The URL can be used to link to this page

19 Highland Ave - Staff Report & Exhibits 2-7Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 FfNDfNGS: • As required by the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines that the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. • That the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan. CONSIDERATIONS : • As required by Section 29.20.150 ofthe Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ACTION: EXHIBITS: BACKGROUND: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days . Previously received with May 11, 2016 Desk Item Report : 1. Emails from appellants, received May 11, 2016 Received with this Staff Report 2. Location Map 3 . Required Findings and Considerations 4. Recommended Conditions (nine pages) 5. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (three pages) 6. Town Council Resolution (2001-128) 7 . December 8, 201 0 Planning Commission Minutes (15 pages) 8 . Consulting Architect's Report (three pages), dated February 24, 2016 9. 2010 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15 , 2010 10. Project Data Sheet 11. Letter from Anthony Badame ( 13 pages), received March 24, 2016 12. March 29,2016 Development Review Committee Minutes (three pages) 13 . Appeal letter, received April8, 2016 (four pages) 14. May 11 ,2016 Planning Commission Minutes (six pages) 15. Applicant's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May 27,2016 16. Public comment received through 11:00 a.m., Thursday, June 2, 2016 17. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2, 2016 18 . Development plans (16 pages), received March 22, 2016 The 1.04 acre site is a steep and narrow undeveloped parcel , located along an intermittent tributary of Los Gatos Creek and bordered by a driveway serving the neighboring property at 25 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 Highland Avenue. The property is densely wooded with Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, and California Bay trees. Applications for Architecture and Site approval were considered by the Planning Commission in 1998 and 2001 which were denied due to concerns with the mass, scale, and location of the proposed projects. The Town Council upheld the decisions of the Planning Commission on appeal, and directed the applicant to look to the property to create a design rather than impo si n g a design on the si te (Exhibit 6). Subsequently, the property owner along with the assistance of a new architect submitted a new application in 2003. The applicant worked closely with Town staff to resolve the previous concerns of the Commission and the Council and the project was approved by the Planning Commission 6-0 on December 8, 2010 (Exhibit 7). The Town approved a time extension in 2012 after which the property owner passed away and the property was placed on the market. The applicant and current property owner purchased the property in 2015 and submitted a new application derived from the previously approved project plans. The application was approved by the Development Review Committee on March 29,2016 (Exhibit 12). The application was appealed on April8, 2016 (Exhibit 13). On May 11 ,20 16 , the Pl a nning Commissio n continued the application to June 8, 2016 to allow staff and interest ed parties to complete additional analysis (Exhibit 14). PROJECT DESCRIPTION : A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The s ite is surrounded by single-family residences, with the driveway to the nei g hboring property at 2 5 Highland A venue formin g the so uthern property line. B. Architecture and Site Approval Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of a new residence. C. Zoning Compliance The to tal proposed floor area for the residence and garage is within the allowable floor area for the property and the proposed residence complies with the setback and height requirements ofthe HR-2 Y2 zo ne. While the Town Code allows a maximum hei ght of30 feet in the HR zo ne , the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) are mo re restrictive with a 25-foot height maximum . A si ngle-famil y residence is a p ermitt ed use in the HR zone. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 ANALYSIS: A. Previous Approvals and Current Review The previous proposed and approved project and Environmental review from 2010 was used by staff as part of the background and analysis of the site. While the previous proposal was used to document previous analysis and site constraints, the proposed project was considered based on current standards and guidelines . Staff considered the reduction in grading, and the removal of two (exceptions to cut and fill and retaining walls in excess of five feet in height) of the three 2010 requested exceptions from the HDS&G. Staff determined that the remaining exception to the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) was very similar to the exception previously consider ed and approved by the Planning Commission (See Attachment 6 of Exhibit 15). B. Architecture and Site The proposed residence is has three levels with the garage set to the lowest grade, stepping up to two floors of living space. The first floor of living space exits at grade to a dirt patio at the rear of the residence. The residence has a modem/contemporary architecture with roof forms that slope with the hillside. The proposed materials include: cedar siding and smooth finish stucco, with a standing seam metal roof. The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the plans and visited the site (Exhibit 8). The Consultant recommended using a single roofing material rather than a mix of comp and metal and extending the proposed landscaping between the residence and the existing driveway. The applicant included these changes in the final development plans (Exhibit 18). Story poles were placed on the site prior to the Development Review Committee meeting to aid in the review of the project. The project is in compliance with the HDS&G inclusive of grading and drainage criteria, allowable floor area, height, and architectural and landscape design. The only exception requested is in regards to development on slopes greater than 30 percent. The limited area of development on slopes greater than 30 percent is consistent with the approved placement of the residence from 2010. Based on the removal of any additional exceptions to the HDS&G, staff found the proposed project to be an appropriate development proposal for the subject site. General project data is included in Exhibit 10. C . Neighborhood Compatibility Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 680 square feet to 6 ,249 square feet (including garage). The FARs range from 0.02 to 0.43. The applicant is proposing a 5,077-square foot home (including garage) on a Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 45 ,240-square foot parcel (0.1 0 FAR). The maximum allowed s quare footage for the lot is 5,100 square feet (including garage). The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines do not di scuss neighborhood compatibility or give a guideline as to immediate neighborhoods as defined within the Residentia l Design Guidelines . This is due to the context of hillside neighborhoods and their unique format and limited neighborhood format. Staff st ill looks at those properti es within the vicinity of a proposed hillside development to determine compatibility with its s urrounding environment. Staff has provided a Neighborhood Analysis chart to show the neighborhood context for those properties within the vicinity of the site. The applicant has provided additional neighborhood context information in Attachment 14 of Exhibit 15 . The Neighborhood Analysis table below includes the gross lot area (all lots in the area would be s ubject to a slope reduction based on topography). The provided floor areas may include cellars. Addresses have been included on the map in Exhibit 2 for additional refer.ence and s ite context. Living