ITEM NO. 10.
EV
EV GIACALONE
ITEM NO. 10.
EV EV EV EV
EV
EV GIACALONE
ITEM NO. 10.
GIACALONE 9
ITEM NO. 10.
EV
EV GIACALONE
ITEM NO. 10.
EV EV EV EV
EV
EV GIACALONE
ITEM NO. 10.
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818 US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818 US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
EV
EV
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
WP
WP
WP
CC
AA
WP2 WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2WP2 WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2WP2
WP2 WP2WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2 WP2
BB
AA
CC
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
BB
BB
CC
CC
BB
BB
0.1 2.5
4.8 5.9
0.1 0.4
0.7 1.3
2.3 3.3
3.1 1.3
0.2 1.3
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.1
1.1 1.1
1.6 0.4
2.3 5.2
6.2 4.1
1.6 0.4
0.1 0.4
0.7 0.6
3.6 2.5
2.2 1.5
0.9 0.3
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.3
1.7 0.5
0.9 0.7
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.4
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.5 0.2
1.5 0.3
0.3 0.1
1.3 0.3
3.8 0.6
0.8 0.2
0.7 3.7
2.1 0.3
3.0 0.5
1.3 0.2
0.3 1.1
1.0 0.2
0.7 0.2
0.7 0.2
0.2 0.3
0.3 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.3 0.2
0.3 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.8 0.2
0.2 1.1
0.1 0.6
0.4 1.6
1.1 0.2
0.4 2.6
0.2 1.3
0.6 3.9
0.5 0.1
0.3 1.9
0.2 0.9
0.5 2.8
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.6
0.1 0.4
0.2 0.7
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.4
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 2.7
1.4 0.3
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.7
0.5 0.1
0.6 0.2
0.4 0.1
0.7 0.2
0.3 0.1
0.6 3.3
1.5 0.3
2.7 0.5
0.9 0.2
0.2 0.2
1.0 3.9
0.1 0.8
4.2 2.1
0.3 3.9
0.6 1.3
0.2 0.1
0.3 0.8
1.0 0.1
0.4 1.7
0.9 0.2
1.7 0.4
0.6 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.3 0.2
2.7 5.6
3.7 0.1
0.2 0.4
0.3 0.2
0.4 0.2
0.3 0.2
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.1
0.4 1.6
2.0 1.2
0.8 0.4
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.4
0.2 0.4
0.2 0.3
0.2 0.4
3.1 1.2
0.3 0.1
0.6 0.7
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.4
1.9 0.3
1.3 0.2
0.7 0.4
2.0 0.5
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.8 4.2
0.4 2.7
0.2 1.3
0.7 4.0
0.7 0.4
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.6
3.0 0.3
1.6 0.2
0.8 0.5
2.4 2.0
0.4 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.7 0.2
0.5 0.1
0.3 0.2
0.5 0.8
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.8
1.2 0.8
0.4 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.3
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1 1.7
3.5 1.9
0.9 0.5
0.3 0.4
1.4 0.9
0.2 0.1
0.6 0.6
0.1 4.8
2.1 0.8
0.3 0.8
4.0 2.1
0.3 0.2
1.3 1.3
0.2 1.9
0.6 0.3
0.7 3.6
1.6 0.3
0.2 1.0
4.0 3.9
1.0 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.3
0.9 0.6
0.9 0.6
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.4 0.9
0.9 0.4
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.3 1.0
3.3 5.0
4.9 2.0
0.4 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.5 0.6
0.4 0.3
0.5 0.7
0.5 0.3
0.3 0.6
0.6 0.3
0.3 0.5
0.6 0.4
0.3 0.5
0.6 0.4
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.7
1.5 1.6
1.6 1.1
0.4 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.4 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.4 0.7
0.5 0.3
0.4 0.7
2.9 3.3
1.3 0.9
2.7 3.8
1.7 0.9
2.6 3.9
3.5 0.6
1.2 3.5
3.2 1.1
1.0 3.0
3.6 1.4
0.9 2.7
3.8 1.5
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.2
0.7 2.6
3.7 1.6
0.4 0.5
1.8 3.8
2.4 0.6
0.2 0.4
1.9 4.0
2.5 0.8
1.4 3.7
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.2
0.1 1.9
1.3 0.5
5.6 2.0
0.6 5.6
2.0 0.6
3.7 1.8
0.6 1.0
0.8 0.4
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.0 0.1
0.1 0.2
2.0 0.3
4.2 0.9
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
2.9 1.5
0.2 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
1.3 3.5
0.8 6.4
0.7 2.4
7.0 3.1
0.9 7.1
0.9 1.9
6.3 3.3
0.8 4.0
1.4 1.3
5.3 4.2
0.9 2.2
2.3 0.9
4.3 5.2
1.4 1.6
4.0 1.6
2.4 7.0
3.1 0.6
3.0 7.4
0.7 1.7
6.4 4.3
1.0 5.4
1.1 1.6
5.7 3.7
0.8 2.7
1.9 1.0
4.5 4.8
1.2 1.7
3.0 0.8
3.6 5.6
1.6 1.0
5.2 0.3
0.1 0.7
5.6 0.1
1.5 3.1
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.2 3.8
1.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
2.0 1.7
3.0 4.9
0.4 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.1
3.2 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0
3.0 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.5 2.9
2.9 1.4
1.0 0.7
1.1 4.6
1.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.3 5.4
0.8 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
1.2 3.9
2.9 1.7
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.8
3.2 0.2
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.6
3.0 2.6
0.8 0.6
0.4 0.7
0.50.3 0.4
0.7 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
3.0 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 0.2 0.5 1.1 2.1 4.2 6.1 7.1 5.7 3.8 2.4 2.3 3.3 5.5 7.3 6.9 4.7 2.6 1.8 1.9 2.8 5.0 7.0 7.6 6.3 4.8 4.4 5.6 8.0 9.9 9.4 7.7 5.6 5.0 5.2 6.4 7.9 8.4 6.8 4.4 2.8 2.6 3.6 5.6 7.2 6.8 4.9 2.9 2.2 2.6 4.3 6.3 7.2 6.0 3.9 2.5 2.3 3.3 5.5 7.1 6.9 5.0 2.9 2.3 2.7 4.5 6.4 7.2 5.8 3.7 2.4 2.4 3.4 5.5 7.1 6.7 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.4 7.3 5.9 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.6 7.2 6.8 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.7 4.5 6.5 7.3 5.8 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.6 7.3 7.0 5.1 3.3 2.9 3.6 5.5 7.3 7.8 6.1 3.6 2.3 2.3 3.3 5.5 7.2 6.9 4.9 2.8 2.3 2.8 4.4 6.4 7.3 5.9 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.5 7.3 6.9 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.7 4.5 6.7 7.6 6.3 4.4 3.5 3.3 4.4 6.2 7.7 7.1 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.5 7.4 6.0 3.8 2.5 2.5 3.6 5.9 7.9 7.5 5.3 3.1 2.4 2.9 4.7 6.9 7.7 6.0 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.6 7.4 6.9 4.7 2.7 2.1 2.6 4.3 6.5 7.5 5.7 3.4 2.2 2.2 3.3 5.5 7.4 6.9 4.7 2.9 2.3 2.6 4.4 6.5 7.5 5.7 3.4 2.3 2.2 3.3
0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 2.8 4.3 5.2 4.1 2.8 1.9 1.9 2.8 4.3 5.9 5.5 3.9 2.4 1.6 1.5 2.2 3.5 5.1 5.6 4.6 3.8 3.8 5.0 7.0 9.5 9.6 8.1 6.9 6.4 5.6 5.8 6.5 6.9 5.2 3.5 2.3 2.1 2.8 4.1 5.5 5.1 3.6 2.4 1.8 2.1 3.3 4.8 5.7 4.5 3.1 2.1 1.9 2.7 4.1 5.6 5.3 3.8 2.5 1.9 2.2 3.3 4.8 5.6 4.3 2.9 2.0 1.9 2.7 4.1 5.5 5.1 3.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.4 5.0 5.9 4.6 3.1 2.1 2.0 2.8 4.3 5.8 5.3 3.8 2.4 1.9 2.3 3.5 5.0 5.9 4.5 3.0 2.1 2.0 2.8 4.3 5.9 5.5 4.2 3.2 3.2 4.2 5.5 6.4 6.7 4.5 3.1 2.1 2.0 2.8 4.2 5.8 5.4 3.9 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.6 5.0 6.0 4.6 3.2 2.1 2.0 2.9 4.4 5.9 5.4 3.9 2.5 2.0 2.4 3.9 5.8 7.3 6.4 5.2 3.9 2.8 4.7 6.2 7.4 6.4 4.5 2.8 2.1 2.4 3.6 5.2 6.2 4.8 3.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 5.1 6.9 6.7 5.2 3.8 2.8 3.1 4.5 5.9 6.7 5.1 3.4 2.3 2.2 3.0 4.5 6.1 5.5 4.0 2.6 2.1 2.5 3.8 5.4 6.4 4.9 3.3 2.2 2.1 3.0 4.5 6.1 5.6 4.1 3.4 2.5 2.6 3.9 5.5 6.4 4.8 3.3 2.3 2.2 3.2
0.1 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.7 1.1 1.4 1.1 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.7 1.7 2.1 2.9 4.2 6.5 8.1 7.3 6.9 6.6 4.5 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.1 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 3.1 4.4 4.5 3.6 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 4.0 2.2 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.8 3.0 4.2 5.1 6.4 7.0 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.3 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.2 2.4 2.7 3.3 7.4 6.6 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 Luminaire Schedule - LED
Project: 50 LOS GATOS ROAD - LOS GATOS
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Luminaire
Lumens
Luminaire
Watts
Description Filename
2 AA Single 0.900 4493 43.66 LUMEC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-3WF-HS @ 11' LC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-3WF-HS.ies 8 BB Single 0.900 4454 43.66 LUMEC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-4F-HS @ 11' LC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-4F-HS.ies 33 CC Single 0.900 492 6.1 GARDCO PBL-42-14L-100-NW-G2-3-UNV PBL-14L-100-NW-G2-3-UNV.ies 43 WP Single 0.900 2118 20.9 GARDCO PWS-196L-450-NW-G3-2-UNV @ 8' PWS-196L-450-NW-G2-2-UNV.ies 39 WP2 Single 0.900 1732 10.2 GARDCO GWS-A01-740-T2M @ 6' GWS-A01-740-T2M.ies Calculation Summary
Project: 50 LOS GATOS ROAD - LOS GATOS
Description CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
ALLEY DRIVES Illuminance Fc 0.85 7.0 0.1 8.50 70.00
PATHWAYS Illuminance Fc 1.03 7.4 0.0 N.A. N.A.
PERIMTER PATHWAY Illuminance Fc 3.60 9.9 0.1 36.00 99.00 AGI32 VERSION 21.2
AGI (C) 2024 LIGHTING ANALYSTS, INC.
10268 W. CENTENNIAL ROAD, SUITE 202
LITTLETON, CO 80127
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SALES REPRESENTATIVE: ALR; KRISTIAN REYES
differences will occur between measured values and calculated values. lighting calculations. If the real environment conditions do not match the input data, dimensions, reflectances, furniture and architectural elements significantly affect the variations. Input data used to generate the attached calculations such as room measurement techniques and field conditions such as voltage and temperature tolerances in calculation methods, testing procedures, component performance, Some differences between measured values and calculated results may occur due to Calculations have been performed according to IES standards and good practice.
BY: APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING; RAMON ZAPATA
REPORT FOR: GIACALONE DESIGN SERVICES
PHONE: (510) 638-0158 - FAX (510) 638-2908
OAKLAND, CA 94621
P.O. BOX 2265
7777 PARDEE LANE
ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INC
ALL VALUES SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES AT GRADE LAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
LAMP, RATINGS, FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL
IS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IES PROCEDURES AND PUBLISHED
PHOTOMETRIC DATA USED AS INPUT FOR THESE CALCULATIONS
DATE
1" = 30' 1 OF 2 11.1 .2024 3
SCALE SHEET REV
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DRAWING NO. / INPUT FILE
50 LOS GATOS SARATOGA ROAD
CITY OF LOS GATOS
22823REY-R3.DWG / 22823REY-R3.A32
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
5
ITEM NO. 10.
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818 US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818 US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818 US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
US CONCRETE CB1818
EV
EV EV EV EV
EV
EV
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
WP
BB
BB
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
CC
WP
WP
WP
WP
CC
AA
WP2 WP2 WP2 WP2 WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2
WP2 WP2
WP2 WP2 WP2 WP2 WP2 WP2 WP2
BB
AA
CC
CC
CC
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
WP2
BB
BB
CC
CC
BB
BB
BB
1.6 3.4
3.1 2.4
1.1 1.3
0.8 1.2
1.0 0.8
0.5 0.2
0.4 0.4
0.3 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.9 2.0
0.8 0.2
1.3 3.8
6.8 0.3
0.1 2.2
6.1 0.1
0.1 1.4
2.6 1.4
2.5 4.8
5.9 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.6 0.8
0.4 0.4
0.7 1.3
2.3 3.3
3.1 1.3
0.2 0.6
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.3
0.4 1.3
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.1
1.1 1.1
1.6 0.4
2.3 0.1
0.3 0.8
1.9 5.2
6.2 4.1
1.6 0.4
0.1 0.4
0.7 0.6
3.6 0.3
0.9 2.8
7.0 2.5
2.2 1.5
0.9 0.3
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.3
1.7 0.2
0.6 1.6
4.8 0.5
0.9 0.7
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.4
2.3 1.8
0.3 0.3
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.1
1.4 0.7
0.5 0.2
1.5 0.3
0.3 0.1
2.6 0.5
1.3 0.3
3.8 0.6
0.8 0.2
3.2 0.5
0.7 3.7
2.1 0.3
3.0 0.5
1.3 0.2
1.2 0.3
0.3 1.1
1.0 0.2
0.7 0.2
0.7 0.2
0.3 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.3 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.3 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.3 0.1
0.2 0.3
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.2
0.8 0.2
0.2 1.1
0.1 0.6
0.4 1.6
1.7 0.3
1.1 0.2
0.4 2.6
0.2 1.3
0.6 3.9
3.4 0.5
0.5 0.1
0.3 1.9
0.2 0.9
0.5 2.8
1.9 0.3
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.6
0.1 0.4
0.2 0.7
0.5 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.4
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.4
0.1 2.7
1.4 0.3
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.7
0.5 0.1
0.6 0.2
0.4 0.1
1.5 0.3
0.7 0.2
0.3 0.1
0.6 3.3
1.5 0.3
2.7 0.5
0.9 0.2
3.1 0.5
0.2 0.2
1.0 3.9
0.1 0.8
4.2 2.1
0.3 3.9
0.6 1.3
0.2 1.8
0.3 0.1
0.3 0.8
1.0 0.1
0.4 1.7
0.9 0.2
1.7 0.4
0.6 0.2
0.5 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.3 0.2
2.7 5.6
3.7 0.1
0.2 0.4
0.3 0.2
0.4 0.2
0.3 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.1
0.4 1.6
2.0 1.2
0.8 0.4
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.4
0.2 0.4
0.2 0.3
0.2 0.4
0.1 0.4
3.1 1.2
0.3 0.1
0.6 0.7
0.4 0.3
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.4
1.9 0.3
1.3 0.2
0.7 0.4
2.0 0.2
1.0 0.5
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.8 4.2
0.4 2.7
0.2 1.3
0.7 4.0
0.2 1.3
0.7 0.4
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.6
3.0 0.3
1.6 0.2
0.8 0.5
2.4 0.1
0.6 2.0
0.4 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.7 0.2
0.5 0.1
0.3 0.2
0.5 0.1
0.2 0.8
0.2 0.3
0.4 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.8
1.2 0.8
0.4 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.3 0.3
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.3 1.7
3.5 1.9
0.9 0.5
0.3 0.4
1.4 0.9
0.2 0.1
0.6 0.6
0.1 0.2
0.9 4.8
2.1 0.8
0.3 0.8
4.0 2.1
0.3 0.2
1.3 1.3
0.2 0.2
1.5 1.9
0.6 0.3
0.7 3.6
1.6 0.3
0.2 1.0
4.0 3.9
1.0 0.2
0.2 0.8
0.2 0.1
0.3 0.9
0.6 0.9
0.6 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.4
0.9 0.9
0.4 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.5 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.2
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.3
1.0 3.3
5.0 4.9
2.0 0.4
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.2 0.2
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.5 0.5
0.3 0.3
0.5 0.6
0.4 0.3
0.5 0.7
0.5 0.3
0.3 0.6
0.6 0.3
0.3 0.5
0.6 0.4
0.3 0.5
0.6 0.4
0.2 0.1
0.2 0.7
1.5 1.6
1.6 1.1
0.4 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.6 0.4
0.2 0.2
0.4 0.6
0.4 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.4 0.7
0.5 0.3
0.4 0.7
0.6 0.4
0.4 0.6
0.6 0.3
2.9 3.3
1.3 0.9
2.7 3.8
1.7 0.9
2.6 3.9
3.5 0.6
1.2 3.5
3.2 1.1
1.0 3.0
3.6 1.4
0.9 2.7
3.8 1.5
0.3 0.1
0.1 0.3
0.5 0.5
0.5 0.5
0.2 0.2
0.7 2.6
3.7 1.6
0.4 0.5
1.8 3.8
2.4 0.6
0.2 0.4
1.9 4.0
2.5 0.8
1.4 3.7
3.2 1.0
1.1 3.3
3.4 1.1
0.1 0.2
0.2 0.2
0.2 0.4
0.4 0.2
0.1 1.9
1.3 0.5
5.6 2.0
0.6 5.6
2.0 0.6
3.7 1.8
0.6 1.0
0.8 0.4
0.1 0.2
0.1 0.2
0.0 0.1
0.1 0.2
2.0 0.3
4.2 0.9
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
2.9 1.5
0.2 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
1.3 3.5
0.8 6.4
0.7 2.4
7.0 3.1
0.9 7.1
0.9 1.9
6.3 3.3
0.8 4.0
1.4 1.3
5.3 4.2
0.9 2.2
2.3 0.9
4.3 5.2
1.4 1.6 4.0
1.6 2.4
7.0 3.1
0.6 3.0 7.4
0.7 1.7
6.4 4.3
1.0 5.4
1.1 1.6
5.7 3.7
0.8 2.7
1.9 1.0
4.5 4.8
1.2 1.7
3.0 0.8
3.6 5.6
1.6 1.0
5.2 0.3
0.1 0.7
5.6 0.1
1.5 3.1
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3
6.0 0.8
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
3.3 1.4
0.4 5.4
0.9 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.2 3.5
1.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.2 3.8
1.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
2.0 1.7
3.0 4.9
0.4 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.1
3.2 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.0
3.0 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.5 2.9
2.9 1.4
1.00.7 1.8
3.2 1.1
4.6 1.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.3
5.4 0.8
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 1.2
3.9 2.9
1.7 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.8 3.2
0.2 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.6 3.0 2.6
0.8 0.6
0.4 0.7
0.50.3 0.4
0.7 0.1
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
3.0 0.5
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.1
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.4
0.1 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.1 5.6 8.0 9.9 9.4 7.7 5.6 5.0 5.2 6.4 7.9 8.4 6.8 4.4 2.8 2.6 3.6 5.6 7.2 6.8 4.9 2.9 2.2 2.6 4.3 6.3 7.2 6.0 3.9 2.5 2.3 3.3 5.5 7.1 6.9 5.0 2.9 2.3 2.7 4.5 6.4 7.2 5.8 3.7 2.4 2.4 3.4 5.5 7.1 6.7 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.4 7.3 5.9 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.6 7.2 6.8 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.7 4.5 6.5 7.3 5.8 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.6 7.3 7.0 5.1 3.3 2.9 3.6 5.5 7.3 7.8 6.1 3.6 2.3 2.3 3.3 5.5 7.2 6.9 4.9 2.8 2.3 2.8 4.4 6.4 7.3 5.9 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.5 7.3 6.9 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.7 4.5 6.7 7.6 6.3 4.4 3.5 3.3 4.4 6.2 7.7 7.1 4.8 2.8 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.5 7.4 6.0 3.8 2.5 2.5 3.6 5.9 7.9 7.5 5.3 3.1 2.4 2.9 4.7 6.9 7.7 6.0 3.7 2.4 2.3 3.4 5.6 7.4 6.9 4.7 2.7 2.1 2.6 4.3 6.5 7.5 5.7 3.4 2.2 2.2 3.3 5.5 7.4 6.9 4.7 2.9 2.3 2.6 4.4 6.5 7.5 5.7 3.4 2.3 2.2 3.3 5.5 7.6 6.8 4.5 2.6 2.2 2.6 4.4 6.8 8.0 6.2 4.2 3.3 3.1 4.0 5.9 7.7 6.7 4.3 2.1 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.1
5.0 7.0 9.5 9.6 8.1 6.9 6.4 5.6 5.8 6.5 6.9 5.2 3.5 2.3 2.1 2.8 4.1 5.5 5.1 3.6 2.4 1.8 2.1 3.3 4.8 5.7 4.5 3.1 2.1 1.9 2.7 4.1 5.6 5.3 3.8 2.5 1.9 2.2 3.3 4.8 5.6 4.3 2.9 2.0 1.9 2.7 4.1 5.5 5.1 3.6 2.4 1.9 2.2 3.4 5.0 5.9 4.6 3.1 2.1 2.0 2.8 4.3 5.8 5.3 3.8 2.4 1.9 2.3 3.5 5.0 5.9 4.5 3.0 2.1 2.0 2.8 4.3 5.9 5.5 4.2 3.2 3.2 4.2 5.5 6.4 6.7 4.5 3.1 2.1 2.0 2.8 4.2 5.8 5.4 3.9 2.5 2.7 2.8 3.6 5.0 6.0 4.6 3.2 2.1 2.0 2.9 4.4 5.9 5.4 3.9 2.5 2.0 2.4 3.9 5.8 7.3 6.4 5.2 3.9 2.8 4.7 6.2 7.4 6.4 4.5 2.8 2.1 2.4 3.6 5.2 6.2 4.8 3.4 2.4 2.5 3.5 5.1 6.9 6.7 5.2 3.8 2.8 3.1 4.5 5.9 6.7 5.1 3.4 2.3 2.2 3.0 4.5 6.1 5.5 4.0 2.6 2.1 2.5 3.8 5.4 6.4 4.9 3.3 2.2 2.1 3.0 4.5 6.1 5.6 4.1 3.4 2.5 2.6 3.9 5.5 6.4 4.8 3.3 2.3 2.2 3.2 4.8 6.6 6.2 4.4 2.7 2.2 2.7 4.4 6.5 8.1 7.2 5.5 3.7 3.1 4.3 5.4 6.8 6.0 4.1 2.3 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.1
2.9 4.2 6.5 8.1 7.3 6.9 6.6 4.5 3.4 3.0 2.8 2.1 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.3 1.8 1.7 1.3 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.1 1.5 1.8 1.4 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.7 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.9 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.9 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.7 1.9 1.5 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.2 3.1 4.4 4.5 3.6 2.0 1.6 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 2.0 1.9 1.6 1.5 4.0 2.2 1.3 1.7 2.0 1.6 1.2 0.9 0.8 1.1 1.6 2.1 2.0 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.2 1.8 3.0 4.2 5.1 6.4 7.0 3.5 3.7 3.7 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.1 2.3 1.6 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 2.3 2.2 1.6 1.1 0.9 1.1 1.5 2.2 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.2 2.4 2.7 3.3 7.4 6.6 2.6 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.4 2.1 2.9 4.0 3.4 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.4 3.8 5.1 6.0 7.0 5.8 4.0 5.8 5.2 4.6 3.6 2.3 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.2 0.1 AGI32 VERSION 21.2
AGI (C) 2024 LIGHTING ANALYSTS, INC.
