Staff Report
PREPARED BY: AZHAR KHAN
Assistant Planner
Reviewed by: 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: 03/07/2017
ITEM NO: 10
DATE: MARCH 2, 2017
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-044. PROJECT LOCATION:
15680 GUM TREE LANE. PROPERTY APPLICANT: GARY KOHLSAAT &
ASSOCIATES. PROPERTY OWNER: S&S DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENCE ON VACANT PROPERTY ZONED HR-2 1/2. APN 527-09-006.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision approving
Architecture and Site application S-16-044 (Attachment 9).
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is a vacant lot located approximately 1,000 feet east of Drysdale Drive
(Attachment 1, Exhibit 11, Sheet A-2). The property was created by a two lot subdivision that
was approved by the Town on May 22, 2007. The lot is 2.87 acres with an average slope of 27.5
percent. The project site is accessed from an existing private driveway that also provides access
to an adjacent residence located at 15690 Gum Tree Lane.
On September 11, 2013, the Planning Commission approved Architecture and Site application
S-13-057 for a project to construct a new 5,990-square foot single-family residence on the
subject lot. The application was not vested by the previous owner and the approval expired.
The current application (S-16-044) was considered by the Planning Commission on January 11,
2017. The Commission approved the application, as discussed in more detail in the Discussion
section of the report.
PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: 15680 GUM TREE LANE/S-16-044
MARCH 2, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\03-07-17\Gum Tree Ln 15680\Staff Report Final.docx 3/2/2017 3:20 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council separately by two
different community members, as discussed in more detail in the Discussion section of the
report.
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 March 8, 2017. 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 minim al
effect on the application.
To support the finding(s), the Council must also identify specific facts for incorporation into the
resolution (Attachment 10 if remanding to the Planning Commission or Attachment 11 if
granting the appeal).
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
Architecture and Site Application
The applicant is proposing a 5,998-square foot, primarily single-story home which includes a
138-square foot second-story “crow’s nest” and an attached garage (see project data sheet
contained in Attachment 1, Exhibit 5). The proposed garage would be 745 square feet, of
which 400 square feet are exempt from the floor area calculation pursuant to section IV. of
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G). There is also a 2,505-square
PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: 15680 GUM TREE LANE/S-16-044
MARCH 2, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\03-07-17\Gum Tree Ln 15680\Staff Report Final.docx 3/2/2017 3:20 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
foot cellar which is exempt from the floor area calculation, pursuant to section IV. of the
HDSG. The maximum allowable home floor area for the property is 6,000 square feet. The
project would result in the largest home with regards to square footage in the surrounding
area (see Attachment 1, page 4).
The project would have a maximum height of 23 feet, one -inch. The height limit is 25 feet.
The proposed materials include: stone, wood-simulated siding, stucco, and a standing-seam
metal roof (Attachment 1, Exhibit 10).
A color and materials board will be available at the Town Council meeting. Story poles have
been placed on the site to show the location, general massing, and height of the proposed
residence. The project also includes a swimming pool with a synthetic turf area to be
located at the rear of the new residence.
The project also requests a deviation from the maximum allowed fill height (three feet) of
the HDS&G to allow for a maximum of four to five feet to restore the topography of the
former driveway. The Grading sections on sheet 5 in Attachment 8 provide additional
information regarding the proposed deviation. Staff believes the requested exception is
appropriate because the increase in fill height will allow the terrain to be restored to a more
natural sloping topography. Additionally, the excavation from the cellar area will be used
for the fill restoration areas thereby, reducing the amount of soil needed to be off-hauled
from the site. All other aspects of the proposal comply with the HDS&G.
The Consulting Architect commented that the proposed home is similar in size and height to
the previously approved application (Attachment 1, Exhibit 6). The Consulting Architect also
stated that the proposed home is well designed with materials and details consistent with
its architectural style. While the house would occupy an elevated location above other
nearby surrounding homes, the articulation and variety should mitigate its visual impact.
B. Planning Commission
On January 11, 2017, the Planning Commission considered the Architecture and Site
application. Staff recommended approval of the project (Attachment 1). The Commission
opened the public hearing and asked the applicant questions. Concerns raised by the public
included visibility of the ”crow’s nest,” removal of existing trees, and off-hauling of dirt from
excavation areas. The verbatim minutes are included as Attachment 3.
After holding the public hearing, the Planning Commission approved the application with a
6-1 vote. The Commission determined that the project was in compliance with the
PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: 15680 GUM TREE LANE/S-16-044
MARCH 2, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\03-07-17\Gum Tree Ln 15680\Staff Report Final.docx 3/2/2017 3:20 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the HDS&G, and the Hillside Specific Plan; and
met all of the considerations in review of an Architecture and Site application.
C. Appeal to the Town Council
On January 19, 2017, the decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town
Council by David Weissman (Attachment 4). Another appeal to the Town Council was filed
on January 23, 2017 by Lee Quintana (Attachment 5). The reasons for the appeals are listed
below, followed by staff comments in italic font.
1.) Dr. Weissman states the reason for his appeal is that the Planning Commission erred or
abused its discretion because the application does not conform to the condition s of the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and tree protection ordinance
(Attachment 4).
The appellant does not specify the conditions of the HDS&G for which the application
does not conform; however, during testimony at the Planning Commission hearing, Dr.