ADDRESS Living Garage and garage Lot size FAR 50 Alpine A venue 3,120 825 3 ,945 21 '168 0 .15 54 AI pine A venue 4 ,602 858 5 ,460 31,240 0.15 58 Alpine A venue 5,451 798 6 ,249 23 ,848 0.23 66 Alpine Avenue 3,779 560 4 ,339 14,922 0.25 74 Alpine Avenue 2,040 416 2,456 2 5,762 0.08 76 Alpine Avenue 3,644 473 4 ,11 7 8 ,511 0.43 78 Alpine Avenue 4,429 588 5,017 22,151 0.20 106 Alpine A venue 3,633 677 4,310 20,037 0.18 118 Alpine A venue 3,922 816 4 ,738 20,036 0.20 19 Highland Avenue 4,357 720 5,077 45,240 0.10 15 Highland A venue 3 ,625 0 3,625 18 ,7 63 0.19 63 Highland A venue 2 ,417 734 3,151 128 ,485 0.02 25 Highland A venue 4 ,343 798 5,141 67,879 0.06 140 Foster Road * 4,834 564 5,398 220,936 0.02 1 Highland A venue 2,279 580 2,859 111,427 0.02 48 Jackson Street 4 ,8 19 864 5,683 20,006 0.24 52 Jackson Street 680 0 680 11,550 0.06 53 Grove Street 3,489 540 4 ,029 39,526 0 .09 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 D. Tree Impacts The applicant is proposing to remove 15 of the 87 protected onsite trees. The applicant worked with staff to address the tree protection measures within the 2010 arborist report (Exhibit 9). Based on concerns raised by neighbors during the public hearing process, the applicant obtained a new report by a licensed arborist to provide a more current health analysis of the existing trees and to further establish consistent tree protection measures for the proposed project (Attachment 3 of Exhibit 15). The trees being removed include: eight California Bay Laurels with diameters ranging in size from seven inches to 20 inches, five Coast Live Oaks with diameters ranging in size from 10.5 inches to 19 inches, and one multi-trunk Valley Oak with a combined diameter of36 inches. All the trees proposed for removal are in fair or poor condition. The applicant will be required to provide canopy replacement pursuant to Town Code standards for the trees being removed. The applicant is working with a landscape architect that is familiar with riparian and creek settings and will work with staff to provide species and locations appropriate for the site. E . Environmental Review An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) were circulated based on the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in 201 0. No comments were received on the document and the Planning Commission adopted the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Exhibit 5) when the project was approved on December 8, 2010. Government Code Section 15164 allows a lead agency to prepare an addendum to an adopted MND or EIR when changes to a project do not require preparation of a new MND or EIR (Government Code Section 15162). However, based on the reduced grading and increased setback from the creek (Exhibit 15), an addendum was determined to not be warranted for the proposed project. This determination was also made because the site constraints and development impacts were adequately analyzed and addressed in the adopted MND. F. Development Review Committee The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the item on March 29,2016 (Exhibit 12). Written public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants (minimum of 30). The following neighbors were in attendance and spoke on the item: • Teresa Spalding -15 Highland A venue • Lisa Roberts -78 Alpine A venue • Greg Gomon -Representing Smullen Family at 25 Highland A venue Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8 , 2016 • Dorothea Smullen -Representing Smullen Family at 25 Highland A venue • Deric Durand-Representing Smullen Family at 25 Highland A venue • Craig Sawyer -63 Highland A venue The public raised concerns regarding: additional CEQA review, the size of the residence, the slope of the site, the setback from the creek, tree removals, and construction related concerns. Prior to the public hearing staff met with and discussed these concerns with the neighbors at 1, 15, and 25 Highland A venue and provided responses in regards to CEQA requirements and limitations, creek setbacks, and construction related concerns. The applicant also met with adjacent neighbors several times to discuss the project and any concerns they had . The project site has limited visibility or direct impacts on any adjacent neighbor. The neighbors ' communications with staff, both in person and in writing have communicated disagreement with staff as to interpretation of the Town 's HDS&G and the conclusions of the biological reports. Staff and the applicant discussed additional landscaping and material changes with neighbors prior to the March 29,2016 DRC meeting. The DRC found that the application was complete and in compliance with the HDS&G , and that while changes could potentially be made to the residence, the request s from the neighbors regarding a 25-to 50-foot setback from the top ofbank and a single-story residence could not be implemented on the site due to shape and topography of the site. G. Appeal The application was appealed (Exhibit 13) on April 8, 2016 by four families , Smullen (25 Highland Avenue), Badame (1 Highland Avenue), Roberts (78 Alpine Avenue), and Spalding ( 15 Highland A venue). The appeal letter provides the following 12 statements ; staff s responses are included in italics: 1) The project has received inadequate environmental review and does not qualify for a CEQA exemption. Th e project was not d etermined to be exempt from CEQA. Th e project was de termin ed to be in compliance with the analysis contained within th e pre vious ly circulate d and adopted Initial Study and Mitigated N egative D eclaration for a s ingle-family d eve lopm ent. Attachm ent 6 of Exhibit 15 shows the 2010 de ve lopment proposal in contrast with the 2016 proposal. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 2) There are different professional opinions regarding location of the stream-bed and top of bank, the value of the creek, and the adjacent vegetation, and the appropriate setback from the top of the bank. The site has been analyzed by four different biologists over a period of approximately 20 years (1997, 2009/2010, and 2016). All four professionals have given the same analysis as to the existing vegetation, location of the creek, and limited impact of the proposed development. The top of bank was not re-analyzed in 2009 from the reports completed in 1997. The current site condition and top of bank was established by HT Harvey in March 2016. The latest report from Live Oak Associates (LOA) through the Town 's Environmental Consultant confirms the findings of the previous reports and provides the following statement: "The few areas of encroachment to within 15 feet from the top of the bank for the home and less than 10 feet for the driveway are not significant in our opinion, given that the vast majority of the remaining setback is at least 20 feet, which we believe would be an adequate setback to preserve biological functions and values of the creek on the site ... From a biological standpoint, the riparian influence of the creek appears to be restricted to the wetted portion of the channel. Because of underground culverting downstream and the lack of associated riparian or wetland vegetation, the creek itself provides foraging, shelter, and movement habitat for native species that is not greater in value than that of adjacent upland woodland habitats. The creek will continue to provide a seasonal source of drinking water for native species even after the project is built, and the few common species that may move through the site within the creek currently will also likely continue to do so after the project has been constructed." Additionally, HT Harvey provided the following additional setback information within their 511312016 report based on direction from LOA: "The average setback distance between the top-of-bank and the building envelope/deck as shown on the improvement plans is approximately 27 feet. .. between the proposed entrance road and the top-of-bank, the average setback distance is 20 feet." Based on the determination of all four professionals staff determined that the proposed project is appropriately sited. 