the appeal did not bring up any new
points for consideration tonight.

Neighbor support letters were received yesterday;
we received six or seven of them, and they were distributed today as a Desk Item.

Town Staff also noticed a potential publishing
error with Exhibit 2. It sounds like maybe not all of you

Page 1311 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
guys had this issue. In any event, if the Director can
please share the screen so I can quickly outline what this was supposed to show.

The area in neon green identifies the areas of
the fence and wall that are compliant with code. The area in red shows the portions of the fence that do not comply with code and either require an exception or must be
removed, and that red area is somewhat difficult to see but it’s on top of the green extending to the right of it. I highlighted both the front and street side property lines so it is clear to the Commissioners, as well as where the corner site triangle requirements would be applicable.

Based on the discussion provided in the Staff
Report, Staff does recommend the Commission deny the
appeal, uphold the decision of the Director, and deny the Fence Height Exception.

This concludes Staff’s presentation, and both
Planning Staff and Parks and Public Works Staff are here to answer any questions.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that report, and
I’ll ask my fellow commissioners if they have questions at this time? I don’t see any, so we’ll now open the public portion of our public meeting tonight and give the
Appellant an opportunity to address the Commission for up

Page 1312 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
to five minutes. I see Mr. Lettunich approaching, so if you could just come to the microphone and we’ll be happy to hear what you have to say.

MARTIN LETTUNICH: Good evening, thank you for
allowing us to speak tonight.

First of all, with regard to the document that
was just shown on the screen, the red portion of the fence that’s along the side yard was approved and permitted
according to permits that we have, so I don't know why all of a sudden that is not permitted. It used to go all the way around, and then we removed the section just above the 3’ line.

Basically the problem that we have with this is,
if you’ve been out to the site, there is absolutely no
problem with viewing any traffic or pedestrians, and there is plenty of room on the sidewalk.

The main issue here, I think, is there isn’t an
intersecting street. Our lot basically is a lot that has one street that it abuts, and that’s Garden Hill Drive. The only one that comes close to being considered a street
intersection would be Farm Hill, which is a cul-de-sac; and the other one is Green Hill, which is also a cul-de-sac.

The cul-de-sac at Farm Hill parallels, or runs right into and stops where it intersects Garden Hill, so it’s really

Page 1313 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
not an intersection there. Our property abuts only one
street, and under code a piece of property that abuts one street is an interior lot, it is not a corner lot, so I don’t think the rules you’re applying to the street and to our property is appropriate to begin with.

Could we show the video? I’m sure you’ve already
seen the pictures, and maybe you’ve already seen the video.

This is driving down Garden Hill, going around
the corner where the fence is. There are absolutely no
vision problems from a vehicle.

We’re going to turn around here and come back the
other way, and this is going back down Garden Hill, and that’s the fence across the street.

Now, this is parked on Green Hill Road, and there
are still photos in your file that show that there is no obstruction. This is Green Hill. Looking out there you can see all the way down and around that corner, and on Farm Hill that truck is turning left there. If he had gone
absolutely straight without turning he would have gone
right into Farm Hill Road. From everything I’ve been able to find that would not be considered as coming out of Farm Hill, that it wouldn’t be considered a corner lot, and a street triangle regulation would not be required.

Page 1314 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
The concern about the coyote is that he has small
children that play in his yard, and it will show you the yard in a second.

That’s the yard inside, and all the bamboo you
can see is where the 3’ fence would be. If you move that back by the setback required it takes almost a third of his yard away, and there would be absolutely no reason to do that, aesthetically or any other reason. We have the
support of the neighbors, and we have support of what I believe is the definition under what the streets are and whether or not there needs to be a traffic triangle there.

I thank you. If you have any questions, I’d be
glad to answer them.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, appreciate that, and
we’ll see if there are any questions for you. I don’t see any.

I have a question. When you learned of the Town’s
position regarding the site triangle, did you have any
direct verbal communication with the Town about their
interpretation?
MARTIN LETTUNICH: I’ve mentioned it several
times. Everybody continues to say it needs to have a
traffic triangle there. I don’t see why.