10268 W. CENTENNIAL ROAD, SUITE 202
LITTLETON, CO 80127
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SALES REPRESENTATIVE: ALR; KRISTIAN REYES
differences will occur between measured values and calculated values. lighting calculations. If the real environment conditions do not match the input data, dimensions, reflectances, furniture and architectural elements significantly affect the variations. Input data used to generate the attached calculations such as room measurement techniques and field conditions such as voltage and temperature tolerances in calculation methods, testing procedures, component performance, Some differences between measured values and calculated results may occur due to Calculations have been performed according to IES standards and good practice.
BY: APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING; RAMON ZAPATA
REPORT FOR: GIACALONE DESIGN SERVICES
PHONE: (510) 638-0158 - FAX (510) 638-2908
OAKLAND, CA 94621
P.O. BOX 2265
7777 PARDEE LANE
ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INC
ALL VALUES SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES AT GRADE LAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS.
LAMP, RATINGS, FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL
IS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IES PROCEDURES AND PUBLISHED
PHOTOMETRIC DATA USED AS INPUT FOR THESE CALCULATIONS
DATE
1" = 30' 2 OF 2 3
SCALE SHEET REV
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DRAWING NO. / INPUT FILE
50 LOS GATOS SARATOGA ROAD
CITY OF LOS GATOS
22823REY-R3.DWG / 22823REY-R3.A32
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
MATCHLINE
Luminaire Schedule - LED
Project: 50 LOS GATOS ROAD - LOS GATOS
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Luminaire
Lumens
Luminaire
Watts
Description Filename
2 AA Single 0.900 4493 43.66 LUMEC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-3WF-HS @ 11' LC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-3WF-HS.ies 8 BB Single 0.900 4454 43.66 LUMEC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-4F-HS @ 11' LC S-OSPxHx-45W40LED-740-G1-4F-HS.ies 33 CC Single 0.900 492 6.1 GARDCO PBL-42-14L-100-NW-G2-3-UNV PBL-14L-100-NW-G2-3-UNV.ies 43 WP Single 0.900 2118 20.9 GARDCO PWS-196L-450-NW-G3-2-UNV @ 8' PWS-196L-450-NW-G2-2-UNV.ies 39 WP2 Single 0.900 1732 10.2 GARDCO GWS-A01-740-T2M @ 6' GWS-A01-740-T2M.ies Calculation Summary
Project: 50 LOS GATOS ROAD - LOS GATOS
Description CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
ALLEY DRIVES Illuminance Fc 0.85 7.0 0.1 8.50 70.00
PATHWAYS Illuminance Fc 1.03 7.4 0.0 N.A. N.A.
PERIMTER PATHWAY Illuminance Fc 3.60 9.9 0.1 36.00 99.00
11.1 .2024 5
ITEM NO. 10.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 10.
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 02/12/2025
ITEM NO: 3
ADDENDUM
DATE: February 11, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Hotel Structures (Los Gatos Lodge), Construct a Multi-Family Residential Development (155 Units), a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Remove Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned CH:PD:HEOZ.
Located at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. APNs 529-24-032, 529-24-001, and 529-24-003. Architecture and Site Application S-23-042, Conditional Use Permit Application U-23-017, and Subdivision Application M-23-009. No Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Streamlining Process, Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2020 General Plan EIR and/or 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable. Property Owner: Keet S.
Nerhan. Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
REMARKS:
Below is a corrected table from page 10 of 15 of the Staff Report providing a summary of the BMP units by income level and number of bedrooms.
BMP Units
Unit Type Moderate Income Low Income
Two Bedroom 1 2
Three Bedroom 4 7
Four Bedroom 5 7
TOTAL 10 17 16
Exhibit 18 includes revised findings and considerations correcting a typo.
Exhibit 19 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 am, Friday, February 7, 2025, and 11:00 am, Tuesday, February 11, 2025.
ATTACHMENT 4
ITEM NO. 10.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road/ S-23-042, U-23-017, and M-23-009 DATE: February 11, 2025
EXHIBITS:
Exhibits previously received with the February 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Final Initial Study – December 24, 2024
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/50LGS)
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Location Map
5. Project Description Letter
6. Letter of Justification
7. Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
9. Final Arborist’s Report
10. Table of Requested Waivers Through State Density Bonus Law
11. Neighbor Outreach Summary
12. Visual Renderings
13. Construction Phasing Exhibit
14. Objective Design Standards Checklist
15. Letter from SummerHill Regarding Commissioner Stump
16. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 7, 2025
17. Development Plans
Exhibits provided with this Addendum report:
18. Revised Required Findings and Considerations
19. Public comments received between 11:01 am, Friday, February 7, 2025, and 11:00 am, Tuesday, February 11, 2025
ITEM NO. 10.
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\02-12-2025\Item 3 - 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road\Addendum\Exhibit 18 - Revised Required Findings and Considerations revised docx
PLANNING COMMISSION – February 12, 2025
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
Architecture and Site Application S-23-042
Conditional Use Permit Application U-23-017
and Subdivision Application M-23-009
Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Hotel Structures (Los Gatos Lodge), Construct a Multi-Family Residential Development (155 Units), a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Remove Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned CH:PD:HEOZ. APNs 529-24-032, 529-24-001, and 529-24-003. No Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Streamlining Process, Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2020 General Plan EIR and/or 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable.
Property Owner: Keet S. Nerhan
Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC
Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ As required, additional environmental review is not necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Streamlining Process, since the proposed project’s environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) prepared for the 2020 General Plan and/or 2040 General Plan, as applicable. An Initial Study was prepared for the project in support of this determination.
Required finding for consistency with the Town’s General Plan:
■ That the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in that the proposed zoning is consistent with the existing General Plan Land Use designation.
Required findings to deny a Subdivision application:
■ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made: None of the findings could be made to deny the application.
Instead, the Town Council makes the following affirmative findings:
EXHIBIT 18 Page 765
ITEM NO. 10.
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\02-12-2025\Item 3 - 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road\Addendum\Exhibit 18 - Revised Required Findings and Considerations revised docx
a. That the proposed map is consistent with all elements of the General Plan. b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development e. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat
f. That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Required findings for a Conditional Use Permit:
■ As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use Permit:
The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence submitted at the hearing, may grant a conditional use permit when specifically authorized by the provisions of the Town Code if it finds that:
1. The proposed use is desirable to the public convenience because it provides an additional residential dwelling units in the Town; and
2. The proposed use would not impair the integrity of the zone, in that the proposed use is allowed in the CH zone with the granting of the concession pursuant to State Density Bonus Law; and
3. The proposed use would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or general welfare, as the conditions placed on the permit and existing regulations would maintain the welfare of the community; and
4. The proposed use is in conformance with the Town Code and General Plan with the granting of the concession pursuant to SDBL.
Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations:
■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) except for the concession and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law.
Required compliance with the Town of Los Gatos Objective Design Standards for Qualifying Multi-Family and Mixed-Use Residential Development:
■ The project meets the Town of Los Gatos Objective Design Standards for Qualifying MultiFamily and Mixed-Use Residential Development except for the waivers requested pursuant
ITEM NO. 10.
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\02-12-2025\Item 3 - 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road\Addendum\Exhibit 18 - Revised Required Findings and Considerations revised docx
to State Density Bonus Law.
Required for granting concession and waivers pursuant through State Density Bonus Law:
Concession(s) or incentive(s)
■ CA Government Code Section 65915:
(d) The Town shall grant concession(s) or incentive(s) requested by the applicant unless the Town makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:
(A) The concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, consistent with subdivision (k), to provide for affordable housing costs, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or for rents for the targeted units to be set as specified in subdivision (c). (B) The concession or incentive would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. (C) The concession or incentive would be contrary to state or federal law.
Waivers
■ CA Government Code Section 65915 (a)(2):
The Town shall grant waivers to the Town’s development standards requested by the applicant unless the Town makes a written finding, based upon substantial evidence, that the development standard for which the waiver is requested would not physically preclude the construction of the development at the densities and with the concession permitted through Density Bonus Law.
Required finding for consistency with California Government Code Section 65863 regarding state RHNA requirements, the Town’s Housing Element Sites Inventory, and No Net Loss Law:
As required for approval of a development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than was identified in the Town’s Housing Element for that parcel:
■ The project provides fewer Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income units than anticipated in the Housing Element Sites Inventory, but more Above Moderate Income units, producing a net cumulative deficit of 105 units for the site. The cumulative impact of the project on the capacity of the Housing Element allows the Town to maintain a positive surplus in each income category. The remaining capacity of the Housing Element is adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the Town’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. As required by Government Code Section 65863, the following No Net Loss findings are made:
ITEM NO. 10.
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\02-12-2025\Item 3 - 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road\Addendum\Exhibit 18 - Revised Required Findings and Considerations revised docx
1. Remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate to meet the Town’s remaining RHNA for the planning period by income category.
Findings: The remaining capacity of the Housing Element sites are adequate to meet the Town’s remaining RHNA with approval of this project. The Town is not required to identify additional sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA as a result of this project.
2. Include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the Housing Element, to accommodate that need by income level.
Findings: The remaining unmet need for the Town’s RHNA at each income level and the remaining capacity of the Housing Element is provided in the table below. The remaining capacity at each income level of the Housing Element is greater than the remaining unmet RHNA need at each income level. The Town is not required to identify additional sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA as a result of this project.
Remaining RHNA and Housing Element Capacity
Units by Income Category
Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate
Total
Remaining RHNA 537 294 310 695 1,836
Remaining Capacity of
Housing Element
608 335 349 817 2,109
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture and Site applications:
■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the applicable considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Natalie Schmidt < >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:10 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Document - Feb 7, 2025
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To whom it may concern,
Please see my attached file with my support for the Los Gatos Lodge. Thank you. ~Natalie Natalie Schmidt
Marketing Manager
P
EXHIBIT 19
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Arthur Lin < >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:49 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: Letter of Support for SummerHill project at Los Gatos Lodge [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission and Town Council,
I’m writing to express my strong support for SummerHill Homes’ proposal to build 155 townhomes. As a Los Gatos resident, I see this as a great opportunity to add much-needed housing while keeping the character of our community intact.
This project fits well with the existing townhomes and condos on Alberto Way. It offers a smart balance of growth without overwhelming the area, giving first-time buyers and downsizing residents more housing options. The plan also improves pedestrian access with a new pathway connecting students and residents to the high school and downtown while ensuring public safety through an emergency access route.
This is a well-thought-out project that benefits both current and future residents, and I encourage you to approve it.
Best,
Arthur Lin and Christine Change
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Adam DeMaestri < >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:38 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Los Gatos Lodge Project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To whom it may concern,
Please see the attached letter in association with my support for the project at the Los Gatos Lodge site.
Thank you
Adam
Adam DeMaestri
Chief Executive Officer
ITEM NO. 10.
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Charlene < >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 12:09 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Los Gatos Lodge
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I am very much opposed to the plan of housing at Los Gatos Lodge. The traffic on Hwy 9 is already awful. If there were a fire how would everyone be able to get out? Our schools are already at capacity. North Forty already did that. There are too many plans for adding housing in Los Gatos.
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Cheryl Huddleston >
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 2:49 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Item #3 Los Gatos Lodge Property
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I looked at the rendering and plot plan that was online. It is way too dense. There is no open spaces for all those people to enjoy. The traffic that will be occurring in an already impacted area will be horrendous. What does the fire department say about the density. Does Summerhill foot the bill for all of the items such as water supply, usage and fire; Street repairs after construction is done; The increase of children to our local schools in addition to the school traffic; so many of our beautiful trees will be cut.
I am not against a complex there, just not in favor of such a large development.
Please do not allow another ugly complex like the North Forty.
Thank you, Cheryl Huddleston
Los Gatos
ITEM NO. 10.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15498 for Town Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Town Contact Form
First Name Rich
Last Name Stephens
Email Address (Required)
Phone Number
Message (Required) Regarding the 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road project:
https://www.losgatosca.gov/2378/L, I do not like the
recommendation to go to 4 stories, at all. It is a 'little' busy but in today's times, with SB330 and Builder's
Remedy, I believe this project makes very good use of
this land as it is designed. It will be nestled against the hill, between the high school and Hwy 9. It doesn't
'match' the Town character but it does a great job
coming as close as possible relating to height, colors, style, etc and is a great alternative to what could have been proposed on this site under the current
circumstances. I further believe that this project could be used as a good example of an alternative to other
builders who have proposed massive high-rises adjacent
to single-story neighborhoods that we should never allow to be built in our Town.
Which Department do
you want to submit this
message to? (Required)
Community Development: Building & Planning
Add an attachment Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
ITEM NO. 10.
From: James (Jason) Farwell
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 11:45 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: 50 Los Gatos Saratoga Road - SummerHill Townhome Develpment [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Town of Los Gatos,
Please see the attached.
Thank you.
Jason Farwell
Farwell Rashkis, LLP
ITEM NO. 10.
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Sue Farwell >
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 1:23 PM
To: Monica Renn <[email protected]>
Subject: Summer Hill/LG/Saratoga Road
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Monica, can you please add this to the packet for the review of the Summer Hill project? Thanks, Sue
Sent from my iPhone
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
As a longtime Los Gatos resident, I support the SummerHill Homes townhome development at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. Our town needs more affordable housing options, and this project provides 26 below-market homes for essential workers. Additionally, improved pedestrian access to Los Gatos High School will create a safer, more walkable community.
This project is a responsible step forward for Los Gatos. I urge you to approve it.
Best,
Sue Farwell
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Nico Flores >
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 12:51 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: LG Lodge Letter of Support
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Shaun,
Attached, please find a letter for item 3 on the planning commission agenda for this Wednesday, 1/12/2025.
Thank you.
Nico Flores
Dear Commission Members,
As a longtime resident of Los Gatos, I am writing to express my strong support for SummerHill Homes’ proposed 155-townhome development at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. This project is a much-needed addition to our community, addressing housing shortages while maintaining the character of the neighborhood.
The development is thoughtfully designed to complement the area, with townhomes that fit seamlessly alongside existing housing. It also includes 26 below-market units for essential workers, helping teachers, healthcare providers, and others afford to live near their workplaces.
Additionally, the project enhances pedestrian access to Los Gatos High School, improves emergency response routes, and avoids adding unnecessary traffic congestion to local roads.
By balancing responsible density with community needs, this project is a valuable opportunity for Los Gatos. I urge you to approve it and support smart, sustainable growth in our town.
Thank you,
Nico Flores
ITEM NO. 10.
From:
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 2:13 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: LG Lodge letter
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Shaun,
Attached please find a letter for item 3 on the planning commission agenda for this Wednesday 1/12/2025. Thank you.
Thanks,
--
Drew Brown
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Town Council, I am writing to express support for SummerHill Homes’ proposal to develop townhomes at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. As a resident of Los Gatos, I believe this project is addressing our town’s housing needs and maintaining the character of our community.
The benefits of this development include:
• Neighborhood Compatibility: The project mirrors the existing townhomes and condos along Alberto Way. • Affordable Housing: This development will provide housing tolocal essential workers like teachers and healthcare professionals.
• Smart Density: The plan balances housing needs without overwhelming the area. • Diverse Housing Options: It provides much-needed homes for first-time buyers and downsizing residents. • Improved Pedestrian Access: A new pathway will safely connect students and residents to Los Gatos High School and downtown.
• Emergency Vehicle Access: The EVA route to the high school will enhance public safety. • Traffic Considerations: The plan avoids increased congestion by restricting public vehicle access to the school.
This project benefits both current and future residents. I urge you to approve it.
Sincerely,
Andrew Brown
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Daniel Saban < >
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 5:01 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Message of Support for 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd proposal [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Mr. Mullins and Members of the Town Staff,
I am writing to express my support for the SummerHill Homes proposal to develop 155 townhomes at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. I believe this project represents a significant opportunity to address some of our community's key needs and enhance the overall quality of life in our town.
I believe the SummerHill Homes proposal demonstrates a commitment to preserving neighborhood harmony. The design and scale of the proposed townhomes appear to be thoughtfully considered, integrating well with the existing character of the surrounding area.
In summary, I believe the SummerHill Homes proposal for 155 townhomes is a responsible and much-needed development for our community. It addresses the critical need for affordable housing, demonstrates sensitivity to the existing neighborhood, and prioritizes the safety and accessibility of residents. For these reasons, I urge you to approve this project.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Daniel Saban
Los Gatos Resident
ITEM NO. 10.
From: carlos azucena < >
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2025 2:22 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Support Letter - Old LG Lodge
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Sean,
Please see the attached letter in support of the old Los Gatos Lodge project. Seems like a good idea.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks,
Carlos
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Joe Brady/USA
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:15 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Los Gatos Lodge letter of support
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Town Council – per the attached letter, I support the SummerHill Homes project. Thank You
Joe Brady
Vice Chairman
ITEM NO. 10.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 10.
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 02/12/2025
ITEM NO: 3
DESK ITEM
DATE: February 12, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Hotel Structures (Los Gatos Lodge), Construct a Multi-Family Residential Development (155 Units), a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Remove Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned CH:PD:HEOZ.
Located at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. APNs 529-24-032, 529-24-001, and 529-24-003. Architecture and Site Application S-23-042, Conditional Use Permit Application U-23-017, and Subdivision Application M-23-009. No Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Streamlining Process, Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2020 General Plan EIR and/or 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable. Property Owner: Keet S.
Nerhan. Applicant: SummerHill Homes, LLC. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 20 includes additional public comments received between 11:01 am, Tuesday, February 11, 2025, and 11:00 am, Wednesday, February 12, 2025.
ATTACHMENT 5
ITEM NO. 10.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road/ S-23-042, U-23-017, and M-23-009 DATE: February 12, 2025
EXHIBITS:
Exhibits previously received with the February 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Final Initial Study – December 24, 2024
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/50LGS)
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Location Map
5. Project Description Letter
6. Letter of Justification
7. Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
9. Final Arborist’s Report
10. Table of Requested Waivers Through State Density Bonus Law
11. Neighbor Outreach Summary
12. Visual Renderings
13. Construction Phasing Exhibit
14. Objective Design Standards Checklist
15. Letter from SummerHill Regarding Commissioner Stump
16. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 7, 2025
17. Development Plans
Exhibits previously received with the February 12, 2025, Addendum report:
18. Revised Required Findings and Considerations
19. Public comments received between 11:01 am, Friday, February 7, 2025, and 11:00 am, Tuesday, February 11, 2025
Exhibits provided with this Desk Item report:
20. Public comments received between 11:01 am, Tuesday, February 11, 2025, and 11:00 am, Wednesday, February 12, 2025
ITEM NO. 10.
EXHIBIT 20
ITEM NO. 10.
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Ryan Moore < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 11:16 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: LG Lodge Support Letter
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
My man, Sean! It's been too long and I hope you're well. Hopefully, we'll cross paths in town soon!
In the meantime, I'm attaching a letter of support for the LG Lodge development.