3) Input has not been received from any responsible (permitting) agencies. The applicant submitted documentation to both California Department of Fish and Wildhfe and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, no comments were provided by Planning Commiss ion Staff Report -Page 9 19 Highland Avenue/S-15-077 June 8 , 2016 eith er agency. Additionally, both received th e circ ulated Initial Study and M ND in 2 0 I 0 and provided n o co mments on th e d ocum ent or th e prop osal. Based on th e a na lysis by Live Oak Associates , it is anticipated that p ermits will not be requir ed by th ese agen cies for th e proposed improvements. A streambed Alteration Pe rmit/Agree ment is only required wh en wo rk occurs within th e cr eek bed or top of bank. No work within those areas is proposed. Additionally, staff reach ed out directly t o th ese agencies f or any comments that they may have but didn 't provide within the r equire d 30 days, and neither agen cy resp onded with any comments f or th e prop osed p roj ect . 4) The location of the development on the site maximizes percei ved bulk and visual impacts and is inconsistent with the neighborhood. Th e prop os ed r es iden ce has a front setback of 160 f eet and a side setba ck which includes th e driveway to 25 Highland A venue of 2 4 f ee t. While th e residen ce ap p ears close to the existing driveway, to pus h it f arth er away from th e driveway would a ctually increase the visual mass of the residence because more of th e l ower le vel wa ll would be exposed rather than hidde n by th e existing g rade. Increas ing this setback would als o push th e reside nce closer to th e creek. Th e applicant has submitted additional doc um en ta tion as t o th e compatibility of the residence with the exis ting neig hborhood (A ttachment 14 of Exhibit 15). 5) The location of the development on the site is the result of the improper re- location of the creek due to grading on sites along A l pine A venue. Th e appellant references g rading that was co mpleted on s ites o n Alpine A ve nue. ff illegal g rading ha s occurred adjacent to th e s ite, th e impac t has only pushe d th e c reek closer t o Hig hland Avenue and th e proposed r esid en ce. Live Oak Asso ciates discusses add itional natural movement of th e creek and top of bank due to a recent tree fa ll on th e site (see s tatement number 2, and Attachme nt 2 of Ex hibit 15). Additionally, as discussed in stateme nt number 4 above, movement of th e reside nce away.from the s outhern prope rty li ne and the existing driveway would exp ose more wall plane and make th e reside nce l ook l arger than th e exis ting p r opos al. 6) The proposed project would result in the loss of approximately 50 percent of the trees on the site which is inconsistent with the hillside guidelines . Th e prop osed project requires th e removal of 15 of th e 87 exis tin g trees on th e proj ect s ite (J 7 p ercent). Of th e 15 trees that r equire r emoval du e to th e proposed improvements, 11 are in f air health, th ree a re in poor h ealth, a nd on e tree is reco mm ended to be removed du e to disease. Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 10 19 Highland A venue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 7) The development should not have been approved without resolution of discrepancies between the submitted tree removal plan and the actual tree removal plan. One of the previous plan sets erroneously showed the removal of tree number 30, th e applicant provides additional clarification to this within their letter in Exhibit 15. 8) Significant limitations on the site make the maximum size of the home inappropriate for the site. While the HDS&G do state that not all lots can accommodate the maximum permitted Floor Area, the proposed project co mplies with the r equirements of the HDS&G. The proposed project is consistent with th e size and FAR of residences in th e immediate vicinity; see Neighborhood Co mpatibility above. The applicant provides additional information on this statement within Attachment 14 of Exhibit 15. 9) The project reads as a three-story structure on its approach from Highland A venue and from the creek side homes along Alpine A venue, the proximity to the existing driveway maximizes the bulk of the residence. The residence is sited in th e same location as the previously approved project in 20 10 (Attac hment 6 of Exhibit 15) with th e sam e maximum h eight. The existing driveway to 25 Hig hland Avenue is fully within the proposed project site so any development with an adequate setback from th e creek is going to be visible from the existing driveway. 1 0) The architecture of the proposal is neither compatible with the surrounding neighborhood nor respectful of the rural character of the hillside. The existing neighborhood ha s a mix of architectural styles, and contemporary style of the proposed res idence would not be out of place and the roof forms and materials are compatible with th e hillside environme nt. Additionally, the applicant provides a detailed response to this throughout Exhibit 15. 11) The design of the proposed project results in excessive grading on the site, which is inconsistent with the hillside guidelines and will result in significant visual impacts. Th e proposed project includes approximately 2 70 c ubic yards of c ut (p lus approximately 80 c ubic yards of spoils from foundation and wall tren ching) and 3 50 cub ic yards of jill. Th e applicant 's propos al do es not r equire an import or export of soil for develop ment. Many hillside homes require significantly more g rading t han is proposed for this project. Th e proposed walls are limited to four fee t or less and the Pl anning Commission Staff Report -Page 11 19 Highl and Avenue/S-15-077 June 8, 2016 majority of the fill on th e s ite is to provide a conforming fire turnaround which is r equire d by the Santa Clara County F ire D epartment and w ill ben efit n eig hboring properties which currently la ck this provis ion . 12) The project is inconsistent with the Sustainability Element of Town of Los Gatos General Plan. Staff is unclear whic h policies th e applicant is referring to. Th e proj ect wo uld exceed th e 50 point rating required/or Green Point Rating s tandards whic h are en couraged but not required at this tim e. P er th e provided biological reports, staff belie ves th e project is consisten t w ith polices and goals contained under Goal E N V-3. Th e creek on-site is not a recorded creek and is not subje ct to the Goals o r policies contained in Goal EN V-5 . CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION : A. Conclusion The project is in compliance with the HDS&G and the Hillside Specific Plan. The prop o sed project was intended to implement the previous appro val with re visions to reduce the exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The applicant has continued to meet with the appellants to seek out potential mitigation s but has been unable to come to an agreement that satisfies the group of appellants. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to deny the appeal , uphold the decision of the DRC and approve the Architecture and Site application : 1. Make the required finding that the LRDA exception is appropriate and the project otherwise complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 3); and 2 . Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 3); and 3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29 .20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 3); and 4. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 4 and development plan s attached as Exhibit 18 . 