Page 1315 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
CHAIR BARNETT: I had another question for you.

Can you explain why the Fence Height Application exception was withdrawn on April 12, 2023? That was the earlier point in time prior to the current application.

MARTIN LETTUNICH: I don’t understand the
question.

CHAIR BARNETT: I understand that there was an
earlier application for a fence height exception, and that was withdrawn.

MARTIN LETTUNICH: I was not involved at that
time.

CHAIR BARNETT: It looks like your client was.

Can I ask you to state your name and address?
RUSHIKESH KULKARNI: Thank you, Chair. My name is
Rushikesh Kulkarni; I’m the owner of 124 Garden Hill.

The earlier application was withdrawn simply
because we were in the process of getting the construction permits and we had initially appealed with the Town to
grant permission to erect a 6’ fence over there, and once they had said that that would not be in conformance with the ordinance, in the interest of moving forward with the construction process and not getting stalled with respect to getting the Final Occupancy Permit, we decided to put that issue on the side and revisit it later, as we did, so

Page 1316 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
that’s the reason why we withdrew that initial request for exception, as it was not granted.

CHAIR BARNETT: Are there any questions of the
owner? I don’t see any. If you can stay there, I don’t care which one of you answers.

You were aware of the Fence Ordinance when you
submitted your plans and the Town approved them; the change from the 6’ to the 3’ was something the Town had
communicated to you was necessary, and so you changed the plans to conform to the Town’s position?
RUSHIKESH KULKARNI: That is correct. We were
aware and the Town had informed us. We were challenging the assumption of the corner street definition, because
according to my read of the ordinance it says that if the corner triangle is defined as the intersection of two
streets and the setback requirements are 30’ from the point of intersection.

In this case, if you notice the corner around
which the street turns, the street that comes in and then continues is Garden Hill Drive. There are no two streets.

There is also a double yellow line as opposed to dotted yellow line, which means there is technically not even a divider on the street, whereby traffic is technically not

Page 1317 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
even allowed to turn left, so it’s a through-street where the traffic is supposed to just drive through.

My interpretation was that it’s not a corner, and
I had challenged that assumption, but at the end of the day the visiting inspector onsite said that that ordinance is open to interpretation of the inspection officer and the Planning Department, and it is their interpretation and their point of view that you have to go by.

So again, in the interest of pursuing the
construction on time as well as my needs to finance and refinance the project on time, given how interest rates were moving, I decided to drop the issue. That wasn’t
necessarily acknowledging or agreeing with the Town’s
position, but more accepting that it is an issue that I will revisit later.

CHAIR BARNETT: I see. Thank you for that. Other
Commissioner questions at this time? I am not seeing any.

We’d normally open this for public comment. Is there anyone on Zoom?
JENNIFER ARMER: We would invite anyone on Zoom
who wishes to speak on this to raise their hand. It does look like we’ve got a few people who are raising their hand to speak on this item.

Page 1318 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, if you wish to go forward
with that, I’d appreciate it.

JOEL PAULSON: The first to speak will be
Michael.

MICHAEL: I live on 295 Garden Hill Drive. I drive
past this corner every day and have for the last four years when I purchased the property originally.

I am very much in support of the height of this
fence; in fact when I first saw the shorter fence I thought that it was a mar in the vision of the neighborhood and it was strange to look into my neighbor’s back yard. I didn’t actually know my neighbor at the time, and after I got to meet him I asked him about this and he explained what had occurred.

I think it is a more aesthetic view. I have no
concern at all about the visibility as I’m coming around Garden Hill Drive in either direction; like I said, I drive this every day.

I’m aware of the coyotes and other wild animals
and agree there is a safety risk for his family. Thank you.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for those comments.

JOEL PAULSON: The next speaker will be Hamanchiu
(phonetic).

Page 1319 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
HAMANCHIU: Hi, my name is Hamanchiu. I live on
Farm Hill Way, the adjoining street. Like the other
neighbor I cross this street daily multiple times, like every time I leave or come to my house. I have not once faced any visibility problem on this corner, so I don’t think that that’s a concern. I agree with the concern
regarding the coyote and safety, and do feel that a higher fence would be beneficial. Thank you.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir.

