Staff Report
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development
Department Director, and Planning Manager
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 09/04/18
ITEM NO: 7
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-18-002. PROJECT LOCATION:
15921 ROCHIN TERRACE. APPELLANT: PATRICK HANCIR. PROPERTY
OWNERS: PATRICK HANCIR AND MONICA ZAUCHA. APPLICANT: DAVIDE
GIANNELLA, ACADIA ARCHITECTURE.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST FOR DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE
AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
ZONED R-1:8. APN 523-25-009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a Resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying Architecture
and Site application S-18-002 (Attachment 6).
BACKGROUND:
The project site is a corner lot located on the southwest corner of Rochin Terrace and Rochin
Court (Attachment 4). The parcels immediately adjacent to the subject property are within the
Town boundaries; however, one County property is located in the immediate neighborhood
and other County properties are located in the surrounding neighborhood along Linda Avenue
and Rochin Terrace (Attachment 4). The 8,560-square foot lot is currently developed with a
one-story 1,700-square foot single-family residence.
The proposed application was forwarded to the Planning Commission to determine whether
the proposed contemporary modern architectural style was compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood as it relates to the following elements of the Residential Design Guidelines
(RDG):
PAGE 2 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15921 ROCHIN TERRACE/S-18-002
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\9-4-18\08 15921 Rochin Terrace [Appeal]\07 Staff Report Rochin Terrace Appeal FINAL.docx
BACKGROUND (Continued):
• Encourage a diversity of architectural styles consistent with the neighborhood context
(General Design Principles, page 11);
• Design to blend into the neighborhood rather than stand out (General Design Principles,
page 11);
• Select an architectural style with sensitivity to the surrounding neighborhood (3.2.1 ,
page 22);
• Design for architectural integrity: Carry wall materials around all sides of the house
(3.2.2 and 3.8.4, pages 22 and 33); and
• Select materials that are sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood (3.8.2 , page 32).
On July 25, 2018, the Planning Commission denied the Architecture and Site Application. On
August 3, 2018, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by
the property owner Patrick Hancir (Attachment 5).
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the
Planning Commission hearing and in this case, by September 19, 2018. The Council must at
least open the public hearing for the item, but may continue the matter to a date certain if the
Council does not complete its work on the item.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted and that the Planning
Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, the Council must make one or more of
the following findings, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
1. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was
not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
To support the finding(s), the Council must also identify specific facts for incorporation into the
resolution (Attachment 7 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 8 if
approving the application).
PAGE 3 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15921 ROCHIN TERRACE/S-18-002
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\9-4-18\08 15921 Rochin Terrace [Appeal]\07 Staff Report Rochin Terrace Appeal FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The applicant proposes to demolish the existing single-family residence and construct a new
2,696-square foot single-family residence and a 479-square foot attached garage.
Specifically, the residence would consist of a 1,610-square foot first floor and a 1,086-
square foot second floor. The maximum height of the proposed residence would be 25
feet, three inches. The project proposes a combination of exterior siding materials
including: painted smooth-coat stucco in two shades and transparent-stained cedar; boxed
eaves finished with Ipe wood; dark bronze aluminum clad wood windows; dark bronze
metal and wood garage door; and charcoal gray standing seam metal roof. Proposed site
improvements include a new swimming pool, driveway, patios, and an outdoor kitchen.
The proposed project complies with the FAR, height, and structure coverage limitations.
The proposed project complies with setback requirements and two parking spaces would be
provided on-site, where two spaces are required. The zoning permits a single -family
residence.
B. Planning Commission
On July 25, 2018, the Planning Commission received the Staff Report (Attachments 1 and 2),
opened the public hearing, and considered testimony from the applicant and the public.
Two residents spoke in support of the project and one spoke in opposition. After asking
questions of the applicant, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and discussed
the project. The Commission denied the application with a 7-0 vote on the basis that the
applicant had not adequately responded to the concerns of the Town’s architectural consultant
included on page 5 of the May 15, 2018 report (Attachment 1, Exhibit 8), and the project was
not visually compatible with the immediate neighborhood. Attachment 3 contains the verbatim
minutes.