Thanks
Ryan
Dear Town Leaders,
Los Gatos is in need of more housing options, and the SummerHill Homes’ proposal is a step in the right direction. With 26 affordable units, a thoughtful design that blends with the neighborhood, and improved pedestrian access, this development is a responsible solution.
We cannot ignore the growing need for homes, especially for our teachers, first responders, and young professionals. This project provides a well-planned, community-focused approach that benefits both current and future residents. Please support and approve this development.
Thank you,
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Nick Lamson < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:07 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Cc: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter Regarding Item #3 - Planning Commission 2/12 [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Sean,
Attached please find a letter for item 3 on the planning commission agenda for this Wednesday 1/12/2025.
Thanks,
Nick Lamson
Development Manager
McCarthy.us
ITEM NO. 10.
ITEM NO. 10.
From: Andrew Bader < >
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 10:08 PM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]> Subject: 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd Project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
Smart growth is crucial for Los Gatos to remain a thriving and welcoming town as it navigates the state laws supporting more housing. The SummerHill Homes proposed development at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road is a prime example of responsible planning—providing much-needed housing while preserving the character of our community.
By offering 26 affordable homes for essential workers, improving pedestrian pathways, and ensuring traffic remains manageable, this project aligns with the town’s long-term vision. It’s a well-thought-out plan that balances growth with sustainability. I encourage you to approve it.
Best regards,
Andrew Bader
ITEM NO. 10.
From: >
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 12:44 AM
To: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment regarding LG Lodge proposal
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
While the land does need some development, 155 units seems excessive for the area. It is a heavily traveled area and this will lead to a lot of traffic. I can't even imagine the summer gridlock with more units in this location.
In addition, I have not seen much fire safety planning in any of the recent proposals before the town. I thought there was a Emergency Access Road from the HS Parking Lot connected to the intersection at Hwy 9 proposed? Im sure the developer doesn't want it but they just want to maximize profit and leave town...safety needs to be considered in this location. (Can we please learn from the recent fires!) I live here during the 1985 fires in the LG Mountains so this is a reality we must consider during this time of forced over development under SB330.
It would be nice to the row of buildings jutting right up against Highway 9 removed & keep the open green entrance feel of the Lodge.
In general, I continue to have serious concerns about the lack of resources all of these news building developments will have on the town long-term. And traffic and parking will become even worse than it already is.
-The McCracken family
ITEM NO. 10.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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:
Emily Thomas, Chair
Kendra Burch, Vice Chair
Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Steve Raspe
Rob Stump
Town Manager: Chris Constantin
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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 THOMAS: We will now move on to the Public
Hearings portion of our meeting, starting with Item #3, which is to consider a request for approval to demolish existing hotel structures (Los Gatos Lodge), construct a multi-family residential development (155 units), a
Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, site improvements requiring a Grading Permit, and
removal of large, protected trees under Senate Bill 330 on property zoned CH:PD:HEOZ. Located at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road; APNs 529-24-032, 529-24-001, and 529-24-003;
Architecture and Site Application S-23-042; Conditional Use Permit Application U-23-017; and Subdivision Application M23-009. No additional environmental review is necessary pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183: Streamlining Process, since the proposed project’s environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the 2020 General Plan EIR
and/or the 2040 General Plan EIR as applicable. Property owner is Keet S. Nerhan, the Applicant is SummerHill Homes, and project planner is Sean Mullin.
Mr. Mullin, I believe you will be providing the
Staff Report tonight? Sorry, before the Staff Report can I
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
have a show of hands of Commissioners who visited the
property? Are there any disclosures about this item?
Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I was approached by
members of the community regarding the traffic issue, and in all cases, I referred them to the Staff Report and
particularly the traffic study.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Any additional
disclosures? Now, Mr. Mullin, will you please present the Staff Report?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you, Chair, and good evening.
I’d like to have the Town Attorney start to provide
background on the regulatory framework applicable to this project.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Thank you. I’ve prepared a
PowerPoint which will be up shortly, and the two pieces of legislation that I wanted to discuss are Senate Bill 330 and State Density-Bonus Law.
The first applicable piece of legislation is
Senate Bill 330, and that authorizes land use applicants to submit what is called a preliminary application, and when a complete preliminary application has been submitted the applicant vests to all the development standards that were in place at the time that application was submitted. In
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
other words, the Town is not able to apply standards that were adopted after the time of vesting.
There are a number of applicants in town who
submitted preliminary applications prior to the Town
obtaining the State certification of its Housing Element, and those projects have vested to a status of the Town not having a certified Housing Element. Those applicants are eligible for the Builder’s Remedy, which does limit the Town’s review.
It's important to note that this project, while
it has invoked the Builder’s Remedy, is not relying on the Builder's Remedy for its planning application. This project is relying on State Density-Bonus Law, and so the next few slides will discuss what is included with State DensityBonus Law.
This law provides that depending upon the level
of affordability, applicants are eligible for density
bonuses, incentives and concessions, and unlimited waivers.
The law does not require that an applicant actually utilize the Density-Bonus in order to use the incentives or
concessions, and so this particular applicant is not
seeking a Density-Bonus. However, the Applicant is
requesting the use of incentives or concessions and
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
waivers, and the next slide talks about how those terms are defined in the statute.
Incentives or concessions constitute a reduction
in site development standards, a modification of Zoning Code requirements, or architectural design requirements. It can also include approval of Mixed-Use zoning and other regulatory incentives or concessions that will result in a cost reduction for the Applicant, and the goal of the
statute was to encourage the production of affordable
housing.
In addition to incentives or concessions,
Density-Bonus applicants are entitled to seek unlimited waivers of any development standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the development as
proposed. In other words, the Town can’t ask an applicant to change its proposed project in order to avoid the need for a waiver.
That concludes the presentation. I just wanted to
give a brief background of the applicable legislation.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you. I can provide a summary
of the application and be on hand to answer any questions.
The Applicant is requesting approval to demolish
the Los Gatos Lodge and construct a multi-family
residential development with 129 market rate units and 26
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
below market price units. The application is being
processed under SB 330, as just summarized, and the project qualifies for one concession and unlimited waivers under State Density-Bonus Law. The Applicant has invoked their rights to Builder's Remedy, but it has not been
implemented.
The 8.8-acre site would be developed with 155
multi-family attached units distributed amongst 28
buildings. The three-story buildings would incorporate
Mediterranean architecture and three color schemes.
Individual units would include two-, three-, and fourbedroom floor plans with attached two-car garages. Maximum building heights would be 37’-4.5” where 35’ is allowed by the zone.
Circulation improvements include new pedestrian
pathways, private roadways and alleys, a pedestrian pathway from Highway 9 to the high school, and an emergency vehicle access easement connecting to the high school property.
The Applicant has implemented the parking
requirements provided through State Density-Bonus Law,
which requires a total of 303 parking spaces to be provided onsite. The project includes 310 parking spaces within the private garages and 20 guest parking spaces.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
The Applicant has requested a concession through
State Bonus Density Law to forgo the requirement to include a Mixed-Use component with the residential project. A
number of waivers are also requested as detailed in Exhibit 10 for building height, open space, bike parking, setbacks, alley widths, and several Objective Design Standards. The Applicant has provided written justification for the
requested concession and waivers addressing the required findings for each.
The project was evaluated for pursuant to No Net
Loss Law and it was found that the capacity of remaining sites included in the Housing Element is adequate to meet the Town’s remaining RHNA, therefore the no net loss
findings can be made and the Town is not required to
identify additional sites to accommodate the remaining RHNA as a result of this project.
Lastly, and Initial Study was prepared pursuant
to CEQA guidelines. The Initial Study included several
technical reports that were peer reviewed by the Town and the Town’s consultants. The Initial Study concluded that additional environmental review was not required pursuant to Section 15183 since the project’s environmental impacts were adequately addressed in the EIR’s prepared for the 2020 General Plan and 2040 General Plan as applicable, and
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
through implementation of applicable General Plan policies identified in the Initial Study for inclusion as Conditions of Approval.
An addendum and Desk Item have been distributed.
Once item to note is a revised set of findings included as Exhibit 18 with some corrected language.
This concludes my presentation and Staff is
available to support your discussion and answer any
questions.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for Staff at this time? Seeing none, we will now open the public portion of the hearing on Item 3 and give the
Applicant an opportunity to address the Commission for up to five minutes. Whoever will be speaking tonight, please come up and state your name for the record. Thank you.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Keven Ebrahimi.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Good evening, Commissioners.
Thank you for the opportunity to have us here tonight to present for you. My name is Kevin Ebrahimi; I am the Senior Vice President of SummerHill Homes.
For those of you who aren’t familiar with
SummerHill, we’re a local residential developer and our offices are out of Palo Alto and San Ramon. Since 1976
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
we’ve built more than 7,000 homes in the greater Bay Area.
We pride ourselves on the quality of our homes and the
communities that we build.
Before we start, I’d like to take a minute and
thank Staff for working with us in the project. In
particular, I want to thank Sean Mullin; Joel Paulson; and James Watson and Gary Heap in Public Works. We really
appreciate how responsive and how professional they were with us throughout the process, so thank you for that.
As Sean explained, we’re proposing to build 155
new townhome style condominiums at the 50 Los GatosSaratoga Road project. The Town Council designated the site as a housing inventory site for this current Housing
Element with the goal of encouraging the site to be
redeveloped for residential use.
We submitted an SB 330 preliminary application
for the project in June 2023. As noted in the Staff Report, based on this data of the preliminary application we could have opted to submit our application as a Builder’s Remedy project, however, and I want to be clear on this, we chose not to do a Builder's Remedy project. Instead, we worked to design a project to comply with the Town’s Objective
Standards with the minimum number waivers that were
possible. That’s one of the reasons it’s taken us 18 months
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
to get through the process, because we wanted to be
responsive and work with Staff in the project development.
We started our community outreach for the project
almost 18 months ago, before we even submitted our
development application. We held our first neighborhood meeting in August of 2023, followed by several smaller
follow-up meetings last year with neighbors and community leaders, and then we hosted two more neighborhood meetings earlier this year. In addition, we’ve been working closely through the process with our neighbor, the School District, which I’ll talk about a little bit more as we progress.
In addition to complying with the State Energy
Code and the Town’s Reach Code, the project will be allelectric and all the homes will have solar panels. In addition, every garage will be EV-ready with capacity for level 2 EV chargers.
The project will provide several important public
benefits for the community.
First, the project will provide 155 new homes,
taking a substantial bite out of the Town’s RHNA
obligations for the seventh housing cycle.
Second, we’re proposing to designate 26 of the
units as below market rate units: 16 of the BMR units will be for low-income households, and 10 will be for moderatePage 804 ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
income households in compliance with the Town’s BMP Housing Program.
Third, as a benefit for the community and the
high school, we’re proposing to build a new bike and
pedestrian trail along the edge of the site to provide a connection between Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and the high school.
Fourth, as an additional benefit, we’re also
proposing to build and establish a reciprocal emergency access route between Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and the high school that will serve both the high school and the
project.
With these public benefits, we believe that the
project will be a valuable asset to the community, helping the Town meet the demand for housing so they can sustain a thriving, multi-generational community.
Thank you, again, for considering this project
this evening. We respectfully request you’re recommendation of approval.
With me here tonight I have Jared Brotman, who
led the project working with Staff, and we have our land use attorney and the rest of our consulting team in case you have any questions that you want us to address. Thank you.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Do any Commissioners
have questions for the speaker at this time? Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: From the Staff Report I
gathered that the arrangement with the school had not been finalized. Has it been finalized now?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Yes. We have a signed agreement.
We went to the board sometime late last year and there is an agreement that is executed allowing for us to construct a (inaudible) and us giving them (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: In addition to that,
you’re proposing a secondary access?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: That’s the secondary access.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: It is the same.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Originally, when we started the
project, we looked at providing a direct access through Los Gatos-Saratoga Road or Bella Vista, which was very close for our project, to make that connection, and that would have been our secondary access. Then there was a lot of public outreach and a lot of comments asking if we could go through the School District. We met with school staff and they were also interested to see if we could relocate our secondary access through their site, and that’s what we’ve done, where we have executed agreements (inaudible).
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you very much.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. Tell me, what
are the site improvements that must be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy as a condition of approval for the Santa Clara Fire Department?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Before the occupancy of the
units, we need to have the secondary access constructed and inspected in final form.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that. So,
we’re talking about two areas that if there were a fire you would be able to go out onto Highway 9, or you would be able to go through to get onto Main Street, go through the high school and onto Main Street that way?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: So those are your two?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions? Okay, thank
you.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: First, we have a number of speaker
cards here, and then we will be onto Zoom. The first
speaker card I have is Kristin Finkelstein. Can you just
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
state your name for the record, and then you will have
three minutes.
KRISTIN FINKELSTEIN: Thank you so much for the
time.
I am a proud mom of Van Meter Elementary School,
and I’m here to speak against the proposal for the
development of 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. I believe this raises significant concerns for the Town.
While growth is inevitable, this project will add
high-density housing to an area that’s ill-prepared,
placing additional strain on local infrastructure, traffic, and overall character of the neighborhood. The North Forty project has already shown the substantial impact highdensity housing that can have on local infrastructure, and we simply do not have the space to widen highway entrances and to expand streets to accommodate more traffic in this part of town, during the warmer months particularly with increased beach traffic on Highway 17. Our town is already experiencing significant congestion, and I want to note, this is not just summer months anymore, this is when it’s warm outside.
This project would exacerbate that situation, but
that is also a problem we can control as a community by limiting development in the wrong locations. Furthermore,
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
there are several other proposed developments in our area, in our town, and we have yet to understand their cumulative impact to our town.
Additionally, this development threatens the loss
of our valuable older trees. We’ve already lost so many in the recent storms, and we should be prioritizing efforts to preserve them, not remove them, more at our discretion.
Cutting down trees would further diminish our green,
wildlife habitats, add disruption to our natural
environment, contribute to an eyesore of increased
buildings in this area, and I will note this is also a
reason why people move to this area.
We need thoughtful planning that balances
necessary growth with the preservation of the Town’s unique character and environmental sustainability. I am very much opposed to the development of 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road as a long-time resident, married mother of—as I said in the beginning—three elementary school children in Los Gatos, and I do want to note, it is bedtime for them right now, but it is more important for me to be here to have my voice heard, so thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Do any Commissioners
have questions for the speaker? None. Thank you. Next, I have Nick Lamson. Thank you. You will have three minutes.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
NICK LAMSON: Good evening, my name is Nick
Lamson. I am with McCarthy Development; we’re a local
property owner in town. I wanted to come up here and
express my support for the project.
I think it is a major step in addressing the
housing need that we have in our community. Los Gatos has always been a very desirable place to live; people want to live here and it is tough to do so. I think this project can help with that and provide an opportunity for people to get their foot in the door and move here.
I think it is also a very well thought out
project and I think the product type is correct, and I also think the location is good. It provides access to local amenities. I think downtown is really going to benefit from it, bringing new residents to that area, being able to walk downtown, go to the shops, the cafes, restaurants, and I think it will provide a much-needed boost for that area and all the retailers.
Clearly, in California in general there is a big
housing need, and this development takes a big chunk of that. I think it’s a good location and will be a welcome addition to our community. Thank you.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Thank you. Next, I have Jim Lyon. You’ll have three minutes. Thank you.
JIM LYON: Good evening, Jim Lyon, Johnson
Avenue, Los Gatos.
I’ve got major concerns about this project. I
think as the Town Architect indicated, this project is just too dense and not enough green space, and essentially the applicant blew off all of the recommendations of the Town Architect.
There are also major traffic impacts with this
project, but the applicant is hiding behind the EIR of the 2040 Master Plan for the Town. In the 2040 Master Plan of the Town, it says, and I quote, “It is found that VMT
impacts would be significant and unavoidable,” and
basically, they’re hiding behind that EIR, and essentially that is just totally unacceptable to residents of the Town.
Also, in the Initial Study there was a
requirement for a transportation demand management program.
Not there, a missing piece.
What about wildfire evacuation? This is already a
choke point in the Town. When I get off the freeway, every time I’m backed up to go up and make a right turn onto Los Gatos Boulevard, and in the traffic study there is a
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
proposal in Figure 4 that changes the circulation by
removing the straight-through lane, making it a dedicated right-hand turn lane into the project, thus creating more backup down Highway 9 towards University Avenue.
The applicant should be required to dedicate, on
their own land, a dedicated right-turn lane for entry and exit of the project.
There are a whole host of issues around traffic.
I think this creates a major nexus with all of the
intersections around Highway 9. The Town’s EIR proposes improvements to the Highway 17 and State Route 9
interchange, but when is that going to happen? It’s in
there, it’s proposed. All these programs of traffic
mitigation that we get from the State, the County,
everything else like that are all proposed, they’re never done, and all that happens is the residents of the Town suffer with more and more and more backups.
This project needs to go back, be reduced in size
and scale, and have the traffic impacts mitigated by the developer. By the developer. They’re making money on this project. They need to fund traffic mitigation in this area, because they’re bringing in more than 600 vehicle trips a day in and out of that site.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
Something needs to happen here, and I do not
support the project as it now stands; it should go back to Staff and be reworked. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Do any Commissioners
have questions for the speaker? Thank you for your
comments. Next, I have Carlos Azucena.
CARLOS AZUCENA: My name is Carlos. As you said,
I am a resident here in Los Gatos and I’m speaking today in support of the project.
It’s clear there is a housing shortage here in
the Bay Area; we’re all acutely aware of that. It’s been a challenge to get housing in areas like Los Gatos for a
number of reasons.
I know that this project in particular seems that
it’s trying to solve the problem in the most responsible way possible while still trying to preserve the character of the town and adding some benefits to the community.
I think that this project in particular does
strike a good balance of density. We certainly wouldn’t want something denser than this. The appearance of it, I think, is valuable, because having seen some of the other projects that this developer has done in and around town, it does seem to increase the appeal and the value of those particular areas.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
I think overall having the housing with this
overlay of a certain amount of below market rate units is extremely helpful in that it can potentially add to
essential workers that do need housing in town; I know
that’s a significant challenge the Town faces. Overall, it seems to be a good project, desirable and for the most part minimizes negative impacts while having general overall net positive to the Town. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Do Commissioners have
questions for the speaker? Thank you. Next, I have Nico Flores.
NICO FLORES: Good evening, everybody. My name is
Nico Flores and I’m also a resident.
I’m also in support this program and project; I
think it’s reasonable, I think it’s balanced. Initially, I had a couple of other things to say, but with the
presentation and so forth.
I’m also a struggling dad. I’m an assistant
principal and I don’t have finances that necessarily allow me to buy a house in Los Gatos, but this is an opportunity for me to keep my children here. I coach at Los Gatos, I’ve done a lot of different things in the Town, and I think that this is an opportunity for somebody like me, who has a high school freshman and a middle school seventh grader, to
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
stay here and to continue to grow our roots in what we feel is a wonderful town.
Like I said, it is responsible, it is balanced. I
feel like SummerHill is a reliable developer, and I think that they’ve done their best to do their due diligence to reduce the density and approach the traffic concerns. Thank you for your time.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Thank you for your comments. The next
speaker I have is Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Good evening. I am a member of the
Historic Preservation Committee, but I’m speaking tonight on my own behalf, not representing the Committee.
The first thing I’d like to say is I would like
to commend SummerHill Homes for the number of three- and four-bedroom units that they’re proposing under the
moderate-income and low-income categories. This is far
above what we have in the Town right now in that category, so this will add to the ability of families.
That being said, I agree with some of the things
that were said against the project, I agree with some of the things that are said for the project, but I think it’s clear that it has met all the requirements of the law.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
I do have a question though about why we make the
zoning and General Plan a bit complicated. The existing General Plan is Highway Commercial, which does not allow standalone, multi-family developments. The General Plan could be changed to higher-design Residential to match what is actually being developed. The zoning is CH:PD; that was developed for the hotel. Once that hotel is gone, that PD no longer exists, so this is a new development and it
should be a new PD, which is Residential. Then the zoning and the General Plan would be consistent, it would be easy for people who read those documents to realize just exactly what is on that site.
My last question has to do with the HEOZ zoning.
It doesn’t apply. Does that mean that there’s going to be a zoning amendment to take that off of the zoning map? That’s a question for Staff through the Commission. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Any questions for the
speaker? The next speaker is Jason Farwell.
JASON FARWELL: Good evening, Commissioners. I
submitted a letter of support for this project. I don’t have a whole lot more to say than echo the statements by those who have stood up here and supported the project.
I can appreciate their frustration about high
density and the impacts it’s having, but you need to direct
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
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
those frustrations towards your State legislature as
opposed to our Planning Commission and our Town Staff;
their hands are tied.
This is a responsible development under the
circumstances, and I think you should approve the project.
Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Any questions for the
speaker? That is it for speaker cards. Thank you to all that spoke tonight. Is there anyone on Zoom that wishes to speak on Agenda Item 3?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, thank you, Chair. The
first speaker will be Rich.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, perfect. Rich, you will be
unmuted, and when you begin talking it will start your
three-minute timer.
RICH: Thank you so much for the ability to talk
today. Understanding the need for housing, especially with the State demanding Los Gatos add 1,993 units, I see the 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road SummerHill Development, although a bit cramped for me, as one of the better new projects in town. I hope that other developers move more in this
direction as their solution, away from their big, tall
skyscrapers toward something like this, because I think this is well done.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I do have a few comments for Planning and
SummerHill. If I were looking at this development as a
potential home for myself, I really see two areas that you might want to consider discussing tonight.
