Staff Report
PREPARED BY: JOCELYN SHOOPMAN
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development
Department Director, and Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/19/2017
ITEM NO: 19
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2017
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-052 AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-17-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 26 ALPINE
AVENUE. APPLICANT: TOM SLOAN. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT:
TOBY AND SUSAN COREY.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND
REMOVE A LARGE PROTECTED TREE ON VACANT PROPERTY ZONED R-
1:20. APN 529-37-042.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 8) denying the appeal of a Planning Commission decision
denying Architecture and Site application S-16-052.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is the remaining undeveloped lot of a three-lot subdivision which was
approved by the Planning Commission in 1991. During the course of the subdivision hearing,
several Planning Commissioners and neighbors raised concerns over the future lot development
including “grading, tree removal, impact on the creek, privacy, shadow studies, the square
footages of the buildings, and how obtrusive they might be on surrounding properties.” It was
decided that the subdivision of the property located at 38 Alpine Avenue into three lots could
be approved if conditions were set to limit the square footage of the future homes to no more
than 2,500 square feet, protect specimen trees, and meet the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines (HDS&G) for grading and drainage. The Council should note that pursuant to
the State Subdivision Map Act, these types of conditions restricting the development of the site
cannot be imposed. However, this direction can be considered during the Architecture and Site
application approval process.
PAGE 2 OF 6
SUBJECT: 26 ALPINE AVENUE/S-16-052 AND ND-17-001
DECEMBER 13, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\12-19-17\26 Alpine\Staff Report - 26 Alpine Final.docx 12/14/2017 4:50 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
Subsequent applications for Architecture and Site approval for the subject property were
applied for in 1995 and 1998; and both applications were withdrawn due to concerns from the
neighbors. Another Architecture and Site application was filed in 2004. The application was
considered by the Planning Commission on May 27, 2009, July 8, 2009, and August 12, 2009.
The Planning Commission denied the application on August 12, 2009. On October 5, 2009, the
Town Council considered an appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission to deny the
application and remanded the project back to the Planning Commission with direction;
however, the applicant did not resubmit plans for Planning Commission consideration and the
application expired due to inactivity.
The Planning Commission considered the current application on July 26, 2017. The Planning
Commission denied the application, as discussed in more detail in the Discussion section of this
report. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by the property owner on
August 7, 2017 (Attachment 4).
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, an appeal must be heard within 56 days of the
Planning Commission hearing; however, the applicant waived the 56-day appeal period. 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.
This Code section also states that if the only or predominant reason for modifying or reversing
the decision of the Planning Commission is the availability of new information as defined in
item 2 above, it is the policy of the Town that the application will be returned to the
Commission for review in light of the new information unless the new information has minimal
effect on the application.
To support the finding(s), the Council must also identify specific facts for incorporation into the
resolution (Attachment 6 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 7 if granting
the appeal).
PAGE 3 OF 6
SUBJECT: 26 ALPINE AVENUE/S-16-052 AND ND-17-001
DECEMBER 13, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\12-19-17\26 Alpine\Staff Report - 26 Alpine Final.docx 12/14/2017 4:50 PM
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to construct a new single -family home with 1,993 square feet of
living floor area, 1,636 square feet of cellar, and a 415-square foot attached garage.
Approximately 143 square feet of the 1,636-square foot cellar is garage floor area. The
maximum height of the proposed home would be approximately 29 feet.
The applicant has proposed a contemporary style home with cedar siding, stone walls, and
glass railings. Sustainable design elements, which include solar panels, a green eco roof,
recycled and reclaimed building materials, and radiant floor heating are included in the
proposed project.
Although the property is zoned R-1:20, it has a slope greater than 10 percent and is subject
to Chapter 2, Chapter 3, and Section C. of Chapter 6 of the HSD&G. Staff analyzed the
project with the applicable sections of the HSD&G, including site selection, grading,
drainage, driveways, parking, geologic safety, and retaining walls. The applicant has
designed the house to be set into the hillside, appearing as a single-story along the front
elevation to reduce the mass of the home from Alpine Avenue and as two stories at the rear
and right elevations from Jackson Street.
The site does not contain a reasonable building area that is within the Least Restrictive
Development Area (LRDA) due to the fact that the majority of area with a slope of less than
30 percent is located within the required front and left side setbacks or within the required
creek setback pursuant to the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. The
proposed setback conforms to the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams
which recommends a 20 to 25-foot setback from top of bank with an additional five feet of
setback for parcels larger than 10,000 square feet. For the project’s 20,000-square foot
parcel, the recommended setback for the proposed structure is 25 to 30 feet . The applicant
has proposed a 26-foot 10-inch setback from the top of bank, adjacent to the creek.
B. Planning Commission
On July 26, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the subject application and received
public comment. Staff recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission
because the project meets the HDS&G with the exception of allowing development outside
of the LRDA to maintain the required setbacks for the zone and from the top of bank as
outlined in the staff report (Attachment 1). On July 26, 2017, the Planning Commission
denied the application with a 4-2 vote due to concerns regarding the siting of the home
outside of the LRDA, grading quantities, the depth of the proposed cuts, and the size of the
cellar. The verbatim minutes are included in Attachment 3.