C. Appeal to the Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on August 3, 2018, by the property
owner (Attachment 5). The property owner (appellant) provided their reasons for the
appeal, which are listed below followed by staff comments in italic font. The reasons are
not identified in the appeal as individually associated with the required findings from Town
Code Section 29.20.300, discussed above.
1. During the questioning part of the meeting, I was asked by two different Commissioners
if I would be willing to make changes to the roof design, and both times I said that we
would be willing to make changes. However, the Commissioners never discussed
PAGE 4 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15921 ROCHIN TERRACE/S-18-002
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\9-4-18\08 15921 Rochin Terrace [Appeal]\07 Staff Report Rochin Terrace Appeal FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION (Continued):
amongst themselves the possibility of allowing us to make any changes. Instead, a
motion was made to deny the application, and it was voted upon.
The verbatim minutes contained in Attachment 3 reflect this account of events.
2. Our house is very similar to one of the houses in the immediate neighborhood. The
Commission seemed to not give this fact very much weight because that house happens
to be on County land instead of Town land. However, there are examples of houses on
County land counting towards the neighborhood context.
The appellant references a residence utilizing contemporary modern architecture on a
County parcel within the immediate neighborhood of the project, located at 15902
Rochin Terrace (Attachment 4). The RDG do not make a distinction between the level of
consideration afforded a County parcel versus a Town parcel when analyzing the scale,
character, and style of the immediate neighborhood.
Independent of the relevance of the contemporary architecture of the residence located
at 15902 Rochin Terrace, the Commission determined that the character of the proposed
residence was not visually compatible with the neighborhood.
3. In Appendix A of the Town's Residential Design Guidelines, it states that while a new
residential project will likely have its greatest impact on the existing homes nearby, “a
broader neighborhood context may be appropriate in some situations.” I made a case
during my presentation that more weight than usual should be given to the extended
neighborhood because it is a secluded area with only one access point. However, it
seems that the Commission focused exclusively on the immediate neighborhood and
gave no weight at all to the extended neighborhood, which has a great amount of
architectural diversity, including a Mid Century Modern house with flat roofs.
Additionally, one of our immediate neighbors (15930 Rochin Terrace) used the extended
neighborhood as a justification for an extensive remodel they made on their house to
obtain the largest immediate neighborhood FAR at .323.
The RDG do state that while a broader neighborhood context may be appropriate in
some situations, a new residential project will likely have its greatest impact on the
existing homes nearby.
Access to the subject property is made via one route (Linda Avenue), along which
surrounding neighborhood residents driving by experience a variety of architectural
styles, including: ranch, Mediterranean, Tudor, and modern. Once in the immediate
neighborhood, the experience is predominantly mid-century ranch style homes; however,
PAGE 5 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15921 ROCHIN TERRACE/S-18-002
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\9-4-18\08 15921 Rochin Terrace [Appeal]\07 Staff Report Rochin Terrace Appeal FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION (Continued):
existing home remodels are being completed in contemporary modern architectural
styles (see discussion in item #2 above), and the surrounding neighborhood continues to
include a variety of architectural styles.
The appellant references a 2006 Architecture and Site application for a project at 15930
Rochin Terrace (S-06-054), which in part justified the use of the extended neighborhood
when analyzing neighborhood compatibility. The project proposed a two-story,
traditional-style residence with the largest FAR in its immediate neighborhood, and the
applicant asserted that the bulk of the homes along Linda Avenue should be considered
due to the single access route. The 2006 Architecture and Site application was approved
by the Planning Commission on June 14, 2006.
In its decision to deny the current project, the Commission stressed the importance of the
immediate neighborhood, finding that the contemporary architectural character of the
proposed residence was not visually compatible with the neighborhood
4. The Commission pointed to the fact that there are no examples of Contemporary
houses in the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines, seeming to imply that
Contemporary houses are not permitted or do not exist. The fact that the Residential
Design Guidelines have not been updated in a decade means that it does not take into
consideration the current revival of the Contemporary style. Also, there are many
examples of Contemporary and Mid Century Modern houses in the Town.