First point, when considering the real size of
the complex, although it has 155 units there are 516
bedrooms, so I think it needs to be considered much larger than it sounds.
The first concern or area that I have is parking.
Most families in Los Gatos, I think, I have about one or more vehicles per residence. There are only 310 resident parking spaces in the complex, from what I understand. That could work out to only supporting about six cars per ten rooms or residents. If many of the bedrooms house children under 16 or are empty, this might be okay, but I think
personally it is an unreasonable expectation.
Further, with only 20 visitor spaces, how will
residents have guests? There are very few alternatives in the very near area for parking, so that would be a concern for me, the 20 visitor parking spaces and 155 homes.
The second area that I wanted to mention was
safety with only one access point in and out, but it sounds like SummerHill has already addressed that primarily and
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
had added a second point of entry/exit, so thank you so much for those updates; I think that’s very responsible.
There is one question that I do have that I
didn’t hear an answer to. My concern was what if there was a fire in one of Building #4, #5, or #18, which basically would shut off Highway 9? You would have a very big
problem getting out of the complex if there was a fire in one of those three buildings. I just want to make sure that you look at that and have it covered, because again, if I was looking at purchasing a home there, that would be my concern.
I’d love to at least see part of the affordable
income units dedicated for local teachers, fire, or police, so please consider that.
Again, though, I like the complex. I do support
it, but please consider these points tonight in your
discussion. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Are there any more hands raised on Zoom? DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, the next speaker is Rue
(phonetic).
CHAIR THOMAS: You can unmute yourself, and when
you begin speaking, your three minutes will start.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
RUE: Thank you for hosting the event tonight. A
couple of quick comments.
This project seems to be really based on all or
nothing in terms of what is approved or not, and it seems like that rarely goes well or allows for nuance, which is what I think this project could use.
I agree with everyone that has made positive
comments about the design and whatnot; it looks fine and the combination of different sized apartments and
affordable housing seems fine.
The real big issue is the traffic, and I don’t
feel like this really has been addressed. The idea that they want to be exempted essentially from the setback from the road, if they’re allowed to move forward with that it pushes the buildings up the road, which does not allow for any additional traffic modifications to be made. I really would like to encourage the Commissioners to revisit the site at various times, especially before and after school.
You will quickly identify that, as was brought up earlier, the traffic is completely backed up from Los Gatos
Boulevard all the way down Highway 9 and past the freeway.
If they’re allowed to move forward with this particular design where one of the lanes is turned into a turn-lane only, then we’re going to actually create safety hazards
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
all the way onto the freeway and back up towards University Avenue and Santa Cruz Boulevard, which will be backed up all the way, creating some pretty significant congestion, so I feel like there needs to be additional issues
addressed.
I don’t think this needs to be completely
cancelled, not that anyone would do that anyway. We know this is going to move forward; the question is whether
there is any room to make some modifications. I think that the hazards for the additional traffic are going to be
disastrous if it is not addressed.
To the comment earlier about the State making the
decisions, if the State made all the decisions we would have no need for this Planning Commission, so I think
decisions are made here and we still have a choice to make decisions that can affect our community in a positive way.
Thank you for your time.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Are there any additional hands raised? DIRECTOR PAULSON: There are no additional hands
raised.
CHAIR THOMAS: Does the Applicant wish to come up
and make a closing statement? Thank you. You have three minutes to speak.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: First, I want to acknowledge and
thank everyone for their comments, the pros and cons; we appreciate that. Just a couple of clarifications here.
There was a traffic study done for the project
and it was reviewed by Town Staff, and there was a lot of correspondence between our traffic engineer and Town Staff to make sure it was adequate and met all the needs for the project.
I also wanted to point it out that there is a
condition of approval to do a TDM plan, and that will come in upon approval of the Tentative Map; that’s when we get to start on the TDM and work with Staff on that, so there is a Condition of Approval for that.
With respect to the parking, we exceed the Sate
Density Bonus parking requirements for the site, and I do think it’s a lifestyle choice of people that purchase these homes. We have several different communities throughout the Bay Area with the same similar parking ratio, and again, as I said, it is a lifestyle decision of the people that buy into these communities.
Lastly, I would point out that we have reviewed
the site plan, several different iterations, with the Fire Department with respect to fire and safety, with respect to the location of all the buildings, and with respect to the
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
frontage improvements of the project that was all
coordinated between our traffic consultant and the Town’s traffic engineer, and the design was all based on that. I just wanted to make those clarifications. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the Applicant team by Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Could you elaborate about
what you said about Conditions of Approval? Were you
talking about the traffic?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: No. There’s a Condition of
Approval on the project to prepare a TDM Plan and submit to Staff for their review, and I think there was a comment that a TDM wasn’t addressed for this project. That comes in after the Vesting Tentative Map, and the TDM is put
together as the (inaudible) work as the project is
developed.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Could you just inform me
what is TDM? Would you elaborate on that term you’re using? KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Transportation Demand
Management.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. Have you
explored a more regional approach for traffic? I know it depends on what our engineers say and everything, but to me
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
this really needs to be something to be looked at; I have concerns there.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Sure. I would want to point out
that the hotel onsite is generating almost the same number of traffic counts as the proposed development, and the Town Traffic Engineer can speak to that, or our traffic engineer can speak to that. There have been traffic counts done for the existing facility and also evaluated for the proposed community, and all of the traffic design and all the
improvements for design have been based on that.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you for that.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Of course.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any other questions for the
Applicant team at this time? Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Can you elaborate a little bit
more on the emergency vehicle access easement and about how that is going to work? I heard (inaudible) a couple of
times.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Yes, of course. Obviously, the
project has a main vehicle access to Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, and then there is a requirement with over 100 units to provide a secondary access road for the community. In doing so there are many different options of where you can provide that secondary access. As of now we’ve worked with
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the School District to provide an emergency vehicle access through their site, which would take it to their parking lot and then out to Main Street. That design has been
completed, it was reviewed by the board of directors for the School District, and they unanimously approved it. We executed that agreement. Upon the approval of the project, we’ll work on the working drawings on those plans, and when we start construction on the project, we’ll start the
construction of that EVA.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Just as a follow-up then. This
emergency vehicle access road would apply were there an event at the high school or if there were an event on your property? It’s not only for…
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: That’s correct. It’s a
reciprocal emergency vehicle access where both properties can take advantage of that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Any additional
questions? Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you for your
comments and informative discussion tonight. I have a
question regarding the allocation of responsibility between the owners and the homeowners association, which I
(inaudible).
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Yes, that’s correct. We’ll have
a homeowners association.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: And those arrangements
will be made through recorded covenants?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: That’s correct, CC&Rs.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: CC&Rs. I guess maybe more
a comment than a question is that those need to be done in detail. For example, I noted that the landscape trellises might be a difficult issue unless it’s detailed in the
CC&Rs.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Yes, in communities like this we
always have an HOA, homeowners association. The HOA is
going to be governed by the CC&Rs that are developed for the community, and all of the exterior features of the
homes are maintained by the homeowners association. They’re a professionally managed company who have professional
contractors to maintain all the exteriors of the homes, all the landscape for the site, so to be honest, there is no complexity to this project for the HOA to maintain those.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Through the Chair, if I
might continue? I saw in the Staff Report that there was a, I don't know if I want to call it a promise, but I read it that way in terms of mandating professional management for
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the association, and I wondering how you might implement that.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: On a project this size I don't
know of any community that doesn’t use a professional
management company. I know SummerHill for a fact, for the 17 years I’ve been here, always hires a professional
management company; it’s a pretty standard process. If you have more than ten units you really should have a
professional management company. We go through a whole
process of preparing the budgets for the HOA, and we submit that to the Department of Real Estate and the Department of Real Estate reviews it. We always put enough funds in there for the management to be able to hire a management company, and the Department of Real Estate actually requires that for projects this size, and we have to get their approval in order to sell a house, so that’s really the process. The Department of Real Estate dictates that.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Understood, and if I might
continue? There were comments by members of the public
regarding the adequacy of the infrastructure and the impact on schools. Do you have a comment about that?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Yes. We’ve met with the school
districts. There has been declining enrollment and they’re all welcoming the students. As I understand it, there are
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
no issues. Again, we have met with the different school districts, and there is capacity and they are waiting for us to build the homes and provide the students.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Understood. I had another
question here. This may be an unfair question, but I was trying to determine what the actual sale prices of the
homes would be. I looked at the formula, which talks about the moderate area median income for a two-person home and the I guess it’s a 12% requirement. Is that something that you could respond to now?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: What is the question? What is
the price of the BMR units?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: If you’re able to say, for
the low-income and the moderate-income.
JARED BROTMAN: There are a couple of things that
go into it with the calculation, and it varies with the market and interest rates and everything, but it will
comply with the standard Town calculation. I believe the low-income is in the $300,000 range and the moderate-income is in the $600,000 range.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: That’s very helpful. Thank
you.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: It all gets calculated in
coordination with the Staff.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Of course. Okay,
appreciate that. I’ve had a lot of questions here. That may be it. The comment from Ms. Quintana regarding the zoning issues, do you have some comment on that?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: I’m going to let Sean, if that’s
okay, address that comment.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I can start. I recall that
Planning and I looked at the ordinance that established the original zoning for the property, and it was Planned
Development, and that runs with the property, so it doesn’t matter that the hotel use is ceasing; that runs with the property. As I recall, Mixed-Use was a permitted use within that ordinance, however, this Applicant is asking for a waiver of the Mixed-Use requirement in order to build
residential only.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you very much.
CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: In taking a look at the
renderings that you had, and some of your finishes that you put some options on, obviously they are very nice finishes; this is a very beautiful end product. Is you intention to build this as you’re proposing, or is there an expectation that there’s going to be a value engineering effort that
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
will happen, and ultimately, we are not going to be
delivered what we’re seeing here today?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: We’ve had several value
engineering steps through the process. We typically try to do that before we come before your body, because it becomes very difficult afterwards to approach Staff and try to
change things, so what you are seeing is we’re planning to build. Thank you for the question.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. You
responded to the suggestions by our Town Architect, and I went through them all, but there was one that I couldn’t find. There were some changes in the architecture that our Town Architect had suggested and you did take those on, but I couldn’t find them in your renderings.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: The renderings that you are
looking at incorporate all the changes that we agreed to do.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: So those were
incorporated?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: That’s correct. What you’re
looking at is a cumulation of all (inaudible) from Staff and the Town’s third-party architect.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: So that had already…
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: That’s correct. That’s what’s
before you tonight.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: I do have just one question about
the pedestrian path, and just a little bit about obviously you’re meeting the parking minimums with all of everything, but like you were saying, it’s a lifestyle choice, so could you elaborate a little bit more on the design of the
walkability of the space and the plan for the pedestrian path just to kind of give us a little bit of an idea of that?
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Sure. The pedestrian path,
obviously there are two different concepts. There’s a
pedestrian path for the high school students, and then of course there is the connectivity within the site to get around the site. Is that the one you’re referring to?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes. In the Staff Report there was
mention that eventually the path that will be going to the high school and will be connecting to the Forbes Mill path to get downtown or whatever.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Yes, I can speak to that. Again,
that wasn’t one of the requirements of the project, but we thought it would be a good public benefit after the many meetings we had with residents and the School District that
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the essence of the pedestrian path is to enable the
residents north of our project be able to take bicycle
pedestrian access to the high school. That wasn’t in our original application, that came in in our subsequent
submittals. The thought with that is to reduce some of the burden on Main Street and provide more accessibility.
Now, as we developed that we met with Staff, and
Staff also has interest in the future to construct
additional connectivity to Forbes Mill, so the path that goes to the School District site to the high school, they have the ability to lock the gate, because they want to have control and make sure they have security for their students.
What Staff wanted is to make sure there is a
possibility to make that path connect to their outside
properly lines so that they could, in the future, connect to that so that there would be a Town connection to Forbes Mill, so we’ve done that.
There is one connection that goes to the high
school with the gate for them, then it tees off to the edge of the property where there is a potential for the Town at some point to come back and provide that connectivity to Forbes Mill.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I know this was
very detailed in the plans. I just think that for some
people it’s hard. We looked through all of this, but I
appreciate you explaining it to people, because I think that it’s one of the important aspects of the project, so thank you.
KEVIN EBRAHIMI: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Are there any more questions?
Okay. Thank you very much. We will now close the public portion of the public hearing on Item 3, and I invite
Commissioners to ask questions of Staff, then provide
comments, and eventually propose a motion.
I am going to kick off just with a follow-up
about the zoning situation, because this is something that is coming up a lot, especially with our situation with our land use with our 2020 and 2040 General Plans and our
Housing Element.
So, what will happen when the zoning gets updated
in this area? Is there a plan for the zoning to get updated in this space? I know we did this Housing Element Overlay Zone, and that was meant to mitigate some of these issues to come up, because this site was in our site inventory, but eventually if the zoning does change, does that change
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
anything with this property? Then, how does the Housing Element Overlay Zone apply or interact with this?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’ll start. The Town adopted
the Housing Element Overlay Zone after this project had vested to the Town’s existing standards, so this particular project is not subject to the density requirements of the Housing Element Overlay Zone, but any future project would not be vested to any earlier standard and would need to comply with the Housing Element Overlay Zone.
CHAIR THOMAS: Just to clarify, the proposed
density of this project is below the minimum density
requirement of the Housing Element Overlay Zone?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct. It’s below the
required density of the Housing Element Overlay Zone;
however, it is consistent with the density that was
contained in the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element, which is the Land Use Element that is currently in effect.
CHAIR THOMAS: So, hypothetically if this project
didn’t more forward and there was a completely new project without vested rights, then a new project would come in and be denser?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Other Commissioners,
what questions do we have? Commissioner Raspe.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I have a
couple of questions for Staff.
First of all, I want to thank Staff. The
materials you’ve provided, and clearly the work you’ve done on this project, has been extraordinary. It’s a big
project, a lot of moving parts, so thank you Staff and the Applicant for all they’ve done.
There was a representation that the units under
this project would count towards our RHNA numbers. I just want to confirm, is that the fact, and if so, how many
units count towards RHNA?
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. These
units would count towards our RHNA numbers, and all 155 would count, and the sort of subcategories of the buckets, as we like to refer to them, of affordability, the 16 lowincome and the 10 moderate-income, would count specifically to the sub-buckets.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. One of the
waivers that is being requested is—they’re calling them alleys, but I’ll call them streets—street width or alley width reduced down to 20’. I just wanted to confirm that Fire has signed off on I’m sure the entire project, but specifically that ask from the developer.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question again.
Yes, the Fire Department has reviewed this numerous times and has issued a Letter of Approval with conditions, as reflected in Exhibit 3 of your Staff Report.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for that response.
Finally, we’ve heard tonight a number of concerns regarding traffic, and I’m hopeful our Traffic Engineer is here.
Thank you, sir. A couple of quick questions for you.
First, there has been a representation regarding
the new tract numbers versus the existing space, and that those numbers would actually mimic or go down. If you can speak to that. Secondly, the TDM, if you could talk about that.
MIKE VROMAN: Mike Vroman, Traffic Engineer.
There would be four new trips generated in the
morning in the AM peak hour. There would be 13 fewer going into the site and 17 more coming out, for a net increase of
4. In the afternoon in the PM peak hour there would
be 17 additional trips coming in and there would be 9
additional trips exiting, for a total 26 new trips.
The traffic studies looked at the existing
intersections, they look at the existing conditions now, they go out and do actual counts, and they look at the
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
project and with all the background traffic. When that was done the Level of Service indications did not change, and Level of Service indicates that the delays that exist in Level of Service at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and Los Gatos Boulevard is C, which means that you usually have to wait for a cycle; occasionally it will back up, as has been
noted by the residents; and if you drive through there
you’ll notice that it’s very heavy going toward the high school in the morning, and North Los Gatos Boulevard is always heavy; but the net conditions would not change. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. My second
question was there was a reference made to a TDM as a
potential part of our Condition of Approval. What would a TDM typically or generally look like, so we could have some understanding of what that would be in this case?
MIKE VROMAN: The TDM stands for Transportation
Demand Management, as was noted by the Applicant, and it generally looks at ways to reduce trips, and that can be done in a variety of ways like encourage and facilitate bus travel.
One of the things the developer is doing is
adding to providing the pedestrian/bike path along the
exterior of the property to facilitate pedestrian access,
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
especially to the high school. And there are other
amenities that are provided like access for bike travel.
They are also coordinating with us in the long-term VTA and Caltrans project to enhance bike and pedestrian facilities along Highway 9, and although they won’t make the
improvements now, they will make an in-lieu contribution to do those improvements on their frontage, so those are a few of the things. There are other alternatives, other ways to reduce traffic, but those are some of things that are being addressed.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for answering my
question.
CHAIR THOMAS: I just have a couple of follow-up
questions specific to traffic, if we can get those answered now.
One question is does typically the number
reducing parking spaces also help with reducing the amount of traffic by encouraging the alternative route of
transportation?
MIKE VROMAN: Yes, that is another option. If you
have fewer parking spaces, the theory is there will be
fewer people driving, because they don’t have…or they’ll find other means where they’ll share a car, so yes, that is one way to reduce traffic.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. My other question
isn’t specifically about the project, necessarily, but it’s more related to this traffic issue that came up that it already exists in this area, and although the study shows that there won’t be a significant increase in delays, it sounds like this is a problem area. Can you just elaborate a little bit more on what the Town is currently doing to alleviate that, and what the plan is with Caltrans to fix this area?
MIKE VROMAN: Right now the Town runs traffic
time-based coordination along Los Gatos Boulevard in the morning and PM peak hours, and we also link that in with this portion of Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, so the traffic signal at Alberto and Los Gatos-Saratoga Road is linked into the system and runs coordination timing to facility traffic moving up and down both Los Gatos-Saratoga Road as well as Los Gatos Boulevard. We don’t have coordination with Caltrans; the two signals on the far side of Highway 17, on the western side, are both run by Caltrans, which has a time-based coordination, but at this point we don’t coordinate with them. Sometime in the future when the VTA project for Highways 9 and 17 comes through, at that time hopefully we’ll be able to coordinate with the State as well to improve Highway 9.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, great. Thank you for
clarifying that. That VTA project is three or four years out, hopefully?
MIKE VROMAN: I think that might be very
optimistic; I think it’s probably longer than that.
CHAIR THOMAS: No? Okay, five, six, ten? We don’t
know?
MIKE VROMAN: We don’t know at this stage.
There’s no funding right now.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Yes, Commissioner
Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Just a follow-up question
for our Town Traffic Engineer. Where did you come up with the numbers? You said there would be like 13 more, and then 17 in the evening. What did you base those numbers on, the present hotel there and what their traffic has been like? MIKE VROMAN: The Institute of Transportation
Engineers has a trip generation manual that is renewed
periodically every couple of years, and they do studies across the United States and studies in California. They come up with trip generation rates.
The Applicant in this case, SummerHill, hired a
traffic consultant to do the report. The Town, with the Applicant’s funding, hired another transportation
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
consultant to do the peer review, and then I, as a
registered traffic engineer, also reviewed the reports and the analyses.
The numbers come up when they look at the
existing use, which is the hotel; that’s something we
didn’t quite agree on. We refer to it a motel, but the
consultants went out and did their own studies. The Town also did independent studies and we came up with an
agreement for the actual trips, and so the actual trips were counted during the AM and PM, and then for the
proposed use we took a look at the ITE trip generation
rates for multi-home use and how many homes are proposed, and that comes up with the proposed number. We deduct the prior number for existing use, and that’s where the total new trips over the whole site would be slightly over 500 new trips over the course of the day, but when you drill down and look at the peak hour trips, then you come up with 4 additional trips during the morning peak hour, 26
additional trips during the PM peak hour, and those, once again, are based on actual counts based on what the
hotel/motel generates today.
We did the counts back last March, and then
additional counts, I think it was in this fall, and then
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
compare those for the new proposed sites with the ITE
rates.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you. So,
you’re basically measuring the peak times, morning and
evening?
MIKE VROMAN: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: It just seems that the
hotel… If we have two garage spaces and then there is what, I think 20 guest parking, and all those cars, that’s 310 cars, and I don't know, I don’t think that hotel as it is now would generate that much traffic. It just seems a
little low to me, but I go with your numbers in your study.
MIKE VROMAN: Was that a question?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: No, just a comment. It
just seems like there’s going to be a lot more traffic
coming in and out of there than 13 in the morning and 17 at night. The numbers you gave, it just doesn’t seem
realistic, and that is a real concern.
MIKE VROMAN: Once again, those counts, the rule
of thumb is that the peak hour count is generally about 10% of the daily count, and these hourly counts are slightly less than that, and once again, they were based on actual counts done. If a new hotel went in, if that was a true hotel, that would generate significantly more trips, both
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
over the course of the day and hourly, than the existing hotel/motel.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you. Thank you
for that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any more questions for Staff?
Commissioner Barnett.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Are there any ordinances
or other requirements of the Town relating to the number of bicycle parking spots, and if so, is there an exception that is requested here? I didn’t see one.
SEAN MULLIN: Thank you for that question. In the
Town’s new Objective Design Standards for projects like this, there is a requirement for long-term parking and
short-term parking. The long-term parking is accommodated through the private garages, which is explicit in the
Objective Design Standards. The Applicant has requested a waiver to the short-term parking requirement for bikes.