JOEL PAULSON: Next speaker will be Nickette.

NICKETTE (phonetic): Hello everyone, this is
Nickette. We live just across the street at 135 Green Hill Way and we’ve lived there for about 5.5 years. I have no concerns with the height of the fence being increased as well. In fact, our kids play in Rushikesh’s back yard a lot of times and we get worried with a short fence for our kids as well.

So again, we’ve been living here about 5.5 years
and I see no safety concerns; I drive there everyday.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you very much, sir.

JOEL PAULSON: Next will be Google Pixel 7.

WENLU (phonetic): My name is Wenlu and I live at
123 Green Hill Way. Two things I want to mention as well.

Page 1320 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
Like Mike said earlier, I’m driving through this
road every day, because it’s how I get to Highway 17.

Initially when I first saw it one side was high and the other one was low; I thought it looked really strange and I don’t really like it. But when I talked to Rushikesh and I asked him, he said this is just because of the regulation.

The second issue I want to say is the safety
concern. To be honest, I’m living in cul de sacs and I got my car broke in. I talked to my neighbor within the same cul-de-sac, my neighbors on 131 and 135; they both had
people come into their front yards and go through their cars at night. I’d love to feel like this is a safe town, but the reality of it is that it is not a safe town, and I think it is important to be able to feel safe living here, so that’s my comment.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir. Any further
public members on Zoom?
JOEL PAULSON: I don’t see any other hands
raised, Chair?
CHAIR BARNETT: Okay, thank you very much. So now
the Applicant and/or this attorney may come forward with any additional comments you wish to make, up to three
minutes. Not required to.

Page 1321 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
MARTIN LETTUNICH: The one comment I just want to
point out is when you look at an intersecting street the corners lots are usually on each side of that street and it forms the area that the triangle applies to. If you look at the situation on this street, there is no such thing. If it were Green Hill directly across from the driveway side, there is no shoulder or curve on our side for a triangle to fit on, and on the other side it’s the two lots that are on either side of Farm Hill that would be considered corner lots. Our lot is not a corner lot.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you, sir. Any questions at
this time? If not, I’ll close the public portion of the public hearing and ask Commissioners if they have questions for Staff, wish to comment on the appeal, or introduce a motion for consideration by the Commission? Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have a question for
Staff. On this interpretation of the corner versus other lot, the way I was looking at the plans it looked to me like you were marking it relative to the 15’, not a greater setback, but is it the case that if it is determined to be a corner lot that the setback is double?

Page 1322 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
RYAN SAFTY: The setback itself doesn’t change
based on a corner lot. The corner lot requirements though, I will let Parks and Public Works answer that question.

JAMES WATSON: James Watson, Parks and Public
Works. I’m not sure I understand the question.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The Applicant/Appellant
was contesting the interpretation of the corner lot, and one of the things that was mentioned was having to have a greater setback on account of being determined to be a
corner lot, so I’m just trying to verify: a) Is that the case in our ordinance; and b) What is the current situation in terms of the setback? I was looking at the plans and it looked like it was marked for 15’.

RYAN SAFTY: I can try again to answer that
question, as long as it’s not related to the ins and outs of the corner site requirements.

If this were not a corner lot, and let’s say we
treated both of these property frontages as a front yard, it would actually be more of a setback requirement for the fences.

One thing to clarify, the corner site triangle is
just one aspect that Staff cannot support. There is still a 6’ tall fence within the front and street side yard setback requirements, and those are completely different.

Page 1323 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I think that answered my
question.

CHAIR BARNETT: There is the issue of religious
practice that was mentioned in the appeal, and I wonder if Staff has any comment on that issue?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you. We did check in with the
Town Attorney on this question. It is clear that the
Federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act does apply here. There are a few things that the law prohibits, but based on the Town Attorney’s read, the Town is treating the residents the same as others and so this law has not been violated. It’s not a significant burden, it’s necessary for traffic visibility, and it is the least restrictive means in that the residents have the option of abiding by the setback requirement.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that clarification.

