Los Gatos council denies appeal and upholds Planning Commission approval for 45 Reservoir Road, adds conditions

The Los Gatos Town Council on Aug. 5 denied an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval for a proposed two‑story residence at 45 Reservoir Road, upholding the commission’s 5–1 approval of the revised project and adding two conditions: completion of the required fire‑truck turnaround before any construction of the home and installation of a concrete (or equally sturdy) protective barrier adjacent to the master bedroom.

Planning staff summarized the project history: the council remanded the matter to the Planning Commission in March with direction to reduce footprint, volume and massing; the applicant revised plans and the commission approved the revised design on June 11. Marin (planning staff) briefed the council on the changes — a reduction of about 189 square feet, elimination of requested side‑setback exceptions, and adjustments to the porch and building width — and noted an addendum in the staff packet.

Appellant Mary Vidovich, representing neighbors, urged the council to reverse the commission’s decision. Vidovich listed concerns including the proposed house’s mass relative to lot size, removal of protected trees (she cited removal of 13 mature protected trees on the lot), a proposed 15‑foot retaining wall close to the downhill neighbor, the need for large quantities of imported (she estimated 3,500 cubic feet) or moved fill, possible inadequate storm drainage and the private road’s inability to safely handle heavy construction traffic.

The applicant’s representative, Mr. Kalsat, said the revised plans followed council direction and noted the project’s constraints: the private easement/private road width and a fire‑department requirement for a full fire‑truck turnaround forced a tall retaining wall and related grading. He told the council the project team had reduced mass and worked with staff and neighbors; he said the project would likely export fill rather than import it and that the proposed turnaround would be constructed early to provide space for staging and to reduce construction impacts.

Neighbors spoke on both sides: Kia Baratsa supported the applicant and said the turnaround and other improvements had community benefits; others, including long‑time residents and a Historic Preservation Committee member (Lee Quintana), argued the project still relied on numerous exceptions and did not sufficiently address mass, scale and tree preservation. Residents questioned the accuracy of presentation slides (scale of a car) and pressed drainage and long‑term roadway impacts.

The town attorney briefed the council about regulatory‑takings principles: a court typically finds a taking only when a landowner is denied all economically viable uses; requiring a smaller home triggers a fact‑specific balancing test. Several council members said the applicant had made the directed reductions, that the commission carefully considered the revisions, and that the fire‑department safety requirement imposed heavy costs that limited feasible alternatives.

Council member Badami moved to deny the appeal and adopt the Planning Commission decision, adding conditions that the fire‑truck turnaround be completed prior to home construction and that a cement or equivalent barrier be installed adjacent to the master bedroom for occupant protection; Council member Risto seconded. The motion passed on a unanimous roll‑call vote.

The council’s action upholds the Planning Commission’s approval while inserting two council‑directed conditions. Staff said they would incorporate the conditions into the final decision and follow up on technical details (materials, timing, and inspection coordination with public works and the fire department).