They are proposing some bicycle parking; they’re just not meeting the actual requirement through the Objective Design Standards.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I didn’t see it on the
list of exceptions.
SEAN MULLIN: It’s listed in Exhibit 10 in the
table.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
CHAIR THOMAS: The third one down.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I’m on the third one. Oh,
I see.
CHAIR THOMAS: But it looks like the short-term
parking is like one space per unit.
SEAN MULLIN: It’s one space per unit, so that
would be a requirement of 155; they’re proposing 36, and those are bike rack locations distributed throughout the community.
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Okay, thank you very much.
CHAIR THOMAS: My final question for now is any
plans for the Forbes Mill Trail to actually be connected? GARY HEAP: Good evening, Gary Heap, Town
Engineer. At this point we don’t have any funding for that project, but we were lucky enough to work with the
developer on this and walk the site and the potential
extension. It does have a lot of challenges to it: vertical challenges, horizontal challenges, property ownership
challenges, but it is something that continues to be a high priority for us if we were obtain funding for it, but right now we don’t have any plans for that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Commissioner
Raspe, go for it.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thanks, Chair. I don’t have
any questions, but I’ll start the discussion then by
offering some kind of overall thoughts.
First of all, again, thank you to Staff and the
Applicant. It’s a complicated project, a lot of moving
parts, and I think everyone has done a good job of working together to try to come up with the best project possible.
This was a project that has been designed under
the density-bonus provisions as opposed to Builder's Remedy provision, and so I think that means it was generally built in accordance with our Town Code, which I think resulted in a better project than otherwise could have been the case.
The builder has asked for one concession, which
is the removal of the Mixed-Use in the premises, which I think is non-problematic, and several waivers, most of
which I think are fine.
I think an important part of this project is the
addition of 26 below market units, that is, those that
include, as Ms. Quintana indicated, three- and four-bedroom spaces, which are woefully lacking in Los Gatos, so I’m glad and I want to thank the developer for adding those into our project.
One of the speakers indicated a preference that
if we could allocate those toward our local fire, teachers,
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
first responders. I’m not sure of the legality of that, but if there is something that could be done in that arena, I think that would be a great add to this project as well.
I find that the designs are largely thoughtful
and fit within our design aesthetic. I know that the Town Architect made some changes, but I thought, looking through the renderings, they looked fine. I generally look for
projects where the second or third floors have setbacks, and those aren’t provided here, but reading through the materials, I understand why, because we need the floor
space, so given the limitations, I think the units are
designed well and fit within Town.
I do have traffic concerns, but in this instance,
I think I have to rely upon those who are smarter than me and have studied it, and so between the Initial Study that has been done and the TDM that will be done, I’m hopeful that most traffic issues will be ameliorated in the
project.
The parking, again, if you look at the raw
numbers, it looks like it’s short, but again, with the
understanding this is a lifestyle location, I think the world has changed a little bit. The location close to the high school with the trails, I think bikes will be a big
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
use here. I’m hoping the parking situation will also work out well, and fire safety has signed off on this project.
So, all told, I think this is a well-designed
project, probably the best that we’re going to do in this site. I think it’s a site that’s perfectly suited for
multi-family housing, and this is a project that is welldesigned to fit that space, so I’m in favor of the project.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I would like to reiterate
what Commissioner Raspe said. I think it’s a very good
project. I’m very happy that we didn’t have to go to
Builder's Remedy, because that definitely helped our town, and it fits in so well versus other projects around, which I won’t mention. I’m very happy with the design. I think it’s been very thoughtfully put together.
My main issue is the traffic, and as Commissioner
Raspe and the Chair said, working with our traffic
engineer, that can be mitigated too, because that is a very difficult area there. Even now it’s difficult. I avoid just going on Highway…to get up to Los Gatos Boulevard, so I can imagine.
But because of your thoughtfulness in the
project, I think you’re going to be thoughtful in trying to figure out a good solution for the traffic considerations,
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
and I really appreciate. Maybe you can do some of these other projects in town, so thank you for that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I also want to thank our Town
Attorney for kicking this off and doing a good explanation.
This is our first SB 330 application we have in front of us, and so I think we’re learning our way around what the State has laid out for us, so thank you.
I do want to say this is a very thoughtful
application for this site. There has been a lot of rumors about this site over the last many, many years, and this is way better than so many were, so thank you for that.
I think everybody is going to have concerns about
traffic. I don’t know that there’s an easy fix. I do feel better hearing that there were actual trip counts taken.
Thank you for that. I’m not sure it’s always going to fix the problem, but I do feel better knowing that it’s a hard number comparison that was done.
I actually don’t believe the waivers that are
being requested are out of bounds, really. Parking might be an issue, but again, you’re right. My adult children don’t want to drive, so maybe nobody does.
I support the project as it is in front of us.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I think the architecture
for the project is extremely attractive. I appreciate the effort that went into that, and we’ve certainly had a lot that were more mundane, to say the least, or blocky.
The Town needs new housing, even if it wasn’t
required, and this certainly makes significant progress toward our requirements. The provision for the moderateincome and low-income is certainly positive; we need affordable housing for those who serve the community.
I think the traffic issue, although always a
concern, was addressed through the two traffic consultants as well as reviewed by our traffic engineer.
I also don’t have a problem with the waivers and
exceptions that are being asked for.
One thing that troubled me was that there is no
provision for a club house or recreation room. The board of directors will have to meet, and the members have a right to attend, and so that’s going to have to be outside, which is something of a burden, but I understand from Staff that that can’t be required, so just wanted to express that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. I would like to echo my
fellow commissioners’ comments, and also just thank Town Staff, because this was a really big project to bring to us, and it is our first SB 330 application. I had a lot of
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
questions for Staff that were answered here tonight and before tonight, and I just really appreciate that, and I also appreciate all the transparency and information
provided by the Applicant, and the willingness to answer all our questions.
When I look at the findings required to make a
decision on this project, going through the list of them, I feel comfortable making all of these findings, and so I just want to ask my Commissioners to take a look at that list and make sure.
I know that the route for the CEQA guidelines is
a little bit different than something that we have seen in the past, because it’s just a different approach, but I feel like it’s been covered in the two General Plans’ EIRs as well as it can be, or as far as it is required by CEQA.
That was one thing that Mr. Mullin really explained to me yesterday that I think hasn’t come up tonight, but I just want to reiterate that according to Town Staff and the Town attorney, this is an appropriate way to approach CEQA.
I do think that it is consistent with our General
Plan, and I think that it is a good example of how our
Objective Design Standards are going to be implemented and used to guide projects in town.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
57 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 do agree that the concession and the waivers
requested are reasonable and thoughtful in a way that seem to enhance the development of this property for the needs of the location, the community, and potential people that are going to be living there, and so I am in support of the project as it is, also.
Anyone want to go for a motion? Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I have a quick question. Can I
add something into the Conditions of Approval? I wanted to make a note about having trucks idling or waiting to off haul on Highway 9 versus on the property, just because of some of the traffic issues. Is that an acceptable?
SEAN MULLIN: That can be part of your
recommendation to the Council and the Council can consider it, and through that recommendation Staff can consider how that would be implemented through a condition before we get to the Council.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: For Staff. Sean, I forgot
to bring up the point that there are two homes in the very back of the property. How does that fit into all this? Is it they’re separate, they’re on their own, there’s no issue there?
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
58 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
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, thank you for that question.
Those two homes are… It’s a two-family dwelling. That
building would remain and it would be included on the
designated remainder parcel through the Tentative Map, so no changes to that structure, and it would be located on a separate parcel from the rest of the development, the 28 building parcels and the various parcels that are needed for the public open space and the alleys and the roadways.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Just a follow-up, just an
informational question. With these projects, are they only limited to one concession and as many waivers as they want, or is it this particular for this project?
SEAN MULLIN: That’s a good question. I’ll
address the waivers first. Under State Density-Bonus Law waivers are unlimited, so they can request as many as
they’d like and provide justification. The number of
incentives or concessions is dictated by State DensityBonus Law based on a sliding scale of the number or percentage of affordable units offered and at what level of affordability they’re offered, so there is a matrix
provided in that law. For this project, it results in one concession or incentive.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
59 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 RASPE: Chair, if you like, I’ll try
the motion.
CHAIR THOMAS: I think we’re ready for that.
Thank you.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: And Staff, we are making a
recommendation to Town Council, we’re not doing the
approval here tonight?
SEAN MULLIN: Yes, you’re making a recommendation
to the Town Council. I will note as you navigate through the motion tonight that the findings that are referenced in the Staff Report as Exhibit 2 have been replaced by Exhibit 18; there was one minor typo under the required findings for the Town’s General Plan. The only substantive change there is it does not say that the proposed zone change is consistent. Now Exhibit 18 says the proposed project is consistent, but I just want to mention that. Should you reference the findings in your motion, you should reference Exhibit 18.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Exhibit 18, thank you. With
that being said, I will move that we recommend to Town
Council to approve the demolition of an existing hotel
structure, the Los Gatos Lodge, construction of a multifamily resident development of 155 units, a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, site
ITEM NO. 10.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 1/12/2025
Item #3, 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road
60 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
improvements requiring a Grading Permit, and the removal of large, protected trees under Senate Bill 330 on property zoned CH:PD:HEOZ located at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road. APN numbers 529-24-032, 529-24-001, and 529-24-003;
Architecture and Site Application S-23-042; Conditional Use Permit Application U-23-017; and Subdivision Application M23-009.
I can make all the findings as set forth in
Exhibit 18, and subject to the Conditions of Approval as set forth herein, including the requested change from Vice Chair Burch regarding the non-idling of construction
vehicles on Los Gatos-Saratoga Road.
CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I’ll second the motion.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any discussion? Then I will call
the question, and I ask for a show of hands in favor of the motion. That passes unanimously 5-0, so thank you. I am assuming there are not appeal rights because this is a
recommendation.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s correct, Chair.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.
(END)
ITEM NO. 10.
16/2P16/2P16/2P16/2P 16/2P
4P 4P 4P 16/2P 16/2P 16/2P 16/2P 16/2P
4P 4P 4P
B ALLEY
D ALLEY
D ALLEY E ALLEY B ALLEY BLDG 3 BLDG 4 BLDG 5 BLDG 10 BLDG 11 BLDG 12 BLDG 13 BLDG 14BLDG 15 BLDG 16 BLDG 17 BLDG 19 BLDG 20 BLDG 21 BLDG 22 BLDG 23 BLDG 24 BLDG 25 BLDG 26 BLDG 28 BLDG 27 BLDG 2 BLDG 6 BLDG 1 BLDG 9 BLDG 8 BLDG 7 BLDG 18
BELLA VISTA AVENUE
LOS GATOS-SARATOGA ROAD
HIGHWAY 17
ALBERTO WAY 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 26 27 28 29 30 31 323334 35 36 37 38 3940 41 42 43 44 45 46 5049 48 47 79 78 77 76 75 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 6465 66 67 68 6970 71 7273 74 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99100101 102103 104105106107 108109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122123124125126 127128 129130131132133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146147148149 154 153 152 151 150 155 A COURT C ALLEY C ALLEY PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 5PHASE 6 PHASE 7 PHASE 8 PHASE 9 PHASE 10 PHASE 12PHASE 11 PHASE 13 PHASE 14 PHASE 15 PHASE 17 PHASE 16 PHASE 18 PHASE 19 PHASE 20 PHASE 22 PHASE 24 PHASE 21PHASE 23 PHASE 26 PHASE 27 PHASE 25 PHASE 28 PHASE 1 PHASING PLAN PHASE TOTAL AREA (AC) LOTS PARCEL BLDG # UNIT NUMBERS NUMBER OF UNITS H:\3812-000\ACAD\EXHIBITS\XB-054 - CONSTRUCTION PHASING EXHIBIT.DWG CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN LOS GATOS TOWN RESIDENCES TOWN OF LOS GATOS SANTA CLARA COUNTY CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 30' DATE: FEBRUARY 12, 2025 0 30 60 90 CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS SAN RAMON WWW.CBANDG.COM ROSEVILLE (925) 866-0322 (916) 788-4456 LEGEND PHASING PLAN PHASE TOTAL AREA (AC) LOTS PARCEL BLDG # UNIT NUMBERS NUMBER OF UNITS BLDG 1 1 PHASE 1 Page 855 ATTACHMENT 7 ITEM NO. 10.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 10.
From: James Lloyd >
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2025 2:23 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: Wendy Wood <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]> Subject: CalHDF comment re 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Rd for 2/12/25 Planning Commission meeting
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment regarding the proposed 155-unit housing development project at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, which includes 10 moderate-income units and and 17 low-income units, calendared as agenda item 3 for tonight's Planning Commission meeting.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
ITEM NO. 10.
Feb 12, 2025
City of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Los Gatos Planning Commission,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Commission of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 155-unit housing development project at 50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road, which includes 10 moderate-income units and and 17 low-income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) regulations.
The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d.).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would render the project infeasible, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.
Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.
Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).) The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above.
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in
ITEM NO. 10.
residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to height, private open space, bicycle parking, setbacks, alley widths, setbacks above second floor, retaining wall lengths, fence/wall in setback along street, utility box screening, variation in building mass, tandem parking, and standalone multi-family residential use without a commercial or office component unless it makes written findings as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, or as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Additionally, the project is eligible for a streamlined environmental review process pursuant to § 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines, as the project is consistent with the densities and use characteristics considered by the General Plan environmental impact reviews. And recent caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will grow the City’s tax base; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the Commission to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.
You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
2 of 3
ITEM NO. 10.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3
ITEM NO. 10.
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/04/2025
ITEM NO: 11
DATE: February 27, 2025
TO: Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider an Appeal of a Planning Commission Decision to Approve a Request to Construct a New Single-Family Residence with Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on Vacant Property Zoned R-1:20. Located at 45 Reservoir Road. APN 529-33-054. Architecture and Site Application S-22-048. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303:
New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Property Owner: Farnaz Agahian. Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect. Appellant: Mary J. Vidovich.
Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 6) denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to approve a request to construct a new single-family residence with reduced side and rear yard setbacks, site improvements requiring a Grading Permit, and removal of large protected trees on vacant property zoned R-1:20, located at 45 Reservoir Road.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located east of Reservoir Road and accessed via a private road serving several lots between Reservoir Road and Rogers Street (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1). The subject property is undeveloped and approximately 0.23 acres (10,000 square feet) with an average slope of 28 percent. In 2015, the Town issued Certificates of Compliance for six lots and approved a lot merger to combine the six lots into three lots. The three separate parcels include 55 and 60 Rogers Street, and the subject property at 45 Reservoir. The subject property is zoned R-1:20 and nonconforming as to size and width.
On November 17, 2022, the applicant submitted an Architecture and Site application for the construction of a two-story single-family residence with a cellar and associated site grading on
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 2 OF 6
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: February 27, 2025
the subject vacant property.
On January 8, 2025, the Planning Commission considered the application, including written and verbal public comments, and approved the request (Attachments 1 through 4).
On January 17, 2025, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by an interested person, Mary J. Vidovich, property owner of 47 Reservoir Road (Attachment 5). On the appeal form, the appellant indicated that there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission.
Pursuant to the Town Code, any interested person as defined by Section 29.10.020 may appeal to the Council any decision of the Planning Commission. For residential projects, an interested person is defined as “a person or entity who owns property or resides within 1,000 feet of a property for which a decision has been rendered and can demonstrate that their property will be injured by the decision.” The appellant meets the requirements.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the Planning Commission hearing, in this case by March 5, 2025. The Council must at least open the public hearing for the item and may continue the matter to a date certain if the Council does not complete its deliberations.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.295, in the appeal and based on the record, the appellant bears the burden to prove that either there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission, or the decision was not supported by substantial evidence in the record. If neither is proved, the appeal should be denied. If the appellant meets the burden, the 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 the 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 applicant proposes construction of a new 1,640-square foot, two-story residence with an attached two-car garage in a tandem configuration and an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) (Attachment 1, Exhibit 12). In addition to the 1,640 square feet countable toward the floor area ratio (FAR), the residence includes 1,287 square feet of below-grade square footage. The residence includes an attached 564 square-foot garage in a tandem configuration. The proposed garage includes 338 square feet of below grade square footage that does not count toward FAR. The garage also includes other areas that do count toward FAR: 163 square feet of above grade square footage; and 63 square feet of below grade square footage that extends beyond the footprint of the residence above. These areas are
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 3 OF 6
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: February 27, 2025
within the 400 square feet allowed for a garage on the property. An attached ADU is included on the second story of the residence. Consistent with state law, the ADU will be processed with a separate ministerial Building Permit, which is not the subject of this application. Much of the proposed residence would be located outside of the LRDA due to site and access constraints. The proposed residence, absent the ADU, would not be visible pursuant to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G), as only 22 percent would be visible from the viewing area located at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (Highway 9) and Highway 17 (Attachment 1, Exhibit 12). Within the immediate neighborhood, the proposed project results in the seventh largest residence in terms of total square footage and the third largest in terms of FAR.
A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1:20 zone. The proposed residence is in compliance with the zoning regulations for allowable floor area, height, and on-site parking requirements for the property. The project requires a Grading Permit for site improvements with earthwork quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards. The project also requires exceptions to setbacks, road width, parking, driveway depth, grading depths, retaining wall heights, and least restrictive development area (LRDA). A full discussion and analysis of the application is provided in the January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 1).
B. Planning Commission
On January 8, 2025, the Planning Commission received the Staff Report and Desk Item (Attachment 1 and 2). After receiving public comment and asking questions of the applicant, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed the project. The Planning Commission voted four to two to approve the application. Attachment 3 contains the verbatim minutes.
C. Appeal to Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on January 17, 2025, by an interested person, Mary J. Vidovich (Attachment 5). On the appeal form, the appellant indicated that there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission based on the following:
Side and rear setbacks have been violated;
Removal of protected mature oaks;
Too many trees are being destroyed; and
Some proposed plants are fire hazards.
Included with the appeal form were several exhibits supporting the main appeal points and raising additional points. A summary of the specific reasons listed in the appeal form and exhibits is provided below followed by staff’s response.
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 4 OF 6
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: February 27, 2025
1. Appellant: There was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission as the side and rear setbacks have been violated. Exhibit A included with the appeal documents provides the development standards in the R-1 zone.
Staff Response: The applicant requested an exception to the required setbacks for the nonconforming property under Section 29.10.265 (3) of the Town Code, providing evidence and justification for the request. The Planning Commission was able to make the findings to grant the exception and approve the project. A full discussion of the proposed setbacks is included in the January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment 1).
2. Appellant: There was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission as the project includes the removal of protected oaks and too many trees are being destroyed.
Exhibit C included with the appeal documents provides information from the Town’s Tree Protection Ordinance and notes, documents, and pictures related to tree removal carried out by the previous property owner. Exhibit D includes excerpts from the Arborist Report prepared for the project.
Staff Response: The development plans were reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Arborist who inventoried 18 protected trees within the project area and made recommendations for their preservation (Attachment 1, Exhibit 8). The project proposes the removal of 10 protected trees to accommodate the new residence. The Landscape Plans indicate that 32 new trees will be planted on site to offset the proposed tree removal. The Planning Commission was able to make the findings for the project, including the proposed tree removal, and approved the project.
3. Appellant: There was an error or abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission as the project includes proposed plants that are fire hazards. Exhibit B included with the appeal documents includes excerpts from the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines related to plants to avoid due to fire hazard.
Staff Response: The proposed trees in question are located at the base of the proposed retaining wall. The applicant indicated that the tree species, Thuja Green Giant, were selected for their fast-growing nature and slender form, given the limited space available for screening plantings. The January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report notes that the selected trees are located greater than 30 feet from the residence and would not be consistent with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines requirement that plant species in this zone be native and indigenous. Staff included a Condition to revise this species to be consistent with this requirement. The Planning Commission received feedback from the applicant who wished to keep the species as proposed because they could not find a viable alternative given the planting constraints.
The Planning Commission discussed the issue and chose not to modify the conditions in their approval of the project. The approved conditions require that the plans be revised
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 5 OF 6
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: February 27, 2025
such that all landscape species to be consistent with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the Thuja Green Giant trees at the base of the retaining wall will need to be replaced in response to this Condition.
4. Appellant: Exhibit E included with the appeal documents provides Town Code Section
24.10.080 – Town Initiated Parcel Mergers. Notes on the exhibit question the legality of the lot and whether there was a public hearing for the lot merger.
Staff Response: The Town issued Certificates of Compliance recognizing the legality of six underlying lots at 60 Rogers Street in 2015. A lot merger application was approved by the Development Review Committee at a duly noticed meeting on June 2, 2015. This lot merger combined the underlying lots into three lots: 55 and 60 Rogers Street; and 45 Reservoir Road. The approved lot merger was initiated by the property owner and was not initiated by the Town. Section 24.10.080 of the Town Code is not relevant and the 2015 lot merger is not the subject of this application.
5. Appellant: Exhibit F included with the appeal documents provides excerpts from the Town’s Consulting Architect report for the proposed project.
Staff Response: The Consulting Architect raised a concern related to the close proximity of the proposed resident to the private road. The Consulting Architect recognized that there may be little viable alternatives, and that the configuration may be acceptable given the private access road. The applicant responded to this concern, noting that the property shape and access through the lot is highly unusual and creates an undue hardship on the allowable building envelope that cannot be overcome, and that the road has been moved away from the building envelope as much as possible. The Planning Commission evaluated this issue in their deliberation and ultimately approved the project.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Story poles and signage were installed on the site by November 21, 2024, and have been maintained since the January 8, 2025, Planning Commission meeting. Written notice of the Town Council hearing was sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject property. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 8, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, March 4, 2025, are included as Attachment 7.