Are there other questions? Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: For Staff. The
Applicant/Appellant has argued that this is not a corner lot by definition. Can you please comment on that?
JAMES WATSON: Parks and Public Works, James
Watson. Is Mike Vroman available online?
MIKE VROMAN: Yes, I’m here. Mike Vroman, Senior
Traffic Engineer. I would have to disagree with the

Page 1324 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
attorney that from a traffic engineering perspective there is an intersection with Garden Hill Drive and Farm Hill Way. You can also make the contention that Green Hill may also be, because it’s directly across from 124 Garden Hill and could also be part of that intersection, but there is definitely an intersection with Garden Hill Drive and Farm Hill Way, so by that means I would say it is a corner lot from a traffic perspective.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.

CHAIR BARNETT: Other questions or comments? Let
me check my notes.

JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, I can also
share the definition of corner lot from the Town Code, in case that’s helpful.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you.

JENNIFER ARMER: A corner means a lot situated at
the intersection of two or more streets, or bounded on two or more abutting sides by street lines. Based on my
experience with the Town Code it would not be important that the same name was applied to those two sides, in this case we have two street-side property lines that are
perpendicular to each other, and so we would determine that to be a corner lot.

Page 1325 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that. Commissioner
Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. One other
question regarding the testimony of the Applicant/Appellant who argued that the 6’ fence toward the rear of the
property was approved in the drawing package, and yet in the diagram that you provided us and showed on the screen that section of that fence that is 6’ tall is indicated as out of compliance. Could you comment on that?
RYAN SAFTY: Certainly, and thank you for the
question. Staff did provide the final Building Permit plan sets for both of them. There was not an approved 6’ fence out there. On the side they are referring to a 3’ garden wall was approved. I don't know if that portion was built, but that was not in the approved plans.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.

CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Hanssen, please.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I don’t have a question. I
do have a comment though. As I said on the other item this evening, these are very difficult because we didn’t have that stringent of a Fence Ordinance prior to 2019. There are a lot of people out there that have preexisting fences; this may not be the case.

Page 1326 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
I also am sympathetic to hearing that a 3’ fence
doesn’t provide security, but this is what was decided when the Town created a Fence Ordinance and the Town Council approved it. This requirement for the 3’ fence, it was
known that it wasn’t going to provide a lot of security, and I think as Staff mentioned, with all due respect,
coyotes are a concern, but we do have this Fence Ordinance; it’s applicable to everybody in their front yard with the 3’ fence.

I’m having trouble finding that there is cause
for granting the appeal, as I’m not hearing the
justifications based on undue hardship or a special privacy concern that isn’t applicable to anyone else in town.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you. Other Commissioners?
Or we’re open for a motion. Commissioner Janoff.

COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you. Yes, and on this
item a significant concern for me is the fact that our
traffic staff does find an issue that it is a corner lot, unlike the item that we saw before, and so I will not be supporting the appeal.

CHAIR BARNETT: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I want to echo Commissioner
Janoff’s comments. I understand the Applicant’s concerns, and I appreciate all of the work that you’ve done and the

Page 1327 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
home that you have built is gorgeous and a lovely part of that neighborhood. However, the issue with the traffic, I’m seeing this as a corner lot as according to Town Staff, and because of that, that triangle is something that I think needs to be prioritized and is important, and so I am not in support of granting this appeal with how this fence is structured at this moment.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you for that. I share the
same concern. I think as a planning commission we don’t have any independent legal basis to challenge our Staff’s report, and this is a safety issue, which is always a
concern. While I share my fellow commissioners’ comments about the hard work you’ve put into this and we respect that very much, I’m unable to support it primarily because of the Town’s Public Works Department statement and
conclusions.

We might be open for a motion. Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I move to deny the appeal
of the Community Development Director’s Decision to Deny a Fence Height Exception Request for construction of a 6’ tall fence located within the required front yard setbacks, street side yard setback, and corner side triangle on

Page 1328 ends

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/8/2023
Item #2, 124 Garden Hill Drive
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
property zoned R-1:8, APN 424-23-084. I don’t have to make any findings, correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: No findings required.