Weissman commented on grading and visibility. The proposed project is in compliance
with the HDS&G regarding grading and visibility for the following reasons:
The HDS&G define exceptions for building height and maximum floor area as major
exceptions. No major exceptions are proposed by the applicant. Any other
deviations from the HDS&G may be granted after carefully considering the
constraints of a particular site. The proposed project requested a deviation from the
maximum allowed fill height (three feet) to allow for a maximum of four to five feet
to the rear of the proposed residence. The development plans shows fill restoration
areas to restore the former driveway which transects the property and proposed
residence. The fill restoration includes areas of the proposed pool, patio, and turf
areas. Within the restoration areas, the fill height is proposed to be four to five feet
above existing grade. The Commission found that the request was reasonable, given
the restoration of the hillside (Attachment 3, page 54, line 17 and 18).
The building footprint of the proposed home is within the Least Restrictive
Development Area (LRDA) with slopes less than 30 percent and has limited impact on
existing trees.
The applicant has also provided supplemental information regarding grading and the
LRDA (Exhibit 8).
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: 15680 GUM TREE LANE/S-16-044
MARCH 2, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\03-07-17\Gum Tree Ln 15680\Staff Report Final.docx 3/2/2017 3:20 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
The HDS&G define a visible home as a single-family residence where more than 25
percent of an elevation of the home is visible from the established viewing platforms.
The HDS&G standards state that the building height for a visible home shall not
exceed 18 feet. Less than 25 percent of any elevation of the proposed residence is
proposed to exceed 18 feet. The Planning Commission agreed/confirmed that a
visibility study was not needed. Although not required, staff is expecting the
applicant to submit a visibility study which will be provided in an Addendum.
The proposed project is in compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance as:
The previous approved application (2013) included the removal of 12 protected trees
as indicted in the Arborist Report dated July 17, 2013. A tree removal permit was
obtained by the previous owner and ten of the 12 trees were removed. The ten
previously removed trees and six additional trees proposed to be removed will need
to be replaced pursuant to the Town Code requirements. The Recommended
Conditions of Approval (Attachment 9, Exhibit B) include a condition addressing tree
protection measures, replacement trees, and compliance with the Arborist’s
Requirements.
The permit conditions require that the Planning staff review and approve t he final
landscape plan to ensure compliance with the HDS&G prior to Building Permit issuance
and compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance will be verified prior to
final building inspection.
2.) Ms. Quintana states the reason for her appeal is that the Planning Commission erred or
abused its discretion because the information : was incomplete and/or inaccurate; did
not adequately consider applicable goals and policies of the General Plan; and did not
adequately consider the visions, goals, objectives and applicable standards and policies
of the HDS&G. The appeal focuses primarily on the grading and landscaping for the
project.
The appellant does not specify how the Planning Commission’s decision was based on
incomplete and/or inaccurate information.
The appellant does not specify how the Planning Commission’s decision did not
adequately consider applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan
designates this property as Hillside Residential which provides for very low density, rural,
large lot single-family residential development.
PAGE 6 OF 7
SUBJECT: 15680 GUM TREE LANE/S-16-044
MARCH 2, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\03-07-17\Gum Tree Ln 15680\Staff Report Final.docx 3/2/2017 3:20 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
The proposed project complies with the vison statement of the HDS&G in that: the
natural assets will be preserved by insuring that much of the existing open, wooded,
rural character is preserved; is in harmony with the natural setting; conserves landforms
and other features of the natural landscape; preserves wildlife habitat and movement
corridors; and protects and preserves view sheds and the ridgelines of the mountains.
The appellant does not specify how the grading does not meet the HDS&G. Please refer
to Response 1 above as a response to the grading deviation for the maximum allowed fill
height.
The appellant does not specify how the landscaping does not meet the HDS&G. The
proposed landscaping plan provides privacy and, maintains a majority of the existing
trees. As stated in the HDS&G, turf grasses and high water using plants are prohibited
outside of zone 1 (within 30 feet of the house). The turf proposed outside of zone 1 is
artificial and therefore does not consume any water. The landscaping plan provided is
conceptual and not final. As per the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 9, Exhibit B),
the final landscaping plan shall comply with the HDS&G criteria for planting. Plants
outside of zone 1 shall be native plant species. Refer to the previous discussion
regarding compliance with the Tree Protection Ordinance.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt a resolution denying the appeal and approving
the application with the required Findings and Considerations and Recommended Conditions of
Approval (Attachment 9, Exhibit A and B).
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Council may:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 10) to grant the appeal and remand the 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;
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
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: 15680 GUM TREE LANE/S-16-044
MARCH 2, 2017
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2017\03-07-17\Gum Tree Ln 15680\Staff Report Final.docx 3/2/2017 3:20 PM
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
2. Adopt a resolution granting the appeal and denying the application (Attachment 11); or
3. Continue the application 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 application.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
Attachments:
1. January 11, 2017 Planning Commission Staff Report (with Exhibits 1-11)
2. January 11, 2017 Planning Commission Desk Item Report (with Exhibit 12-13)
3. January 11, 2017 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (57 pages)
4. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision (Weissman), received January 19, 2017
5. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision (Quintana), received January 23, 2017
6. Materials presented by Lee Quintana at the January 11, 2017 Planning Commission meeting
(six pages)
7. Revised Consulting Arborist’s Report, received June 21, 2016 (38 pages)
8. Supplemental site plan and cross sections provided by applicant (five pages)
9. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings
and Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval)
10. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
11. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the project
Distribution:
S&S Development, LLC, 481 N. Santa Cruz Avenue, Suite 310, Los Gatos CA 95032
David Weissman, 15431 Francis Oaks, Los Gatos CA 95032
Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue, Los Gatos CA 95030