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.
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 6 OF 6
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: February 27, 2025
CONCLUSION:
A. Recommendation
For the reasons stated in this report, it is recommended that the Town Council uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and adopt a resolution (Attachment 6) denying the appeal.
B. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Town Council could continue the application to a date certain and:
1. Provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution to grant the appeal and remand the application back to the Planning Commission with specific direction;
2. Provide direction to staff to prepare a resolution granting the appeal and denying the application; or
3. Continue the application with other specific direction.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 1 through 12
2. January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 13
3. January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
4. January 8, 2025, Planning Commission Action Letter with Conditions of Approval
5. Appeal of the Planning Commission Decision, received January 17, 2025
6. Draft Resolution to Deny Appeal and Approve Project
7. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, January 8, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Thursday, February 27, 2025
ITEM NO. 11.
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/08/2025
ITEM NO: 7
DATE: January 3, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Construct a New Single-Family Residence with Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on a Nonconforming Vacant Property Zoned R-1:20. Located at 45 Reservoir Road. APN 529-33- 054. Architecture and Site Application S-22-048. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction. Property Owner: Farnaz Agahian. Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect. Project Planner:
Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider a request for approval to construct a new single-family residence with reduced side and rear yard setbacks, site improvements requiring a Grading Permit, and removal of large protected trees on property zoned R-1:20, located at 45 Reservoir Road.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:20, Single-Family Residential 20,000 square feet minimum Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Residential Design Guidelines; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines; Hillside Specific Plan Parcel Size: 10,000 square feet (0.23 acres)
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Medium Density Residential R-1D
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:20
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:10
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:20
ATTACHMENT 1
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 2 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
FINDINGS:
As required, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
As required by Section 29.10.265 of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots to allow exceptions to side and rear setbacks, driveway/access road width, and driveway depth on a nonconforming property.
As required by Section 29.10.150 (h)(2) of the Town Code to allow an exception to parking requirements when a lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required. The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) except for the side and rear setbacks, driveway/access road width, parking configuration and dimensions, and driveway depth.
The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family residences.
As required, that other than the exceptions to grading depths, retaining wall heights, and buildings located outside of the least restrictive development area (LRDA), the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). As required, that other than an exception to the guest parking requirement, the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (HSP).
CONSIDERATIONS:
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located east of Reservoir Road and accessed via a private road serving several lots between Reservoir Road and Rogers Street (Exhibit 1). The subject property is undeveloped and approximately 0.23 acres (10,000 square feet) with an average slope of 28 percent. In 2015, the Town issued Certificates of Compliance for six lots and approved a lot merger to combine the six lots into three lots. The three separate parcels include 55 and 60 Rogers Street, and the subject property at 45 Reservoir. The subject property is zoned R-1:20
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 3 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
and nonconforming as to size and width. The Architecture and Site application has been referred to the Planning Commission based on concerns related to the proposed intensity of development and the applicant’s request for exceptions to setback requirements, road width, parking, driveway depth, grading depths, retaining wall heights, and LRDA.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located east of Reservoir Road and accessed via a private driveway that bisects the property and serves several lots between Reservoir Road and Rogers Street (Exhibit 1). Single-family residential development surrounds the property. The property ascends approximately 14 feet from north-to-south to the private road, from which the property ascends an additional 30 feet to the south property line. The LRDA is concentrated in the southern (rear) portion of the property and the area of the existing private road.
B. Project Summary
The applicant proposes construction of a two-story residence with an attached two-car garage. The project includes areas of below-grade square footage that would not count toward the size of the residence. An attached ADU is included on the second story of the residence. Consistent with state law, the ADU will be processed with a separate ministerial Building Permit and is not the subject of this application. Much of the proposed residence would be located outside of the LRDA due to site and access constraints. The proposed residence, absent the ADU, would not be visible pursuant to the HDS&G, as only 22 percent would be visible from the viewing area located at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (Highway 9) and Highway 17 (Exhibit 12). The project requires a Grading Permit for site improvements for earthwork quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards. The project also requires exceptions to setbacks, road width, parking, driveway depth, grading depths, retaining wall heights, and LRDA.
C. Zoning Compliance
A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1:20 zone. The proposed residence is in compliance with the zoning regulations for allowable floor area, height, and on-site parking requirements for the property. The applicant requests exceptions to the zoning standards for side and rear setbacks, parking, and driveway depth.
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 4 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
DISCUSSION:
A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant proposes construction of a new 1,640-square foot, two-story residence with an attached two-car garage in a tandem configuration and an attached ADU (Exhibit 12).
The project proposes a traditional Mediterranean style residence with subdued colors to blend with the surrounding hillside environment (Exhibit 4). The applicant has provided a Letter of Justification detailing the project and the requested exceptions to the requirements of the Town Code, HDS&G, and HSP (Exhibit 5). In addition to the 1,640 square feet of countable FAR, the residence includes 1,287 square feet of below-grade square footage. The residence includes an attached 564 square-foot garage in a tandem configuration. The proposed garage includes 338 square feet of below grade square footage that does not count toward FAR. The garage also includes areas that do count toward FAR:
163 square feet of above grade square footage; and 63 square feet of below grade square footage that extends beyond the footprint of the residence above. These areas are within the 400 square feet allowed for a garage on the property. A summary of the floor area for the proposed residence is included in the table below.
Floor Area
Above Grade Below Grade Below Grade
Beyond Footprint
Totals
Lower Floor 313 sf 1,287 sf 0 sf 1,600 sf
Main Floor 1,327 sf 0 sf 0 sf 1,327 sf
Garage (Lower Floor) 163 sf 338 sf 63 sf 564 sf
Totals 1,803 sf 1,625 sf 63 sf 3,491 sf
Table does not include 516 sf attached ADU.
The proposed residence would be sited in the middle of the property, uphill from the private road (Exhibit 12). The residence would extend outside of the LRDA and requires reduced side and rear setbacks. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 24 feet, nine inches, where a maximum of 30 feet is allowed by the Town Code and a maximum of 25 feet is allowed by the HDS&G for nonvisible homes. The project requires a Grading Permit for site improvements for earthwork quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards. The project also requires exceptions to setbacks, road width, parking, driveway depth, grading depths, retaining wall heights, and LRDA.
B. Building Design
The applicant proposes a traditional Mediterranean style residence with subdued colors to blend with the surrounding hillside environment (Exhibit 12). Proposed exterior materials include: a concrete tile roof; integral-colored smooth coat stucco siding with a belly band; metal-clad wood windows and doors; cast stone columns, trim, and windowsills; and
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 5 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
painted metal railings (Exhibit 4). The proposed exterior materials comply with the HDS&G standard for nonvisible homes, each having a light reflectivity value (LRV) less than 30.
The proposed residence has been designed to bench into the hillside to reduce building height and locate a significant portion of the massing below grade. The residence strategically incorporates hipped and flat roof forms to maintain compliance with the HDS&G maximum height standard of 25 feet. The proposed tandem garage configuration reduces the prominence of the street-facing garage while providing two parking spaces; although only one of the spaces meets the dimension requirements by the Town Code. An additional compliant on-site guest parking space is located north of the private road.
The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed residence and noted that the site slope, the fragmentation of the site into two parts, and the resultant small amount of developable area on the site are major constraints for this project (Exhibit 6). The Consulting Architect identified two issues and concerns and provided recommendations for changes to increase compatibility with the Residential Design Guidelines and the immediate neighborhood. In response to these recommendations, the applicant made modifications to the design of the residence and submitted a letter responding to the recommendations (Exhibit 7). The Consulting Architect’s issues and recommendations are provided below, followed by the applicant’s response in italics.
1. The tall side walls are not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.3.3.
Recommendation: Add projecting molding at the proposed color change. Note that the use of two wall colors or the use of a single color would both be acceptable.
A projecting molding has been added at the horizontal color change location around the entire perimeter of the building.
2. A second issue is of more concern and may not have a viable alternative aside from a smaller building footprint and volume. The issue is that the proposed house is quite close to the road and appears to be closer to the road than other nearby homes. This may be acceptable given the private access road, but it seems out of character with its current semirural, wooded environment.
The property shape and access through the lot is highly unusual and creates an undue hardship on the allowable building envelope that we cannot overcome. The road has been moved away from the building envelope as much as possible.
C. Height
The proposed residence would not be visible, as defined by the HDS&G, being 22 percent visible from the viewing area located at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road and Highway 17 (Exhibit 12, Sheets A-12 and A-13). Heights of nonvisible homes are limited by the HDS&G to a
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 6 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
maximum of 25 feet at any point and a low-to-high dimension of 35 feet. The proposed residence complies with these standards having a maximum height of 24 feet, nine inches; and a low-to-high dimension of 26 feet, three inches.
D. Neighborhood Compatibility
Pursuant to the Town Code, the maximum allowable floor area for the subject property is 1,656 square feet for the residence and 400 square feet for the garage. The following table reflects the current conditions of the homes in the immediate area and the proposed project.
FAR Comparison - Neighborhood Analysis
Address Zoning Gross Lot
Area SF House SF Garage SF Total SF HouseFAR
No. of
Stories
56 Cleland Ave R-1D 9,580 1,372 251 1,623 0.14 1
80 Cleland Ave R-1D 15,649 972 341 1,313 0.06 1
90 Cleland Ave R-1D 19,038 1,728 264 1,992 0.09 1
36 Rogers Rd R-1:10 39,472 4,833 704 5,537 0.12 2
26 Rogers Rd R-1:10 17,275 3,081 462 3,543 0.18 2
49 Reservoir Rd R-1:20 18,613 3,012 962 3,974 0.16 2
47 Reservoir Rd R-1:20 19,151 1,799 180 1,979 0.09 1
60 Rogers Rd R-1:20 15,512 2,592 857 3,449 0.17 1
45 Reservoir Rd (P) R-1:20 10,000 1,640 226 1,640 0.16 2 The eight properties in the immediate area are developed with one- and two-story residences and include a mix of architectural styles. The property sizes within the immediate area range from 0.22 to 0.91 acres. Based on Town and County records, the size of the residences located in the immediate area range from 972 square feet to 4,833 square feet. The applicant is proposing a residence of 1,640 square feet with an attached garage of 226 square feet. The 0.23-acre parcel allows for a maximum residence size of 1,656 square feet and a maximum garage size of 400 square feet by the Town Code. The proposed residence would be the seventh largest in terms of total square footage and the third largest in terms of FAR.
E. Site Design
The undeveloped property is approximately 10,000 square feet, located east of Reservoir Road and accessed via a private road that bisects the property and serves several lots between Reservoir Road and Rogers Street (Exhibit 1). The property has an average slope of 28 percent and ascends approximately 14 feet from north-to-south to the private road, from which the property ascends an additional 30 feet to the south property line (Exhibit 12). The LRDA is concentrated in the southern (rear) portion of the property and in the road area. The proposed residence is located on the south side of the private road, benched into
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 7 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
the hillside and extending outside of the limits of the LRDA. The proposed rear yard area is limited in size and formed by two retaining walls with maximum heights of five feet.
Exterior access around the residence is provided by a stairway along the left side of the residence. The front yard area includes the existing private road, a guest parking space, and a firetruck turnaround. The required turnaround is located downslope of the residence utilizing a portion of the private road and requiring construction of retaining walls with a maximum height of 15 feet, six inches.
The proposed site design requires approval of several exceptions to the Town Code, HDS&G, and HSP including:
• Required 15-foot side and 25-foot rear setbacks (Town Code); • Driveway/access road with a minimum width of 18 feet (Town Code); • Two off-street parking spaces, configuration, and dimensions (Town Code); • Driveway depth of at least 18 feet in length (Town Code); • Grading depths shall not exceed four feet of cut and/or three feet of fill (HDS&G); • Retaining wall heights should not be higher than five feet (HDS&G); • Buildings shall be located within the LRDA (HDS&G); and • Four guest parking spaces shall be provided (HSP)
Setbacks:
The R-1:20 zone requires a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet; a lot width of 100 feet; and minimum setbacks of 30 feet in the front, 25 feet in the rear, and 15 feet on the sides.
The subject property was the product of a 2015 merger of six lots into three lots. What resulted was a lot that is nonconforming with an area of 10,000 square feet and a width of 83 feet. In addition to these nonconforming characteristics, the lot is further burdened with a private access road that bisects the property near the middle. As a result, the building envelope is limited to the southern portion of the property, south of the private road.
The proposed two-story residence meets the required front setback, and includes a rear setback of 19 feet, seven inches, and sides setbacks of 12 feet, 10 inches, and 12 feet, six inches. The applicant’s Letter of Justification notes that the nonconforming characteristics of the lot and the location of the existing private road necessitate reduced side and rear setbacks (Exhibit 5). The requested reduced setbacks allow the residence, with the desired architectural program, to be less visible and comply with the height limitations.
Town Code Section 29.10.265 (3) allows the Planning Commission to modify any rule of the zone including front, side, and rear setback requirements so that the building and its use will be compatible with the neighborhood. A review of Town records shows that the proposed setbacks would be compatible with three residences in the immediate neighborhood that include setbacks that do not meet the requirements of the zone.
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 8 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
Driveway/Access Road Width:
Town Code Section 29.10.155 requires driveways/access roads to be at least 18 feet wide.
The existing private road varies in width as it traverses six properties between Reservoir Road and Rogers Street. The road width does not meet Town Code standards in numerous locations. The applicant proposes to widen portions of the road on their property to meet the 18-foot requirement, but notes in their Letter of Justification that they do not control the portions of the road that are not on the subject property (Exhibit 5). The applicant continues that they balanced the road widening with fire access, tree preservation, and existing conditions in addressing this requirement. The applicant requests an exception to the road width requirement.
Required Off-Street Parking:
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.10.155 (d)(3), when a garage is used to accommodate the two required parking spaces for single-family dwellings, the garage must have interior clear dimensions of at least 20 feet by 20 feet. This requirement results in a side-by-side parking configuration. The applicant proposes an attached two-car garage in a tandem configuration. Of the two provided parking spaces within the garage, one meets the minimum dimensions for a single-car garage parking space of 11 feet by 20 feet. The applicant requests an exception to allow the tandem configuration and the dimensions of the second parking space to be reduced to 11 feet by 18 feet. Section 29.10.150 (h)(2) allows the deciding body to consider an exception when the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required. In their Letter of Justification, the applicant notes that an 18-foot-long parking space is still practical and would provide for additional backup space (Exhibit 5).
Driveway/Backup Distance:
The Town Code requires that garages opening up onto a street be served by a driveway with a length not be less than 18 feet. Given the site constraints, a complaint driveway is not feasible. The proposed driveway is approximately three feet, six inches at its shortest point.
The width of the roadway and firetruck turnaround adjacent to the garage is 49 feet, five inches and would provide ample back up distance for vehicles exiting the garage. The private road serves five other properties and vehicular traffic is anticipated to be minimal, limiting potential conflicts with the proposed driveway configuration. The applicant requests an exception to the driveway depth requirement due to the constraints of the site.
Grading Depths:
The HDS&G limits grading depths outside of the footprint of a primary residence to four feet of cut and three feet of fill. The proposed site work includes cut depths of eight feet, three inches in the rear yard area where retaining walls would be used to create a limited outdoor
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 9 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
living area. The required firetruck turnaround requires backfill of the proposed retaining walls with depths up to 15 feet, six inches. In their Letter of Justification, the applicant notes that inclusion of an on-site turnaround is unavoidable due to the configuration of the private road (Exhibit 5). The applicant also notes that the required backfill for the turnaround will help reduce soil off haul from the excavation for the residence by allowing the spoils to be used as fill.
Retaining Wall Heights:
The HDS&G includes a guideline that retaining walls should not exceed a height of five feet and that when additional retained heights are needed due to extreme site conditions, the use of multiple terraced retaining walls is preferred. The proposed on-site firetruck turnaround is required since the private roadway connecting Reservoir Road and Rogers Street includes a turn onto Rogers Street with a radius that is too sharp for firetruck circulation. Due to the numerous constraints of the site and the dimension and slope requirements of a turnaround, the applicant proposes retaining walls on the north portion of the property with heights between five feet and fifteen feet, six inches. Due to the limited space available to provide a turnaround, the use of terraced retaining walls is not feasible. In their Letter of Justification, the applicant requests an exception and notes the dimension and slope requirements of the turnaround area, which necessitates the tall retaining walls (Exhibit 5). The applicant proposes soldier pile and wood lagging retaining walls to provide a natural appearance. The Landscape Plans show that nine 24-inch box Thuja green giant trees would be planted at the base of the wall to provide screening and reduce the visual impact of the walls. These proposed trees are located greater than 30 feet from residence and would not be consistent with the HDS&G requirement that plant species in this zone be native and indigenous. The draft conditions of approval include a condition to revise this species to be consistent with this requirement.
Buildings Outside of the LRDA:
The HDS&G includes a standard requiring that buildings be located in the LRDA. The LRDA on the subject property is concentrated in the southern (rear) portion of the property and the area of the existing private road. Much of the proposed residence would extend outside of the LRDA limits due to the limited areas of LRDA and other site constraints. In their Letter of Justification, the applicant describes the limited LRDA and that there is not enough area to allow the construction of a new residence. Due to site constraints, the applicant requests an exception to allow the building to be located outside of the limited LRDA.
Guest Parking:
Four additional guest parking spaces are required by the HSP. One guest space is proposed on the north side of the private road. The applicant’s Letter of Justification notes that the size and configuration of the lot, along with the prioritization of site access for residents and
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 10 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
the fire department, have made it challenging to provide all four guest spaces (Exhibit 5).
The applicant requests an exception to allow only one guest parking space.
F. Tree Impacts
The development plans were reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Arborist who inventoried 18 protected trees within the project area and made recommendations for their preservation (Exhibit 8). The project proposes removal of 10 protected trees to accommodate the new residence. Tree protection measures are included on Sheet A-5 of the development plans (Exhibit 12). In response to the Consulting arborists recommendations, the applicant adjusted the location of drainage infrastructure to reduce impacts to existing oak trees. The Landscape Plans indicate that 32 new trees will be planted on site to offset the proposed tree removal. If the project is approved, tree protection measures would be implemented prior to construction and maintained for the duration of construction activity. Arborist recommendations for tree protection have been included in the Conditions of Approval to mitigate impacts to protected trees (Exhibit 3).
G. Visibility
Pursuant to the HDS&G, a visible home is defined as a single-family residence where 24.5 percent or more of an elevation can be seen from any of the Town’s established viewing areas. The applicant’s visibility analysis provides a perspective of the proposed residence from the viewing area located at Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (Highway 9) and Highway 17 (Exhibit 12). The provided analysis shows that the proposed residence would be 22 percent visible and is considered not visible by the HDS&G. Nonvisible homes shall not exceed a height of 25 feet and a low-to-high height of 35 feet. As discussed above, the proposed residence complies with these HDS&G height standards. Several on-site trees screen the residence and meet the health requirements for inclusion in the visibility calculation.
Conditions of approval are included in Exhibit 3 requiring maintenance of the existing trees to remain and replacement of any trees used in the visibility analysis if they die or are removed. Additionally, the LRV of all exterior materials for nonvisible residences may be averaged and may not exceed an average LRV of 30. The proposed residence would meet the LRV limitations as shown on the provided color and materials board (Exhibit 4).
H. Grading
The Site Planning Section of the HDS&G limits site grading cut depths to a maximum of four feet and fill depths to a maximum of three feet. As discussed above, the applicant is requesting an exception to the cut depth limitations to allow a maximum cut of eight feet, three inches in the rear yard area where retaining walls would be used to create a limited outdoor area. Additionally, the applicant is requesting an exception to the fill depth limitations to allow a maximum fill depth of 15 feet, six inches in portions of the driveway and fire truck turnaround area to meet the requirements of the Santa Clara County Fire
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 11 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
Department. The applicant has included a Letter of Justification addressing the requested exceptions (Exhibit 5). This application has been reviewed and approved by the Town’s Engineering Division and the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
The project also includes site improvements with grading quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards, which requires approval of a Grading Permit. The Town’s Parks and Public Works Engineering staff have included a condition of approval requiring submittal and evaluation of a Grading Permit in parallel with the required Building Permits (Exhibit 3).
I. Neighbor Outreach
In their Letter of Justification, the applicant provides a summary of their neighbor outreach efforts (Exhibit 5).
J. CEQA Determination
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Story poles and project signage were installed on the site by November 21, 2024, in anticipation of the January 8, 2025, Planning Commission hearing (Exhibit 9). Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 3, 2025, are included as Exhibit 11.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application for construction of a new a single-family residence with reduced side and rear yard setbacks, site improvements requiring a Grading Permit, and removal of large protected trees on a nonconforming vacant property. The residence is well designed and compatible with the immediate area. The project is consistent with the Zoning and General Plan Land Use Designation for the property. Due to the desired architectural program and the constraints of the site, the applicant is requesting exceptions to setbacks, road width, parking, driveway depth, grading depths, retaining wall heights, and LRDA, and has provided a Letter of Justification discussing these requested exceptions (Exhibit 5). Aside from the requested exceptions, the project complies with the Zoning Code, Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, and Hillside Specific Plan.