CHAIR BARNETT: Is there a second to that motion?
Commissioner Hanssen.

COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I second the motion.

CHAIR BARNETT: Any discussion? If not, please
raise your hand if you’re in support of the motion. It
passes unanimously. Thank you very much for coming tonight and sharing your thoughts, and also for submitting
materials in advance.

JENNIFER ARMER: Through the Chair, the decision
of the Commission can be appealed to Town Council by any interested person as defined by Town Code Section 29.10.020 within ten days on forms available online with fees paid.

The final deadline is 4:00pm on the tenth day.

CHAIR BARNETT: Thank you.
(END)

Page 1329 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 1330 ends

ATTACHMENT 4

Page 1331 ends

Page 1332 ends

Dear Jennifer and Ryan:

I’m writing this letter as a replacement appeal for my previously filed appeal (submitted by Martin Lettunich on my behalf) to the town council regarding fence exception for 124 Garden Hill Dr, Los Gatos, CA 95032.

To memorialize the sequence of events w/r/t my fence, I have included below the relevant chronology of events:

1. We built a 6’ fence along the front side of the property along Garden Hill Dr and a 3’ fence along the corner sight triangle and side property line along Garden Hill Dr. This fence construction was reviewed by town inspectors Bobby DeHerrera and Eric Christianson and approved via final inspection onsite. They subsequently signed the final inspection card and issued the Occupancy certificate for our property.

2. As we began living at the property, we started to experience quite a few security hazards due to the short 3’ fence height esp. as my little kids (ages 3 and 6) would play in the yard. We had a few coyote sightings right along the curbside by my property where the fence height is only 3’ as well as several strangers that regularly frequent the street to access Vasona Park trail. Out of concern for my kids security as well as secondary privacy concerns, we erected a temporary bamboo fence along the corner sight triangle area and the side of the house. This bamboo fence added an additional 3’ fencing above the original 3’ fence making the total fence height around the corner 6’

3. Subsequently, I received a citation from the city regarding the bamboo fence obstructing traffic view and not being compliant with the town ordinance

4. Upon receiving the citation, I appealed to the Planning Commission to grant me an exception to have my fence height along the sight triangle to be 6’ high

5. During the original Planning Commission hearing, Martin Lettunich, whom I had hired as a consultant to represent me, argued that the corner sight triangle fence ordinance didn’t apply to my lot as it wasn’t a corner lot. The Planning dept recommended to the Commission that the exception for corner sight triangle cannot be granted due to (i) traffic visibility concerns and (ii) the lot was still a corner lot. Additionally, the planning dept. also raised the issue of the 6’ fence along the front of my house not being permitted per planning approved permit since it doesn’t comply with the 15’ front yard set back requirements

6. Following the rejection of my appeal by the planning commission, Martin Lettunich appealed to the town council to grant me the 6’ height exceptions on the following grounds: (i) the front side fence was already permitted and sight inspector approved (ii) the corner fence should be allowed because its not a corner lot.

7. I then engaged with the Planning Dept (Jennifer and Ryan) to find a constructive path forward that would address the city’s concerns while providing for my security and safety needs as the property owner

8. To further assess my situation, I provisioned a third-party traffic study from Sandis. Nate Levine from Sandis performed a preliminary traffic study to established line of sight guidelines for vehicles along the corner of our property. Nate also collaborated and consulted with city traffic engineer Mike V. Following a few back and forth discussions between Nate and Mike, it was ATTACHMENT 5

Page 1333 ends

understood that the traffic study findings, while suggesting that a 5’6” setback along the corner could allow for a 6’ fence height, were ultimately deemed inadequate by Mike. Based on the prelim traffic study, Mike wasn’t comfortable to recommend granting me the exception even if I were to pull the fence 5’6” inside the property line from the corner.