The RDG were adopted on October 6, 2008 and acknowledges that architectural
diversity is a character defining feature of the Town that contributes to the Town’s
unique identity. The RDG emphasize that homes should be designed with sensitivity to
their surroundings, stressing the compatibility of a style with the neighborhood.
5. The Commission had concerns about the compatibility of a standing seam metal roof.
We feel that the Commissioners were comparing the look of a standing seam metal roof
to the look of a shingle roof with no solar panels attached. However, since all new
construction houses in California must have solar panels beginning in 2020, the correct
comparison should be between a shingle roof with affixed solar panels to either a Solar
Roof (such has a Tesla solar roof) or to a standing seam metal roof which has been
designed specifically to integrate well with solar panels. Additionally, the
recommendation of the Town’s Consulting Architect that the shed roof orientation be
changed to face northeast would not allow us to have solar panels.
The Commission had concerns with the visual compatibility of the standing seam metal
on the shed roof forms of the proposed residence. The Town’s architectural consultant
PAGE 6 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15921 ROCHIN TERRACE/S-18-002
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\9-4-18\08 15921 Rochin Terrace [Appeal]\07 Staff Report Rochin Terrace Appeal FINAL.docx
DISCUSSION (Continued):
recommended changing the orientation of the shed roof over the front entry wall to
reduce the height of the wall.
6. During the meeting, the Commission never asked the planning staff assigned to the
project any questions, including the reasons why they approved the desi gn and
supported the project.
The July 25, 2018 public hearing was opened and the Commission was given the
opportunity to hear all evidence and deliberate on the merits of the case. D uring
discussion of the application, the Commission questioned staff on the following topics:
• Clarification on the location of County properties within the immediate
neighborhood;
• County requirements for neighborhood compatibility analysis of a pending
project;
• Neighbor notification practices for projects within the County; and
• Town consideration of County parcels within the immediate neighborhood.
In their deliberation, the Commission determined that, regardless of massing and scale,
the architectural character of the proposed residence was not visually compatible with
the neighborhood.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 6 to deny the
appeal and affirm the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site
application S-18-002.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Town Council could:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 7) granting the appeal and remanding the Architecture
and Site application to the Planning Commission with specific direction, determining
that the Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, and finding
one or more of the following in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
PAGE 7 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15921 ROCHIN TERRACE/S-18-002
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\9-4-18\08 15921 Rochin Terrace [Appeal]\07 Staff Report Rochin Terrace Appeal FINAL.docx
ALTERNATIVES (Continued):
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was
not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
2. Adopt a resolution granting the appeal and approving the project with the required
Findings and Considerations (Attachment 8, Exhibit A) and recommended Conditions of
Approval (Attachment 8, Exhibit B), determining that the Planning Commission's
decision should be reversed or modified, and finding one or more of the following in
accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was
not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
3. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction.
COORDINATION:
The Community Development Department coordinated with the Parks and Public Works
Department, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department in the review of the revised project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures, which includes demolition of an existing single-family residence and
construction of a new single-family residence in a residential zone.
PAGE 8 OF 8
SUBJECT: 15921 ROCHIN TERRACE/S-18-002
DATE: AUGUST 27, 2018
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2018\9-4-18\08 15921 Rochin Terrace [Appeal]\07 Staff Report Rochin Terrace Appeal FINAL.docx
Attachments:
1. July 25, 2018 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 1-12)
2. July 25, 2018 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibits 13 -14)
3. July 25, 2018 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (50 pages)
4. Location Map
5. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision received August 3, 2018 (two pages)
6. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings)
7. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
(includes Exhibit A, Findings)
8. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings
and Considerations and Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval)
9. Development Plans, received July 9, 2018, 2018 (nine sheets)
Distribution:
Davide Giannella, Acadia Architecture, 664 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite 6, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Patrick Hancir and Monica Zaucha, 15921 Rochin Terrace, Los Gatos, CA 95032