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 12 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the request and, if merit is found with the proposed project, take the following steps to approve the Architecture and Site application:
1. Make the finding that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction (Exhibit 2);
2. Make the finding as required by Section 29.10.265 of the Town Code to allow exceptions to side and rear setbacks, driveway/access road width, and driveway depth on a nonconforming property (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding as required by Section 29.10.150 (h)(2) of the Town Code to allow an exception to parking requirements when a lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required;
4. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) except for the side and rear setbacks; driveway/access road width; parking configuration and dimensions; and driveway depth (Exhibit 2);
5. Make the finding that the project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family residences (Exhibit 2);
6. Make the finding that due to the constraints of the site, exceptions to grading depths, retaining wall heights, and buildings located outside of the Least Restrictive development Area (LRDA) appropriate, and the project is otherwise in compliance with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
7. Make the finding that other than an exception to the guest parking requirement, the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 2);
8. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
9. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-22-048 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 12.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Planning Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the application.
ITEM NO. 11.
PAGE 13 OF 13
SUBJECT: 45 Reservoir Road/S-22-048
DATE: January 3, 2025
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Color and Materials Board
5. Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report
7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Consulting Arborist’s Report
9. Story Pole Photos
10. Site Photos
11. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, January 3, 2025
12. Development Plans
ITEM NO. 11.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 11.
KIMBLE AV
CLELAND AV
RESERVOIR RD
VILLA AV
ROGERS ST
PAGEANT WY
45 Reservoir Road
0 0.125 0.25
Miles
°
EXHIBIT 1
ITEM NO. 11.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 11.
\\tlg-file\data\SHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 7 - 45 Reservoir Rd\Exhibit 2 - Required Findings and Considerations docx
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE – January 8, 2025
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
45 Reservoir Road
Architecture and Site Application S-22-048
Consider a Request for Approval to Construct a New Single-Family Residence with Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on a Nonconforming Vacant Property Zoned R1:20. APN 529-33-054. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction.
Property Owner: Farnaz Agahian
Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
Required finding for a setback exception on a non-conforming property:
■ As required by Section 29.10.265 of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements, driveway/access road width, and driveway depth:
1. The subject property is nonconforming with regard to lot size; and
2. The side and rear setbacks, driveway/access road width; and driveway depth of the new residence are compatible with the neighborhood.
Required finding for exemption to parking requirements:
■ As required by Section 29.10.150 (h)(2) of the Town Code to allow an exception to parking requirements, the lot does not have adequate area to provide parking as required.
Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations:
■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) except for the side and rear setbacks, driveway/access road width,
ITEM NO. 11.
\\tlg-file\data\SHARE\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2025\01-08-2025\Item 7 - 45 Reservoir Rd\Exhibit 2 - Required Findings and Considerations docx
parking configuration and dimensions, and driveway depth and the findings for these exceptions can be made.
Required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
■ The project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family residences.
Required compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
■ The project complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines except for the exceptions to grading depths, retaining wall heights, and buildings located outside of the least restrictive development area.
Required compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan:
■ As required, the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan except for the exception to the guest parking requirement.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture and Site applications:
■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
ITEM NO. 11.
PLANNING COMMISSION – January 8, 2025
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
45 Reservoir Road
Architecture and Site Application S-22-048
Consider a Request for Approval to Construct a New Single-Family Residence with Reduced Side and Rear Yard Setbacks, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees on a Nonconforming Vacant Property Zoned R-1:20. APN 529-33-054. Categorically Exempt Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303: New Construction.
Property Owner: Farnaz Agahian
Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect
Project Planner: Sean Mullin
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC, or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.
4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
5. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report for the project, on file in the Community Development Department. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable.
7. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures consistent with Section 29.10.1005 of the Town Code shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans.
8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
EXHIBIT 3
ITEM NO. 11.
9. LANDSCAPE SPECIES: Revise all landscape species to be consistent with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
10. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard must be landscaped.
11. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review.
12. STORY POLES/PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE: Story poles and/or project identification signage on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application.
13. EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines.
14. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that requires all exterior materials be maintained in conformance with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines.
15. MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: Following the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the property owner shall execute a five-year maintenance agreement with the Town that the property owner agrees to protect and maintain the trees shown to remain on the approved plans, trees planted as part of the tree replacement requirements, and guarantees that said trees will always be in a healthy condition during the term of the maintenance agreement.
16. TREE DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that identifies the on-site trees that were used to provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their replacement if they die or are removed.
17. NESTING BIRDS: To avoid impacts to nesting birds, the removal of trees and shrubs shall be minimized to the greatest extent feasible. Construction activities that include any tree removal, pruning, grading, grubbing, or demolition shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (January 15 through September 15) to the greatest extent feasible. If this type of construction starts, if work is scheduled to start or if work already occurring during the nesting season stops for at least two weeks and is scheduled to resume during the bird nesting season, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction surveys for nesting birds to ensure that no nests would be disturbed during project construction. If project-related work is scheduled during the nesting season (February 15 to August 30 for small bird species such as passerines; January 15 to September 15 for owls; and February 15 to September 15 for other raptors), a qualified biologist shall conduct nesting bird surveys. Two surveys for active nests of such birds shall occur within 14 days prior to start of construction, with the second survey conducted with 48 hours prior to start of construction. Appropriate minimum survey radius surrounding each work area is typically 250 feet for passerines, 500 feet for smaller raptors, and 1,000 feet for larger raptors.
Surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate times of day to observe nesting activities. If
ITEM NO. 11.
the qualified biologist documents active nests within the project site or in nearby surrounding areas, an appropriate buffer between each nest and active construction shall be established. The buffer shall be clearly marked and maintained until the young have fledged and are foraging independently. Prior to construction, the qualified biologist shall conduct baseline monitoring of each nest to characterize “normal” bird behavior and establish a buffer distance, which allows the birds to exhibit normal behavior. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nesting birds daily during construction activities and increase the buffer if birds show signs of unusual or distressed behavior (e.g. defensive flights and vocalizations, standing up from a brooding position, and/or flying away from the nest). If buffer establishment is not possible, the qualified biologist or construction foreman shall have the authority to cease all construction work in the area until the young have fledged and the nest is no longer active.
18. SPECIAL-STATUS BATS: Approximately 14 days prior to tree removal or structure demolition activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a habitat assessment for bats and potential roosting sites in trees to be removed, in trees within 50 feet of the development footprint, and within and surrounding any structures that may be disturbed by the project. These surveys will include a visual inspection of potential roosting features (bats need not be present) and a search for presence of guano within the project site, construction access routes, and 50 feet around these areas. Cavities, crevices, exfoliating bark, and bark fissures that could provide suitable potential nest or roost habitat for bats shall be surveyed. Assumptions can be made on what species is present due to observed visual characteristics along with habitat use, or the bats can be identified to the species level with the use of a bat echolocation detector such as an “Anabat” unit. Potential roosting features found during the survey shall be flagged or marked.
If no roosting sites or bats are found, a letter report confirming absence will be prepared and no further measures are required.
If bats or roosting sites are found, a letter report and supplemental documents will be prepared prior to grading permit issuance and the following monitoring, exclusion, and habitat replacement measures will be implemented:
a. If bats are found roosting outside of the nursery season (May 1 through October 1), they will be evicted as described under (b) below. If bats are found roosting during the nursery season, they will be monitored to determine if the roost site is a maternal roost. This could occur by either visual inspection of the roost bat pups, if possible, or by monitoring the roost after the adults leave for the night to listen for bat pups. If the roost is determined to not be a maternal roost, then the bats will be evicted as described under (b) below. Because bat pups cannot leave the roost until they are mature enough, eviction of a maternal roost cannot occur during the nursery season.
Therefore, if a maternal roost is present, a 50-foot buffer zone (or different size if determined in consultation with the CDFW) will be established around the roosting site within which no construction activities including tree removal or structure disturbance will occur until after the nursery season.
ITEM NO. 11.
b. If a non-breeding bat hibernaculum is found in a tree or snag scheduled for removal or on any structures scheduled to be disturbed by project activities, the individuals will be safely evicted, under the direction of a qualified bat biologist. If pre-construction surveys determine that there are bats present in any trees to be removed, exclusion structures (e.g. one-way doors or similar methods) shall be installed by a qualified biologist. The exclusion structures shall not be placed until the time of year in which young are able to fly, outside of the nursery season. Information on placement of exclusion structures shall be provided to the CDFW prior to construction.
If needed, other methods conducted under the direction of a qualified bat biologist could include: carefully opening the roosting area in a tree or snag by hand to expose the cavity and opening doors/windows on structures, or creating openings in walls to allow light into the structures. Removal of any trees or snags and disturbance of any structures will be conducted no earlier than the following day (i.e., at least one night will be provided between initial roost eviction disturbance and tree removal/structure disturbance). This action will allow bats to leave during dark hours, which increases their chance of finding new roosts with a minimum of potential predation.
19. ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND HUMAN REMAINS:
a. In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50- meter radius of the find will be halted, the Community Development Director will be notified, and an archaeologist will be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations.
b. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner will be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans.
c. If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provisions for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5( e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program will be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
d. A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be a significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report will include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions.
20. DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRATS: This project will implement the following standard measures to minimize impacts on woodrats and active woodrat nests on the project site.
ITEM NO. 11.
a. PRECONSTRUCTION SURVEY. A qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests within 30 days of the start of work activities. If active woodrat nests are determined to be present in, or within 10 feet of the impact areas, the conditions below (Avoidance and/or Nest Relocation) will be implemented, as appropriate. If no active woodrat nests are present on or within 10 feet of impact areas, no further conditions are warranted. b. AVOIDANCE. Active woodrat nests that are detected within the work area will be avoided to the extend feasible. Ideally, a minimum 10-foot buffer will be maintained between project activities and woodrat nests to avoid disturbance. In some situations, a small buffer may be allowed if, in the opinion of a qualified biologist, nest relocation (below) would represent a greater disturbance to the woodrats than the adjacent work activities.
c. NEST RELOCATION. If avoidance of active woodrat nests within and immediately adjacent to (within 10 feet of) the work areas is not feasible, then nest materials will be relocated to suitable habitat as close to the project site as possible (ideally, within or immediately adjacent to the project site).
Relocation efforts will avoid the peak nesting season (February-July) to the maximum extent feasible. Prior to the start of construction activities, a qualified biologist will disturb the woodrat nest to the degree that all woodrats leave the nest and seek refuge outside of the construction area. Disturbance of the woodrat nest will be initiated no earlier than one hour before dusk to prevent the exposure of woodrats to diurnal predators. Subsequently, the biologist will dismantle and relocate the nest material by hand. During the deconstruction process, the biologist will attempt to assess if there are juveniles in the nest. If immobile juveniles are observed, the deconstruction process will be discontinued until a time when the biologist believes the juveniles will be capable of independent survival (typically after 2 to 3 weeks). A no-disturbance buffer will be established around the nest until the juveniles are mobile. The nest may be dismantled once the biologist has determined that adverse impacts on the juveniles would not occur.
21. 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
ITEM NO. 11.
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 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 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.
22. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Building Division
23. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Building Permit is required for the construction of the new singlefamily residence and attached garage. An additional Building Permit will be required for the PV System that is required by the California Energy Code.
24. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2023, are the 2022 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Reach Codes.
25. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue lined in full on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
26. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process.
27. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.
28. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation, and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
29. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed five (5) feet in depth, or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations.
30. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
ITEM NO. 11.
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations
31. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e., directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
32. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61:
a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inch-wide doors on the accessible floor level. c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36-inch-wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge.
d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
33. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
34. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies.
35. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface High Fire Area and must comply with Section R337 of the 2019 California Residential Code, Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182.
36. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182.
37. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182.
38. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
39. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
40. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit:
ITEM NO. 11.
a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
41. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Owner’s representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner’s expense.
42. PAYMENT OPTIONS:
a. All payments regarding fees and deposits can be mailed to:
Town of Los Gatos PPW – Attn: Engineering Dept
41 Miles Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Or hand deliver/drop off payment in engineering lock box Checks made out to “Town of Los Gatos” and should mention address and application number on memo/note line.
43. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
44. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website.
45. CHANGE OF OCCUPANCY: Prior to initial occupancy and any subsequent change in use or occupancy of any non‐residential condominium space, the buyer or the new or existing occupant shall apply to the Community Development Department and obtain approval for use determination and building permit and obtain inspection approval for any necessary work to establish the use and/or occupancy consistent with that intended.
46. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to
ITEM NO. 11.
the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all elements encroaching into the Town’s right‐of‐way.
47. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty‐four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on‐site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right‐of‐way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without inspection.
48. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed, therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall request a walk‐through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
49. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the commencement of plan check review.
50. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction.
51. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of permits or recordation of maps.
52. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy‐two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as‐built” plans.
53. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any post‐project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer.
54. GRADING PERMIT DETERMINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS: In the event that, during the production of construction drawings and/or during construction of the plans approved with this application by the Town of Los Gatos, it is determined that a grading permit would be required as described in Chapter 12, Article II (Grading Permit) of
ITEM NO. 11.
the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, an Architecture and Site Application would need to be submitted by the Owner for review and approval by the Development Review Committee prior to applying for a grading permit.
55. ILLEGAL GRADING: Per the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, applications for work unlawfully completed shall be charged double the current fee. As a result, the required grading permit fees associated with an application for grading will be charged accordingly. a. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily or apply (non‐toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on‐site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late‐afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
56. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
57. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT‐OF‐WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right‐of‐way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town’s storm drains.
58. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.
59. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person, or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Owner’s representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right‐of‐way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner’s expense
60. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: This project shall incorporate at least one of the following measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
ITEM NO. 11.
d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
61. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays. The Town may authorize, on a case‐by‐ case basis, alternate construction hours. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall provide written notice twenty‐four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours.
Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town.
62. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays, construction, alteration, or repair activities shall be allowed.
No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty‐five (85) dBA at twenty‐five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty‐five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty‐five (85) dBA.
63. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT: Sanitary sewer cleanouts shall be relocated within the property in question.
64. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits or the commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall:
a. Along with the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer, attend a pre‐construction meeting with the Town Inspector to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance, and other construction matters.
b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of approval and will make certain that all project sub‐contractors have read and understand them as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project conditions of approval will be posted on‐site at all times during construction.
65. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right‐ of‐ way will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by the Town.
66. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required.
67. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). Grading work taking place either simultaneously, on‐site is considered eligible for the grading permit process and could be counted toward quantities, depending on permit status. After the preceding Architecture and Site Application has been approved by the respective deciding body and the appeal period has passed, the grading permit application with grading plans and associated required materials shall be submitted via email to the PPW engineer assigned to the A&S review.
Plan check fees (determined after initial submittal) shall be sent to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
ITEM NO. 11.
Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include topographic map/existing conditions, final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s), driveway, utility sheet and erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner’s soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint.
68. SECURITY OF PERFORMANCE: Prior to approval of the grading permit, the applicant shall provide security for the performance of the work described and delineated on the approved grading plans. The form of security shall be one (1) or a combination of the following to be determined by the Town Engineer and subject to the approval of the Town Attorney
a. Bond or bonds issued by one (1) or more duly authorized corporate sureties on a form approved by the Town.
b. Deposit, with the Town, money, negotiable bonds of the kind approved for securing deposits of public monies, or other instrument of credit from one (1) or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the State or Federal Government wherein such financial institution pledges funds are on deposit and guaranteed for payment.
69. GRADING ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS: Upon receipt of a grading permit, any and all grading activities and operations shall not occur during the rainy season, as defined by Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, Sec. 12.10.020, (October 15‐April 15).
70. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. Proof of agreement/approval is required prior to the issuance of any Permit.
71. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the following drainage studies shall be submitted to and approved by the Town Engineer: a drainage study of the project including diversions, off‐site areas that drain onto and/or through the project, and justification of any diversions; a drainage study evidencing that the proposed drainage patterns will not overload the existing storm drain facilities; and detailed drainage studies indicating how the project grading, in conjunction with the drainage conveyance systems (including applicable swales, channels, street flows, catch basins, storm drains, and flood water retarding) will allow building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to and including the theoretical 100‐year flood.
72. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the
ITEM NO. 11.
proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town.
73. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit. An arborist report may be necessary.
74. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items:
a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes.
75. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process.
76. PROXIMITY OF RETAINING WALLS TO ADJACENT BUILDINGS: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, structural details for the proposed retaining walls located immediately adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of existing buildings on adjoining lots shall be submitted confirming that said walls will not negatively affect the structural integrity of these buildings.
77. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the issuance of a sewer connection permit.
Written confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to issuance of the Grading Permit.
78. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub‐surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab‐on‐grade construction, excavation, drainage, on‐site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans.
79. GEOTECHNICAL/GEOLOGICAL ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Owner’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design‐level geotechnical report and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an “as‐built” letter/report prepared by the Owner’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before a certificate of occupancy is granted.
80. FENCES: Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences that encroach into the neighbor’s property will need to be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Waiver of this condition will require signed and notarized letters from all affected neighbors.
81. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: Prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit, the Owner shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements
ITEM NO. 11.
needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued.
82. PRECONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permit, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall complete a pavement condition survey documenting the extent of existing pavement defects using a smartphone video (in Landscape orientation only) or digital video camera. The survey shall extend the length of Reservoir Road and the connecting private access driveway. The results shall be documented in a report and submitted to the Town for review.
83. POSTCONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall complete a pavement condition survey covering the same sections of roads documented in the Preconstruction Pavement Survey to determine whether road damage occurred as a result of project construction and whether there were changes in pavement strength.
Rehabilitation improvements required to restore the pavement to pre‐construction condition. The results shall be documented in a report and submitted to the Town for review and approval before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued.
The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall be responsible for completing any required road repairs prior to release of the faithful performance bond.
84. ON‐SITE/OFF‐SITE PARKING: Parking spaces shall be paved with a compacted base not less than four (4) inches thick, surfaced with asphaltic concrete or Portland cement concrete pavement or other surfacing (e.g.: permeable paving materials, interlocking pavers and ribbon strip driveways) approved by the Town Engineer.
85. TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: If a traffic control plan is required, it must be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of an encroachment, grading or building permit. This plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following measures:
a. Construction activities shall be strategically timed and coordinated to minimize traffic disruption for schools, residents, businesses, special events, and other projects in the area. The schools located on the haul route shall be contacted to help with the coordination of the trucking operation to minimize traffic disruption. b. Flag persons shall be placed at locations necessary to control one‐way traffic flow. All flag persons shall have the capability of communicating with each other to coordinate the operation.
c. Prior to construction, advance notification of all affected residents and emergency services shall be made regarding one‐way operation, specifying dates and hours of operation.
86. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on‐ or off‐site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the Owner and/or Applicant or their representative shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include but is not limited to provisions for the Owner and/or Applicant to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities or providing additional traffic
ITEM NO. 11.
control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose debris.
87. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Owner and/or Applicant’s design consultant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full‐size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed portable restroom locations.
Please refer to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information.
88. SHARED PRIVATE STREET: The private street accessing the Project Site shall be kept open and in a safe, drive‐able condition throughout construction. If temporary closure is needed, then formal written notice shall be provided at least one week in advance of closure.
89. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS: The Emergency Vehicle Access Easement (EVAE) that traverses the Project Site shall be kept open and in a safe, drive‐able condition throughout construction. If temporary closure is needed, then formal written notice shall be provided at least one week in advance of closure.
90. EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer shall coordinate with the Santa Clara County Fire Department to ensure that any proposed modifications to the Emergency Vehicle Access Easement that traverses the Project Site are curvilinear, allows for the Department’s equipment to travel across said easement, and meets all Department specifications. Plans shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department for approval prior to construction.
91. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used. A Sanitary Sewer Clean‐out is required at the property line, within one (1) foot of the property line, or at a location specified by the Town.
92. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Building Official. The Town shall not incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional operation condition.
Evidence of West Sanitation District’s decision on whether a backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit.
93. RELOCATION OF TRASH AND RECYCLING COLLECTION LOCATION: Prior to the issuance of any permits, an approval letter from West Valley Collection & Recycling accepting the
ITEM NO. 11.
trash and recycling collection locations shall be provided to the Town.
94. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders.
95. INFILTRATION TRENCHES: The following requirements apply to the proposed infiltration trenches:
a. Prior to completion of the Final Stormwater Control Plan, a geotechnical engineer shall review the design of the infiltration trenches and retaining walls along the portion of the road within the property boundary and determine whether additional structural supports are needed to ensure stability of the road and the adjacent hillside during the wet season.
b. The assumed infiltration rate shall be verified with actual site‐specific soils data prior to the Final Stormwater Control Plan for the development. If the infiltration rate is lower, a hydrologic analysis shall be conducted to ensure that the proposed trench sizes are adequate.
c. The infiltration trench shall be protected from sediment generated during construction of homes on the lots. The proposed source control measures shall be indicated on the project plans.
d. Maintenance of stormwater treatment and the infiltration trenches shall be the responsibility of the property owner and/or future property owners.
96. UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES: It is unlawful to discharge any wastewater or cause hazardous domestic waste materials to be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge, into storm drains, gutters, creeks or the San Francisco Bay.
Unlawful discharges to storm drains include, but are not limited to: discharges from toilets, sinks, industrial processes, cooling systems, boilers, fabric cleaning, equipment cleaning, or vehicle cleaning.
97. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department during the grading permit application process. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets,
Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc.
Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months.
98. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction‐related dust and criteria pollutant
ITEM NO. 11.
emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)‐ recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan, building plans, and contract specifications:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or otherwise kept dust‐ free.
b. All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site shall be staged off‐site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal from site.
c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off‐site shall be covered.
d. As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in areas away from the adjacent residential homes.
e. All visible mud or dirt track‐out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as deemed appropriate by Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on‐site track‐out control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt‐track‐out onto adjacent public roads.
f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour. g. All driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within forty‐eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24‐hour toll‐free hotline at 1‐800‐334‐ ODOR (6367).
i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.
j. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast‐germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is established.
99. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble‐ups, dry wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be provided on submitted grading and drainage plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, and approved for implementation. 100. WATER FEATURES: New swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and/or fountains shall have a connection to the sanitary sewer system, subject to West Valley Sanitation District’s authority and standards, to facilitate draining events. Discharges from these feature(s) shall be directed to the sanitary sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain system. 101. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. On‐site drainage
ITEM NO. 11.
systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If stormwater treatment facilities are to be used, they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right‐of‐way.
Alternatively, the facility(ies) may be located with an offset between 5 and 10 feet from the adjacent property and/or right‐of‐way line(s) if the responsible engineer in charge provides a stamped and signed letter that addresses infiltration and states how facilities, improvements and infrastructure will not adversely affect the adjacent property. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
102. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.
103. NOTE: The subject property is located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) of the Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290, the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is required to “…adopt regulations implementing minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space” applicable to “the perimeters and access to all residential, commercial, and industrial building construction.” In 2018, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 901 (Dodd), which expanded the applicability of the regulations promulgated under PRC 4290 to land in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Where a conflict exists between local & 4290 requirements, the more stringent requirement shall apply. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.08. All comments below that result from PRC 4290 are identified by **.
104. **WIDTH: (a) All roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum of two ten (10) foot traffic lanes, not including shoulder and striping. These traffic lanes shall provide for twoway traffic flow to support emergency vehicle and civilian egress, unless other standards are provided in this article or additional requirements are mandated by local jurisdictions or local subdivision requirements. Vertical clearances shall conform to the requirements in California Vehicle Code section 35250. (b) All one-way roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum of one twelve (12) foot traffic lane, not including shoulders. The local jurisdiction may approve one-way roads. (1) All one-way roads shall, at both ends, connect to a road with two traffic lanes providing for travel in different directions, and shall provide access to an area currently zoned for no more than ten (10) residential units. (2) In no case shall a one-way road exceed 2,640 feet in length. A turnout shall be placed and constructed at approximately the midpoint of each one-way road. (c) All driveways
ITEM NO. 11.
shall be constructed to provide a minimum of one (1) ten (10) foot traffic lane, fourteen (14) feet unobstructed horizontal clearance, and unobstructed vertical clearance of thirteen feet, six inches (13' 6”). California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2 Articles 1-5, § 1273.01.
-Approved Request of Exception PC 24-2558. See comment number 108 for conditions of approval.
105. **ROAD SURFACES: (a) Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and provide an aggregate base. (b) Driveways and road and driveway structures shall be designed and maintained to support at least 40,000 pounds. (c) Project proponent shall provide engineering specifications to support design, if requested by the local authority having jurisdiction. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.02. -Approved Request of Exception PC 24-2558. See comment number 108 for conditions of approval.
106. **GRADES: (a) At no point shall the grade for all roads and driveways exceed 16 percent. (b) The grade may exceed 16%, not to exceed 20%, with approval from the local authority having jurisdiction and with mitigations to provide for same practical effect. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.03.
-Approved Request of Exception PC 24-2558. See comment number 108 for conditions of approval.
107. **RADIUS: (a) No road or road structure shall have a horizontal inside radius of curvature of less than fifty (50) feet. An additional surface width of four (4) feet shall be added to curves of 50-100 feet radius; two (2) feet to those from 100-200 feet. (b) The length of vertical curves in roadways, exclusive of gutters, ditches, and drainage structures designed to hold or divert water, shall be not less than one hundred (100) feet. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.04. -Approved Request of Exception PC 24-2558. See comment number 108 for conditions of approval.
108. **TURNAROUND: (As noted on sheet A-4 and sheet 4) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead- end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each dead-end road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
-Approved Request of Exception PC 24-2558. See comment number 108 for conditions of approval.
ITEM NO. 11.
109. PRC 4290 REQUEST FOR EXCEPTION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
a. A copy of the Alternate Means/Methods application form including approval signature, exhibits, and these comments shall be made part of the building permit drawing set, to be routed to Santa Clara County Fire Department for final approval. b. Sign(s) to be provided:
• At Reservoir St indicating the turnaround is onsite.
• At turnaround indicating the turnaround location and no parking in the turn around.
c. Language and location of these signs to be provided on building permit drawings, and approved prior to building permit issuance.
110. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet A1) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
111. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: (Letter received) The minimum require fireflow for this project is 875 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3] 112. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED: (As noted on sheet A4 and sheet 4) Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. CFC Sec. 503.
-Approved Request of Exception PC 24-2558. See comment number 108 for conditions of approval.
113. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located within the designated WildlandUrban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. 114. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTs: (As Noted on Sheet A1) Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any waterbased fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
ITEM NO. 11.
115. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: (As Noted on Sheet A1) New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 116. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: (As Noted on Sheet A1) All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
117. EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS GATE REQUIREMENTS: (As Noted on Sheet A1) Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed.
118. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6].
ITEM NO. 11.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 11.
COLOR SAMPLES BOARD
45 RESERVOIR ROAD
ROOF COVER: FLAT SHAPE CONCRETE TILE
EAGLE ROOFING, flat profile concrete tile
- Color Concord Blend or similar (LRA 19.71)
EXTERIOR WALLS: SMOOTH STUCCO
BENJAMIN MOORE
Color Raccoon Hollow 978 or similar (LRV 27.93)
PATIO AND COLUMNS:
BENJAMIN MOORE. Cast stone decorative columns.
Color Stampede 979 or similar (LRV 19.00)
RAIL/ GUARD:
Combination of solid low wall with stucco finish & open decorative iron rail with matte black painted finish.
WINDOW AND DOOR:
Combination of aluminum clad & steel window and door
Color ranges from dark bronze to black (LRV 2.48)
TRIM:
Decorative cast stone trim.
GUTTER:
Painted, matte finish. Color ranges from dark bronze to black.
LIGHT FIXTURE:
Wall mounted fixture with shield (similar).
Matte texture in black finish.
EXTERIOR WALLS: SMOOTH STUCCO
BENJAMIN MOORE
Color Stampede 979 or similar (LRV 19.00)
ITEM NO. 11.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 11.
Planning Department July 30, 2024
Community Development Department, Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: The Agahian Residence, 45 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos Project Description/ Letter of Justification (ver 2.0)
Updated 11.26.24
To Whom it May Concern:
On behalf of the property owner Ms. Farnaz Agahian, I am pleased to present this project for an Architecture and Site application. The proposed project includes the construction of a new twostory residence with an attached two car garage, as well as an attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The letter, accompanies the building plans and supplemental exhibits, contains descriptions of the property, the neighborhood. It also describes how the proposed development complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING PROPERTY
Access
The property is located along a private access road of Reservoir Drive, connecting both the public portion of Reservoir Drive and Roger Street with access gates on both ends. This private road serves a total of 5 properties including the subject property. The 10,000sf vacant lot was sub-divided via a lot merger application back in 2015 (from 60 Rogers Street) and was zoned R-1-20. The property borders a group of R-1-10 lots on the eastern side and a group of R-1D lots on the northern side. An easement was established along Reservoir Drive for ingress/ egress, with utility easements (gas and sanitary sewer) going back to 60 Rogers Street.
Topography
This site has a north facing slope that averages at 28%, with the least restrictive development areas (LRDA) mainly on the access road and a few small graded areas throughout. A series of mature oak trees cover the rear, eastern and western property lines. Remnants of old stone steps and retaining walls can be seen where the new perimeter wood fence is erected. An asphalt paved access road cuts thru the property and a relatively steep cut bank can be seen downhill from the road (likely from the creation of the road). Overall, apart from being visible to the immediately adjacent neighbors, the property is relatively private and isolated. 51 University Avenue, Suite L • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 408.395-2555
KOHLSAAT
& ASSOCIATES
A R C H I T E C T U R E
EXHIBIT 5
ITEM NO. 11.
THE AGAHIAN RESIDENCE, 45 RESERVOIR ROAD, PAGE 2 of 7
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED RESIDENCE
Early Development and Challenges:
With the lot sized at 83ft wide by 126ft long, this 10,000sf lot was zoned R-1-20 with associated setbacks: side setback is 15ft, the rear setback is 25ft and the front setback is 30ft. In addition, the majority of the LRDA area is over the access road, which cuts through and takes up 1/3 of the building envelope, leaving the rest of the building envelope very limited and at a slope over 30%.
An early application back in 2018 was submitted by a different owner for a 2,400sf, 2.5-story home with a basement. A couple issues were brought up during the development review regarding the massing of the building, high hillside visibility and the large amount of retaining wall and road expansion work to accommodate a fire-truck turnaround.
The hillside overlay design standards further restricted the building envelope with their 18ft /28ft height limits, allowable floor area (FAR), fire access, among other hillside challenges.
Final Design and Solutions:
The top priorities for the final design are working with the existing road, fitting the program efficiently in the tight building envelope, balancing the building mass and reducing the hillside visibility. A couple strategies were applied included using a tandem garage to limit facade massing, going with a reverse floor plan (with bedrooms on the lower floor and main living spaces on the upper floor) to make best use of the limited windows/views, and limiting the building to a two-story design with a stepped facade/shape following the road and the topography contour. In working with a steep topography, a sizable amount of the lower floor (70%) is located below grade to reduce visible bulk and mass.
Even with all these methods, development exceptions to build outside of the LRDA as well as going into the side and rear setbacks are still unavoidable to make the design work. We will explain more in detail below.
Floor Plan Arrangement and Connectivity
The house features a reversed floor plan with a tandem garage and 2 bedroom suites on the lower floor. The main living spaces (kitchen, living and dining rooms) are on the main floor, where a 530sf attached accessory dwelling unit (ADU) is also located with separate living amenities and entrance through the side yard. A covered porch (loggia) is located on the main floor to provide outdoor living space and exterior definition as the hillside terrain doesn’t always allow for conventional, widespread patios.
Surrounding the residence is a series of of walkways and steps for circulation. Using tiered grading and retaining walls, a modest yard space was carved out at the back yard, as well as a narrow walkway around the back of the house. A series of access stairs is located on the east side and a light well on the west side of the house. Together they allow for egress, air and light access, and being able to walk around the house. This 2-story house is connected on the inside via a stairway as well as an elevator, with access on each level that leads to the outside space.
Exterior Styling
Proposed residence is of a simple Mediterranean styling with subdued terra cotta colors to blend in with the natural hillside environment. Low-sloped, hipped roofs with flat roof tiles cover
ITEM NO. 11.
THE AGAHIAN RESIDENCE, 45 RESERVOIR ROAD, PAGE 3 of 7
over the house and a flat roof covers the loggia. Walls have two-tone stucco finish and darkcolor gridded windows and doors. Stepped building forms, plus solid and open volumes are used to break up the massing. A sizable portion of the building is buried into the hillside as much as practical to diminish the two-story appearance. Lastly the building facade is adorned with subtle architectural elements to add interest to the styling.
There is a mixture of eclectically styled, one and two-story homes, with floor areas ranging from 1,500sf to 3,500sf within the neighborhood. We expect the proposed residence to be compatible to the neighborhood, both architecturally and in size.
Private Road Fire Access and Plans For Downhill Area:
Despite the Reservoir private road being a through path that connects Rogers Street and Reservoir Road, the hair-pin turn in front of 36 Rogers Street makes the road impossible for a fire truck to drive up and thru, rendering our project site a dead-end site. We’ve been working with the Fire Department on an AMMR (Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code) and after evaluating multiple options, we have to go with a fire truck turnaround area in order to allow the emergency vehicles to come on site, while permit the local ingress/egress traffic on the private road. A modified turnaround area of roughly 40ft by 45-50ft has been added in front of the garage, set at the same level as the road.
The construction of the turn-around area will no doubt be challenging: with substantial grading and tall retaining walls that require grading exceptions. However it is necessary to do this to prioritize the fire safety of our residents and the neighborhood. In addition, careful considerations are made to address the visibility of the retaining walls, drainage and to provide landscape screening to our neighbors.
* See further explanation below for grading and retaining wall exceptions.
Fire Water Supply:
A number of hydrants are available within reach of the subject property, with the closest one located on Reservoir Road (in front of 39 Reservoir Rd) with a total travel distance of 483ft from the farthest corner of the house to the hydrant. The new residence will be equipped with fire sprinkler protection system as well, among other fire protection measures.
Visibility:
With visibility dictating our allowable building heights, it is a high priority in our design. To evaluate its impact to our design, we set up temporary, partial story-poles of the proposed building shape and superimposed simulations of the proposed residence to conduct studies from the town’s designated viewing areas. Compare with 6 years ago when the last application was filed, many of the same screening trees have grown and are providing excellent screening for the proposed residence. Further, a shorter and slightly wider re-design allows us to take better advantage of the screening trees. The result is a very encouraging reduction of the visibility percentage: from 62% down to 22% of the front elevation. Among the visible portions are the loggia and a small section of the powder room. The main house portion is setback by a good amount, or is shielded by the screening trees. This percentage categorizes the house as a non-visible home with an allowable height of 28ft. The proposed new building design is mostly below the 18ft height plane (see sections and elevations).
ITEM NO. 11.
THE AGAHIAN RESIDENCE, 45 RESERVOIR ROAD, PAGE 4 of 7
Neighbor Outreach:
With this property been years in development, many of the neighbors (long-term and those who recently moved in) are aware of the development and have been in touch with the owner. It gave us a chance to review the project with them, listen and take in their concerns and feedbacks. Ranging from road expansion, privacy and utility issues. This is, however, an ongoing activity and we will continue to do so as we progress in our application with the town. We have included a separate list documenting our correspondence with our neighbors.
EXCEPTION REQUESTS AND JUSTIFICATIONS
Below is a list of our effort of minimizing the exceptions requested for the project and our justifications.
EXCEPTION TO TOWN CODE REQUIREMENTS:
1. Parking configuration and stall size: due to the existing road elevation, the garage works best being on the east side of the property. However even with a reduced rear setback having (2) 20ft long parking spaces will push the garage facade really close to the road and on-coming traffic. We are requesting an exemption to reduce the second parking space from 20ft long down to 18ft long. A 18ft long parking space is still a very practical size and it can potentially avoid a bottleneck between the garage and the road.
2. Setback Encroachment: (refer to architectural site plan on A1) This 10,000sf vacant lot was subdivided from a much bigger lot zoned R-1-20 and was given the same zoning designation with the associated setbacks. However the actual lot size, widths and lengths are in fact more similar and compatible with its bordering properties that are zoned with R-1D and R-1-10 zones. Having to follow the R-1-20 setbacks, compounded with the reduction of the building envelope due to the preexisting road location, undoubtedly would have forced the design into a 3-story home (as seen in past application design). It would have exceeded both the 18ft and 28ft height limits and adversely increased the hillside visibility percentage by a great amount, making it a very visible home.
Our alternative is to propose a small amount of encroachment into the standard side and rear setbacks. This allows us to keep to a 2-story design. Stretching the building wider rather than taller also makes better use of the existing screening trees. An exception is hereby requested to allow partial encroachment into the rear and side setbacks.
EXCEPTIONS TO HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
1. Retaining wall height exception at the fire truck turn-around: (refer to architectural site plan on A4 and civil sheet C4)
• The required turn-around space, with even a modified footprint, requires an area of roughly 40ft by 50ft and a slope of no more than 5%. It needs to be on the same level as the existing road and expands towards the downhill area. Retaining walls that are needed to create this pad will vary between 5ft to 15.5ft high. They can be constructed out of soldier pile and wood lagging, which has a natural rustic appearance that is commonly seen in the hillside area. It also allows for natural drainage and avoids the need of complex drainage lines that is normally required for concrete wall construction.
ITEM NO. 11.
THE AGAHIAN RESIDENCE, 45 RESERVOIR ROAD, PAGE 5 of 7
• In addition of the retaining wall appearance, 4ft of landscape buffer zones are planned around the turn-around area to screen the walls from neighbors.
2. Grading (Fill) exception along the outer edge of the widened road: (refer to architectural site plan on A4 and civil sheet C4)
• Fill areas of up to 15.5 ft is necessary for the construction of the turn-around area. While this is a significant height and will require an exception, it can significant offset and amount of soil off-haul created by the house grading.
3. Structure outside of the least restrictive development area: (refer to sheet A3 and A4) this property used to be the yard space of 60 Rogers Street, so the only LRDA were created for the private road, as well as a few small, graded areas for the remnant landscape steps. The rest of the property, including the building envelope remains an ungraded, steep hill. There is not enough LRDA on this property that will allow the construction of a new residence. Hence we are hoping to apply for exception to this requirement.
EXCEPTIONS TO HILLSIDE SPECIFIC PLAN
1. Guest parking spaces at Hillside Specific Plan: the size and configuration of the lot has made it challenging to provide all the hillside specific street parking, and we want to prioritize getting ingress/egress and fire truck access while being sensitive with grading and road expansion. So instead of the 4 required spaces we are requesting to reduce it to 1 parking space.
EXCEPTIONS TO TOWN CODE:
SEC 29.10.155(c)(2) Driveway/ access road must be a minimum of 18 feet in width for the full length to Reservoir Road:
1. The creation of the access road granted a 12 ft easement for ingress and egress purposes across the 5 neighboring properties. While our property owner can make improvements on her property, she has no control over her neighbors’ portion of the road.
2. We have to prioritize spaces for fire access and maneuvering, off street parking, tree preservation and visibility screening, all along a very limited road frontage. We have widened about 60% of our road, including the choke point at the 2 brick pillars, to get at least a 12 ft wide road as well as a space for a fire truck turn-around. The rest of the road is widened as much as possible to accommodate some parking, while leaving us about 15’-9” of egress width, some space for tree preservation and drainage management.
3. The current road varies from 12 to 24 ft in width and has separate, widened parking and maneuvering space in front of each property it serves, providing turn-out spaces that have worked well with these residences for years.
ITEM NO. 11.
THE AGAHIAN RESIDENCE, 45 RESERVOIR ROAD, PAGE 6 of 7
COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & GUIDELINES In addition to what was identified above, the proposed home specifically addresses the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines as follows:
III Site Planning:
All the site constraints have been carefully analyzed in planning the building position, size and configuration.
An infill project within a developed neighborhood to minimize substantial impacts to public services.
New building pad elevation was chosen to work with the existing road slope and and elevations to minimize impacts to neighbors. Road expansion work was kept to a reasonable extent with minimal amount of grading and retaining wall. Trees downhill from road are preserved to maintain visibility screening. New trees are proposed to screen retaining wall from neighbors.
Grading locations and quantities were carefully applied to minimize extents and impacts. Permanent retaining walls for house and yard were kept to 5ft or less, and in discreet locations to minimize visibility and grading needs.
V Development Intensity and Architectural Design:
Proposed house size and a two-story configuration are compatible to the neighboring homes.
The proposed contemporary mediterranean style blends in well with natural hillside setting and among the wide-ranging home styles of the neighborhood. Minimized number and size of windows facing neighbors. Positioned deck and outdoor spaces away from neighbors.
Used simple forms, low, hipped rooflines, as well as varying wall planes to break up elevation and massing into smaller units.
All exterior materials are natural to blend in with the environment, meet WUI classification for fire resistance and to have a light reflective value (LRV) or less than 30.
Privacy:
With the proposed residence set into the hill, the majority of the windows are directed downhill and away from the nearby neighbors.
The outdoor gathering areas such as Loggia and yard are located on the private side of the residence, away from the adjacent neighbors.
New trees are proposed on the downhill size of the lot to increase privacy screening.
VI. SITE ELEMENTS
The use of retaining walls: (refer to architectural site plan on A1 and civil sheet C4) To limit and amount of grading and avoid creating large flat areas, the rear yard used permanent retaining walls to create a tier configuration of landscaped area, a small yard and a walkway around the back of the house.
Retaining walls are used to create egress light well for the lower floor bedroom, as well as egress stair on the side of the house.
Retaining walls at rear yard are split up to minimize wall mass and height.
CONCLUSION
ITEM NO. 11.
THE AGAHIAN RESIDENCE, 45 RESERVOIR ROAD, PAGE 7 of 7
Designing a home on this site has proven to be quite challenging. In particular, the extremely constrained development area, the steep slope and visibility of the site have complicated the effort. Several iterations of the design and extensive analysis were required before we arrive at this present version.
In the end, I am very happy with the results. The size, mass, color and exterior style of this house are in keeping with the intent of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
Through the use of the hillside guidelines and exception requests for the creation of a fire truck turn-around, we hope to achieve the owner’ goals, makes the best use of the property, while respecting the neighborhood and its natural environment. We believe this will be a high-quality addition to this neighborhood. We appreciate your time to review our application and hope to get your support and approval.
Sincerely,
Gary Kohlsaat
Architect C19245