9. Based on the above fact patterns, I had another discussion with Jennifer and Ryan on Monday, Jan 8th whereby I recommended the following considerations for the town council as part of my revised current appeal:
a. The 6’ fence I’ve built along the front side of the lot is substantially a replacement fence of what already existed previously. The previous fence was a 6’ fence that was ~5’ setback from the property line. The newly built fence is also a 6’ fence but has a 4’5” setback from the property line. Since the variance is only 7”, and our immediate neighbors along that side of our house have no issues with the design, I would like to request an exception to allow me to keep this newly constructed fence. As such, this was reviewed and approved by sight inspectors Bobby DeHerrera and Eric Christiansen and they signed the permits and occupancy certificate upon reviewing the fully built fence. It’s also worth noting that the citation I received did not mention this fence. b. For the corner fence (bamboo fence), I propose that we will remove it and comply with the citation request. However, to ensure the security of my children, I would like to request an exception to allow me to build a see through fence with iron bars along the sight triangle and front side of the property. Hopefully, this will be viewed as a fair compromise where I’m completely willing to give up my privacy but would like to request the city grant me the permission to ensure my security c. I have included below, photo evidence to show the setback of 4’ 5” for the front fence to demonstrate it’s substantially a replacement of existing fence. I have also included a photo of examples of iron bar see through fence we would build if granted the exception for the corner height of the fence. This iron bar fence would add an extra 3’ on top of the existing 3’ fence making the total fence height 6’ but the top 3’ of it being see-through fence.

Page 1334 ends

Requesting exception be granted to keep the permanent fence in the above picture on the front side as its substantially a replacement of existing fence. See evidence of 5’ setback previously from google image below followed by tape measured set back showing current 4’ 5” setback.

Page 1335 ends

Page 1336 ends

Page 1337 ends

Will agree to remove the bamboo fence and requesting exception to replace the bamboo fence with a see through iron bar fence. Sample iron bar fence shown below. This iron bar fence will add 3’ on top of existing 3’ solid wood fence along the sight triangle ensuring a happy median for traffic visibility as well as our security.

Page 1338 ends

ATTACHMENT 6
DRAFT RESOLUTION 2024-___

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY A FENCE

HEIGHT EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX-FOOT TALL FENCE

LOCATED WITHIN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK, STREET SIDE YARD SETBACK, AND CORNER SIGHT TRIANGLE ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8.

APN 424-23-084
FENCE HEIGHT EXCEPTION APPLICATION: FHE-23-005
PROPERTY LOCATION: 124 GARDEN HILL DRIVE
PROPERTY OWNER: RUSHIKESH KULKARNI
APPELLANT/APPLICANT: MARTIN LETTUNICH
WHEREAS, on August 4, 2023, the Town issued an administrative warning for a code violation at 124 Garden Hill Drive for an unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive; and
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2023, the property owner applied for an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for the unpermitted six-foot tall fence at the corner of Garden Hill Drive; and
WHEREAS, on September 27, 2023, the Town denied the exception request because the findings listed in Town Code Section 29.40.0320 could not be made; and WHEREAS, on October 5, 2023, the decision of the Community Development Director to deny the exception request was appealed to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing and considered an appeal of the Community Development Director denial of an exception to the Town’s fence regulations for an unpermitted six-foot tall fence in the required front yard setback, street side yard setback, and traffic view area at the corner of Garden Hill Drive; and
WHEREAS, on November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission denied the appeal, upholding the Community Development Director denial of the exception request; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2023, the appellant, an interested person, filed a timely appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission; and
Draft Resolution to
be modified by Town
Council deliberations
and direction.

Page 1339 ends

WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on December 19, 2023, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law; and WHEREAS, on December 19, 2023, the Town Council continued the public hearing to a date certain of January 16, 2024; and
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 January 16, 2024, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council was unable to make the findings required to grant an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission, in accordance with Town Code section

29.20.275, with the Town Council finding the following:

1. There was not an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission; and

2. The Planning Commission decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:

1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission decision to deny an exception the Town’s fence regulations 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 16
th day of January 2024, by the following vote:

COUNCIL MEMBERS:

AYES:

NAYS:

Page 1340 ends

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________
ATTEST:

TOWN CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
DATE: ___________________

Page 1341 ends

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 1342 ends

Los Gatos City CouncilJanuary 16, 2024

Los Gatos City Council
January 16, 2024