PAGE 4 OF 6
SUBJECT: 26 ALPINE AVENUE/S-16-052 AND ND-17-001
DECEMBER 13, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\12-19-17\26 Alpine\Staff Report - 26 Alpine Final.docx 12/14/2017 4:50 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
C. Appeal to the Town Council
On August 7, 2017, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town
Council by the property owner (Attachment 4). Supporting comments were provided with
the appeal along with a supplemental letter from the applicant and their arborist
(Attachments 6 and 7). The appeal identified that there is new information that was not
reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission hearing. Detailed reasons for
the applicant’s appeal are listed below, followed by staff comments in italic font.
1. The footprint of the proposed structure occupies 13 percent of the lot , leaving 87
percent of the lot to remain undeveloped. After deducting the required building
setbacks, required creek setbacks, and lot area with slopes greater than 30 percent from
the gross lot area, there is a remainder of 1,250 square feet or 6 percent of the lot
(Attachment 6). The proposed residence fits within the LRDA and utilizes the sloped
areas less than 30 percent to visually frame the residence, providing an appearance of
being constructed on gentler slope.
The Planning Commission considered the applicant’s justification for the exception to the
LRDA and determined that a smaller home that is more compliant with the LRDA would
be more appropriate for the site.
2. Since the Planning Commission meeting, the property owner has reached out to
adjacent neighbors regarding their concerns over the project. In addition, a third-party
arborist, Urban Tree Management Inc. was hired by the property owner to inspect tree
#9 and assess the impacts of the proposed construction to the tree. An exploratory
trench was hand dug 14 feet from the tree, 30 feet long, and three feet deep. The
trench revealed that there are no significant roots in the area of the pr oposed
construction. The report stated that at the proposed construction distance, there is no
root activity and therefore the proposed excavation for the building and lightwell will
not have a negative effect on tree #9 (Attachment 7).
The Planning Commission considered the information that was provided and determined
that additional neighborhood outreach between the neighbors, applicant, geotechnical
engineer and/or arborist for the project was needed.
The Town Arborist has reviewed the report prepared by Urban Tree Management Inc.
regarding the exploratory trench, visited the property to assess the trench, and agrees
with the findings of the report.
PAGE 5 OF 6
SUBJECT: 26 ALPINE AVENUE/S-16-052 AND ND-17-001
DECEMBER 13, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\12-19-17\26 Alpine\Staff Report - 26 Alpine Final.docx 12/14/2017 4:50 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
3. The applicant explored alternative designs that would reduce the grading quantities;
however, the alternative designs would result in a home that would not be compatible
with the immediate neighborhood as it would require tall structural supports with
exposed undersides of floors and walls. In addition, the alternative design would also
result in a higher profile home that would block views to the adjacent neighbor
(Attachment 6).
The Planning Commission considered the information that was provided and determined
that the proposed cut was excessive, not in compliance with the HDS&G, and that a
reduction in the footprint of the home would result in a less impactful project .
Concerns have also been expressed from the adjacent neighbor regarding the use of tie-
back anchors for the construction of the walls adjacent to the property line. The
geotechnical report for the proposed project stated that tie-back anchors may be
incorporated into the wall design; however, they were not required (Attachment 1,
Appendix C). The applicant has since clarified that tie-back anchors are not proposed and
an alternative construction design will be utilized for the wall design.
CONCLUSION:
While the project meets the technical requirements (with the exception of allowing
development outside the LRDA) and staff originally recommended approval of the proposal, it is
the practice of the Town for staff to support the Planning Commission’s action. Therefore, i t is
recommended that the Town Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and denying the
project (Attachment 8).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 9) to grant the appeal and remand the project 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;
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; or
PAGE 6 OF 6
SUBJECT: 26 ALPINE AVENUE/S-16-052 AND ND-17-001
DECEMBER 13, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\12-19-17\26 Alpine\Staff Report - 26 Alpine Final.docx 12/14/2017 4:50 PM
ALTERNATIVES (Continued):
2. Adopt a resolution granting the appeal, making one or more of the above findings, adopting
the MND, and approving the project (Attachment 10, Exhibit A and Exhibit B); or
3. Continue the application to a date certain with specific direction.
COORDINATION:
The Community Development Department coordinated with the Par ks and Public Works
Department and Santa Clara County Fire Department in the review of the applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (Attachment 1, Exhibit 1) was
prepared for the project by the Town’s Environmental Consultant, EMC Planning Group Inc.
(available online at www.losgatosca.gov/26Alpine). The 30-day public review period began on
June 23, 2017 and ended on July 24, 2017. The project will not result in a significant effect on
the environment because mitigation measures have been required for Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality, mitigating
potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. An Errata is included in Exhibit 12 of
Attachment 1 illustrating changes and clarifications to the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has also been provided along
with the response to comments (Attachment 1, Exhibits 13 and 16).
Attachments:
1. July 26, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 2-15, Exhibit 1 was
previously distributed under separate cover on October 13, 2017)
2. July 26, 2017 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibits 16-18)
3. July 26, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (101 pages)
4. Appeal of Planning Commission decision, received August 7, 2017
5. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Public Works Department
6. Letter from the Applicant, received November 13, 2017 (four pages)
7. Supplemental Arborist Report from the Applicant, received November 13, 2017 (two pages)
8. Draft Resolution to deny appeal and deny project
9. Draft Resolution to grant appeal and remand project to Planning Commission
10. Draft Resolution to grant appeal and approve project (includes Exhibits A and B)
11. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m. Thursday, December 14, 2017
Distribution:
Toby and Susan Corey, 122 8th Avenue, Santa Cruz, CA 95062
Tom Sloan, 1475 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 208, Campbell, CA 95008