19 Highland Avenue EXlllBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION: JUNE 8, 2016 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 19 Highland A venue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zo ned HR-2 'l-2 . APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Ed Pearson FINDINGS: CEQA: • An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed and adopted in 20 I 0 for a similar single-family development application. The proposed application is in s ub stantial compliance with the CEQA review completed in 2010 and will be s ubjected to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted in 2010. No additional CEQA findings are required . Compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines: • Exceptions to the LRDA are required to locate the residence away from the creek. This exception was supported by the Planning Commission in 20 10. The project is otherwise in compliance with applicable Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hill side Specific Plan in that it is a single-family r es idence bein g devel oped on an existing parcel. The proposed de velopment is consistent with the development criteria included in the specific plan. CONSIDERATIONS: Considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications: • As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the co nsi derations in review of an architecture and si te application were all made. in reviewing this project. The house is an appropriate size for the property, the proposed project i s compatible with development on surrounding residential properties, and exterior colors and materials will h e lp blend the new building into the site. There is limited visibility into the site from surrounding homes and existing and proposed vegetation will aid in screening the new res idence, and outdoor spaces. N :\DEV\FINDI G S\2016\Highland19.doc EXHIBIT 3 This Page 1 ntentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -June 8, 2016 19 Highland Avenue Architecture and Site Application S-15-077 Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yi. APN 529-37-033. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Ed Pearson TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Divis ion 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 shall be approved by the Community Development Director or the Planning Commission/Town Council, depending on the 2. 3. 4. 5 . 6 . 7. 8. 9 . 10. 11. 12. scope of the changes. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two years from the date of approval (June 8, 2018) unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be remov ed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. EXTERIOR COLORS: The exterior colors of all structures shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines. 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 T own 's Hill s ide Development Standards & Guidelines. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by the Town's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report, dated February 15 ,2010, on file in the community Development Department, except as otherwise noted. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. CREEK SETBACK: The proposed residence shall maintain a minimum setback of 15 feet from the creek/drainage course. GENERAL: All existing trees shown to remain on the plan and newly planted trees are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on site. NEW TREES : New trees to be planted shall be double-staked, using rubber tree ties and shall be planted prior to occupancy. TREE NUMBER 30: Tree number 30 shall be protected and retained. Tree protection measures shall be reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with the arborist report. IRRIGATION: All newly planted material shall be irrigated by an in-ground system. Special care shall be taken to avoid irrigation which will endanger existing nativ e trees and ve getation. STORY-POLES: The story p o les on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture and Site application. EXHIB IT 4 13. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 2: With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 15, 201 0) will be implemented to eliminate or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained . Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist 's report. These include recommendations under the Design Guidelines section addressing tree retention and relocation, soil disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainages facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development, encompassing fencing, removal ofhardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The report recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 3: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. 15. CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 4: Ifhuman remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that 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. 16. CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 5: Ifthe 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 shall 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. 17. CULTURAL RESOURCES-MITIGATION MEASURE 6: 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 shall 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. TO THE SA TFISF ATION OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL Building Division 18. AIR QUALITY-MITIGATION MEASURE 1: To limit the project's construction- related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, the following BAAQMD- recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented. 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. b. All haul trucks transporting soil , sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c . 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. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d . All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways , 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. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications . All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h . A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 19 . PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit shall be required for the construction of the new single family residence. Separate building permits are required for site retaining walls, water tanks, or swimming pools; separate electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits shall be required as necessary. 20. 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. 21. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36." 22. 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. 23. 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 elevation, on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to 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 c. Foundation comer locations d . Retaining Walls 24. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wooden 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. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32 inches wide on the accessible floor. c. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5' x 5' level landing on both sides of the door, no more than 1/2-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance on the strike side. d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 25. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined on the plans . 26. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905 . Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet of chimneys. 27. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: This project requires a Class A roofing assembly. 28. WILDLAND URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area and must comply with Chapter 7 A of the California Building Code. 29. 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. 30. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying that the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 31. 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, signed by all requested parties and be blue-lined on the construction plans. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov. 32. NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION STANDARDS : The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program shall be part of the plan submittal as the second or third page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print. 33. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development -Planning Division b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department 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. f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: ( 415) 771-6000 TO THE SATFISF A TION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS Engineering Division 34. 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 dirt and 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. The Developer'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 Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. 35. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approvals 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 36. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Com cast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation . Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any building permit. 37. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or his/her 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 rejection of work that went on without inspection. 38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as , but not limited to , curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway, and pavement 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 Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 39. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure ofthe 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. 40. PLAN CHECK FEES : Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department 41 . INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any permits. 42 . 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. 43. GRADING PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required for site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Code. The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage , retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim 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). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E . Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint. 44. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 45. 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 46. RETAINING WALLS : A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for onsite retaining walls. Onsite walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works. 47. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE 1: 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 liquefaction on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, 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. 48 . SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permit, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical/geological investigation for review and approval by the Town. The Applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations , site grading, and site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review comments. Approval of the Applicant's soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans. 49. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant'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 Applicant's soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 50. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Limite d Ge otechnical Study Lands of Orphan and Supplemental Recommendations and Geotechnical Report Update Pearson Prope rty by Upp Geotechnology, dated November 22 ,2013 and December 22, 2015, respectively, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town's consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant. 51. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated , or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground , as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued . The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 52. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The Developer shall pay the project's proportional share oftransportation improvements 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. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued , using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses . 53. 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 or reused. A sanitary sewer clean-out is required for each property at the property line or location specify by the Town. 54. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture 's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10 ,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from the Town Engineer. 55. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00a.m. and 9:00a.m. and between 4:00p.m. and 6:00p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town Building 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 developer/owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. 56. 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 8:00a.m. to 8:00p.m., weekdays and 9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays . The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant/Subdivider shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 57. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum employee parking, materials storage area, concrete washout, and proposed outhouse locations. 58 . SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate one or more 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 . d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat storm water. 59. 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 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 will 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 late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects ofblowing 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 25 MPH . All trucks hauling soil , sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 60. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Storm water 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 . 61. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks . No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING-Flows to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one ofthe 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 dry wells are to be used they shall be placed 1 0' minimum from adjacent property line and/or right of way. 62. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY : It is the responsibility of contractor and home owner 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 washed into the Town's storm drains. 63 . 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 storing of goods and/or 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 adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and 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. The developer'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 Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 64. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE. Building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building code (CBC) Chapter 7a. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. 65. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED. An approved automatic fire sprinkler system shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work. 66. WATER SUPPLY FOR FIRE PROTECTIONS . Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. The applicant, or any contractors and subcontractors shall contact the water purveyor supplying the site and comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based 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 the Fire Department until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 67 . FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURN-AROUND REQUIRED . Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. 68 . PREMISE IDENTIFICATION . Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings so they are clearly visible and legible from the street. Numbers shall be a minimum of four inches high and shall contrast with their background. N:\DEV\CON DITNS \20 16\Highland-19.doc This Page Intentionally Left Blank ~ ::j c:n MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE : November 2 , 2010 PROJECT : Orphan Residence, 19 Highland Avenue/5-03-49, ND-03-01 Mitigation AIR QUALITY To limit the project's construction-related dust, criteria pollutant, and precursor emissions, the following BAAQMD-recommended Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented: 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. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track -out onto adjacent public road s shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day . The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited . d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph . e. All roadways, 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 . f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (a s required by the California airborne taxies control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be runn ing in proper condition prior to operation . h. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints shall be posted at the site. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicab le regulations. 1 Monitoring Action Req uired as a condition of approval Responsibility Building Division, Commun ity Development Department (CDD) Timing During construction EXHIBIT 5 MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE : November 2, 2010 PROJECT : Orphan Residence, 19 Highland Avenue/S-03-49, ND-03-01 Mitigation BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES With review and approval by the Town, all recommendations made by Arbor Resources (February 15, 2010) will be implemented to eliminated or minimize construction-related impacts on the trees to be retained. Recommendations are listed under Section 5.0, Recommendations, of the arborist's report. These include recommendations under the Design Guidelines section addressing tree retention and relocation, soil disturbance, mulching, trenching, drainages facilities, and installation of new trees. The report also provides recommendations for Protection Measures before and during development, encompassing fencing, removal of hardscape, demolition, work within tree canopies, etc. The reports recommendations are included as Attachment 1 of the Initial Study. Mitigation CULTURAL RESOURCES In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50 -meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notified, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that 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 . If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource , work will resume only after the ------- 2 Monitoring Responsibility Timing Action Required as a Planning & Building During construction condition of Division, COD approval : Monitoring Responsibility Timing I Action Required as a Planning & Building During construction condition of Division, COD approval Required as a Planning & Bu ilding During construction condition of Division, COD approval Required as a Planning & Building During construction condition of Division, COD approval MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN DATE: November 2, 2010 PROJECT: Orphan Residence, 19 Highland Avenue/S-03-49, ND-03-01 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.S(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall 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. 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 shall 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. GEOLOGY AND SOILS A design-level geotechnical investigation and final construction plans shall be completed and reviewed as specified by Geomatrix, Inc. (see Attachment 2 of the Initial Study for deta i led recommendations). 3 Required as a Planning & Building During construction condition of Division, COD approval Required as a Engineering Division, Bu ilding plan check condition of PPW and during approval construction ( RESOLUTION 2001 -128 RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IN TilE HR-2 Y2 ZONE. WHEREAS: ARCIDTECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-99-9 AND NEGATIVEDECLARATIONND-97-018 . PROPERTY LOCATION: 19 IDGHLAND AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: ANGELO ORPHAN. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: MAURICE CAMARGO. A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on November 5, 2001 , on an appeal by Maurice Camargo (applicant/appellant) from adecision·ofthe Planning Commission and was regularly noticed in conformanc e with State and Town law. B . Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Report -dated October 30, 2001, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. C. The applicant is proposing to-construct a new 4,252square foot, two story residence and a 559 square foot atta ched two car garage on a 1.02 acre parcel zoned HR-2Y2. The total floor area for the structure including the garage will be 4,811 square feet. D. The Platming Commission heard the application on February 28, 2001 and requested revisions to the design of the home. On May 22, 2001 and again on July 18, 2001 , the applicant requested that the public meeting be continued to a later date. On July 18, 2001, the applicant voluntarily waived the Penn it Streamlining Act deadline by 90 days . The Planning Commission heard and denied the application on September 12, .200 1. The Commission felt that the applicant did not meet the majority of the direction. E . Appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion by denying a project that staff sent to the Commission requesting feedback rather than fmal action, and that there is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Commission's meeting. F . The Plruming Commission decision was correct. Theappellant failed to provide sufficient additional new information to enable Council to envision how this project would change on remand. For example, the appellant EXHJ.Bli 6 ( ( failed to specify in any detail how the house would be redesigned . Rather, the appellant stated that a redesign would, as in the past, merely modify the design as currently proposed. The -project site is very sensitive in that.the potential building area is very limited. A significant redesign is necessary to ensure that the proposed project is compatible with the hillside topography and vegetation, and that the structure is compatible with the neighboring structures in terms of mass and scale. TI1e project would, therefore, be better:served by a new application featuring an new design proposal. RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site Application is denied 2: The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1.10.085 ofthe Town Code ofthe Town of Los Gatos. Any application for judicial reJieffrom this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by State and Federal law . PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, on the 19111 day ofNovember, 2001 by the following vote. COUNCIL ME:MBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski, Mayor Randy Attaway None None None SIGNED: a~ MAYO~ T;WN JcOS GATOS LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS,. CALIFORNIA SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS Conceptual Development Advisory Committee --Commissioner Joanne Talesfore reported that the committee met today to review a 24-lot subdivision project on Oka Road and a dog club project on Los Gatos Boulevard. Chair John Bourgeois asked if the Oka Road project is one of the affordable housing overlay zones. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore commented that the Oka Road project is not one of the overlay zones or even considered in the Housing Element. VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS (AUDIENCE)-NONE CONSENT CALENDAR * 1. Adopt proposed meeting schedule for 2011 . Motion by Commissioner Charles Erekson and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to approve Consent Item #1 . Moti on carried 6-0 with Commissioner Phil Micciche absent. CONTINUED PUBLI C HEARINGS --NONE NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS 2 . 19 Highland Avenue. Architecture and Site Application S-03-49, Negative Declaration ND-03-1 . Requesting approval to construct a new single family residence on property zoned HR-2 1/2. No significant environmental impacts have been identified as a result of this project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. APN 529-37-033 . PROPERTY OWNER: Dr. Angelo Orphan. APPLICANT: John Lien, Architect. PROJECT PLANNER: Heather Bradley. Chair John Bourgeois opened the public hearing. Contract Planner Heather Bradley presented the staff report. J ohn Lien, Architect, gave a presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Asked if the house gets closer to the road at one section. • Asked how old the driveway easement is and noted that the easement boxes in that property. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 December 8, 2010 John Lien • Commented that the distance of the house from the driveway ranges from 12 feet to 24 feet. Two issues they are dealing with are the stream setback requirements of the Santa Clara Valley Water District and the desire to maintain privacy. • Commented the driveway easement goes back to the 1970s. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked about where the excess fill will be placed . John Lien • Commented the wall and terrace is a waterproof concrete deck and the fill will go below the deck. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked about the location for the installation of stone. John Lien • Commented the stone will only be placed on the curving wall. Craig Sawyer • Commented he lives at 63 Highland A venue and believes that this design is a lot better than previous designs. • Commented the sewer line that runs down the driveway has to be continued in order to provide service to the subject address. That is his property and there is no easement agreement yet for that. • Commented the plans label the driveway as Highland A venue, but Highland A venue is on the right hand side of the fork. That is an important distinction when determining who pays for what. • Commented he is worried about road erosion because of the closeness of the home to the road . • Commented the use of the driveway during construction is a concern due to the narrowness of the driveway and the large equipment. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that the Commission does not have Jurisdiction over all of Mr. Sawyer's concerns and asked if he has had any conversations with the property owner regarding the driveway. Craig Sawyer • Commented he has not had any conversations with the owner. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked for clarification regarding the driveway. Craig Sawyer • Commented that where the road splits on the left, it is a private driveway. Planning Commission Minute s Page 3 December 8, 2010 Roger Smullen • Commented he lives at 25 Highland Avenue. • Commented he has concerns regarding road erosion. He read a 1998 letter from Marian Stoops, past property owner at 15 Highland A venue, expressing concerns regarding any changes that will affect the flow of the creek and the narrowness of the driveway. John Lien • Commented that a sewer line will be brought to this property and noted that Mr. Sawyer may be interested in connecting to the new sewer line. • Commented that they are as interested as the neighbors in addressing any erosion problems. Road erosion issues have been discussed. • Commented that after working for six years, they comply with all the requirements imposed on this project. • Commented that if the Commission feels it cannot approve the project as presented, he would appreciate it if the Commission would deny it. Commission Questions: • Asked how the construction trucks will get up the driveway . • Asked about the process ofbuilding the driveway. • Asked for more information regarding the exceptions to the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA), the maximum cut and fill limits, and the height ofthe retaining walls. • Asked if they considered having the home within the LRDA space rather than the deck area. • Asked what percentage of the home is outside of the LRDA. • Asked about the stone finish on the wall and if stone was considered on the house itself. • Asked about the color of the roof and the house. • Asked about the east deck on Sheet 1. John Lien, responded to Commission Questions: • Commented the construction trucks will enter the driveway at the end of Highland A venue before it splits. Access will be almost immediately after leaving Jackson A venue. The narrow driveway going uphill is never entered. • Referenced Sheet I of the plans regarding driveway construction. • Referenced Sheet 2D with reference to the LRDA and commented that there is hardly enough room to make a functional floor plan if they were to stay within the LRDA. Sheet 6 provides a breakdown of the grading quantities for the cut and fill depths . Of the one-and-one-quarter acres, there is a total of23 square feet of wall area exceeding the five-foot retaining wall height. • Commented the only outdoor living areas are on flat terraces rather than any footprints outside of the house, creating useable outdoor living area away from the driveway side of the house for privacy. • Commented that 35 to 40 percent ofthe house is outside of the LRDA. • Commented that it is a simple house and does not believe stone would be appropriate on the house. • Commented the plaster wall color is taupe, the first floor recessed porches are ochre, and the roof is terra cotta. Planning Commission Minutes Page4 December 8 , 2010 • Commented that the terrace is 20 feet below and 40 feet away from the driveway at the east end of the house . Chair John Bourgeois closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. He thanked Mr. Lien for the design analysis report presented to the Commission. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented this is a difficult lot and the house is not extremely large. The design is very good under the circumstances. His only comment would be to make the house smaller, but he is not suggesting that. Outside of making the house significantly smaller, there is not much more that can be done to the design. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Commented that he concurs with Commissioner O'Donnell that the design is as good as it can be regarding the constraints. Chair John Bourgeois • Commented that he likes the design and believes the design and size is compatible with the neighborhood but he is not sure it is compatible with the lot. Apart from a significant redesign, nothing will make a difference on the design. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Clarified that the owner has a legal right to build a house on the lot and the Commission does not have the right to determine whether or not a house is built on the lot. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked staff about tree impacts and mitigation. Planning Manager Sandy Baily • Commented the tree mitigation goes to a fund and the Parks and Public Works Department determines the location of replacement trees for streets and parks. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Charles Erekson to approve Architecture and Site Application S-03-49 and Negative Declaration ND- 03-1 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 5 of staff report dated December 8, 2010. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 4 of staff report dated December 8 , 2010. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Commented that she will support the motion and stated that while she is hesitant to have buildings outside ofthe LRDA, this is an appropriate design given the constraints ofthe site. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented she agrees with Vice Chair Sayoc's comments and reluctantly supports the motion. She would have preferred that less of the house was outside of the LRDA but does appreciate that there will not be a lot of movement of dirt off of the site. She does not want Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 December 8, 2010 her vote to construe that future homes can go outside of the LRDA and that thi s vote is based on this particular lot. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented she does not view this as a hillside house , but believes it is in the best site possible. She is disappointed it does not have more natural features included. It could have had some design elements incorporated that would hav e mimicked the surrounding homes and the stones in the area. Motion carried 6-0 with Commissioner Phil Micciche absent. Planning Manager Sandy Baily recited appeal rights . 3 . 15928 Un ion Avenue-Parcel2. Architecture and Site Application S-09-33. Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel created by a three-lot subdivision on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 527-42-008. PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'Connor LLC. APPLICANT: Tony Jeans , T.H.I.S. Design. PROJECT PLANNER: Suzanne Davis. Chair John Bourgeois opened the public hearing. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis presented the staff report. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked about Council's direction to the applicant regarding neighborhood compatibility. • Asked about the immediate neighborhood. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that, rather than size, the Council talked about massing, lowering the height and trying to shift the house away from the neighbors . • Commented the lot pattern does not line up so they looked at two houses to the right on Panorama Way, the approved house on Parcel3 on the left along with houses on Leewood Court, and houses on Cambrian View Way. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked about Council's concern regarding massing and if it was in reference to the roof or the lower core. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented there was no discussion regarding first or second floor, but rather the overall bulk and massing. The house is still similar in size. Council did not discuss square footage. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked for clarification regarding house size with referenced to page 4 of the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 December 8 , 2010 Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that the house is 3,039 square feet and the original plan was 3,089 square feet. Tony Jeans, Applicant, gave a presentation on the proposed project and confirmed the corrections in the staff report regarding square footage and the garage size. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Referenced Council's direction to lower the house to 22 feet and asked Mr. Jeans why he did not comply with the mandate. Tony Jeans • Commented that he was complying with the spirit of what the Council was asking and believes they achieved the Council's direction, but he will work with engineering to achieve the limit if the Commission requires it. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked why the height of the first floor could not be reduced by three inches. • Asked what area of the upstairs is at seven feet. Tony Jeans • Commented the top floor plate has already been reduced to seven feet. He would prefer to reduce the height by grading. • Commented the seven feet in the upstairs is in the master bedroom and bathroom with a vaulted ceiling. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked staff about the grading issue. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that height is measured from the pad , so grading would not fix the problem. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he believed this design could satisfy the direction of the Council and asked the Town Attorney for comment. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that Commissioner O'Donnell's interpretation could be adopted by the Commission. Stephanie Lynott • Commented that she lives at 15910 Union A venue and that her concern is that in lowering the house it now extends more into her yard. The deck looks directly down into her house and the design does not ret~in any privacy for her . Her views are gone. • Commented the staging area will be outside her bedroom area. She is requesting that fencing and screening trees be put in at the beginning of the project to protect her privacy. She would like the balcony put back to where it was or removed. Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 December 8, 2010 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked Ms. Lynott for clarification on the loss of her views. • Asked about her feeling on screening trees or other suggestions for privacy. Stephanie Lynott • Commented the back end of the house goes into her backyard blocking her corridor view. • Commented that there would be more privacy if the deck was not there. There was more privacy with the original design. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked about tree screening and how that will affect her views . Stephanie Lynott • Commented that screening trees take years or decades to grow. The back of her yard is parallel to Parcel 2 and she would like redwoods there. The view is gone but it can be softened by trees. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked if the three inches in height makes a difference to her. Stephanie Lynott • Commented that the three inches does not make any difference. She has given up on her view, she just wants her privacy protected. There will be a few years of construction ahead with thi s house and with Parcel 1. The house is too big for the lot. She would like to see appropriate development. Geoff Mitchell • Commented that he lives at 115 Panorama Way and he has been battling this for 2-1 /2 years and believes it is an inappropriate house for this site. The references to Leewood Court and Cambrian View Way are deceptive. The house should fit into the architecture of the houses on Panorama Way. Town Codes protect the integrity of a neighborhood and he is stunned that the Town Council chose to overturn the Commission's findings. • Asked the Commission to put a strong emphasis on neighborhood compatibility and send this proposal back for redesign to bring it down to a reasonable scale. Orv Buesing • Commented he lives at 15892 Union Avenue, next door to Ms. Lynott's home. • Commented the Council's decision was to reduce the size and it should be reduced and it should conform to the neighborhood. He considers square footage when he hears size. He believes the applicant has disregarded the Commission's and Council's direction regarding the design . The Council directed to do a green build and a staging plan. The staging plan was submitted but not presented . T ony Jeans • Commented that the staging area is at least 25 feet away from Ms. Lynott's house. A second fence could be added to add privacy during staging. Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 December 8, 2010 • Referenced Ms. Lynott's concern regarding the master bedroom balcony which is 70 or 80 feet away. The consulting architect recommended moving it to this location. He would move the balcony around where it would be facing three large redwood trees on the adjacent parcel. • Commented he will adjust the three inches and the angle of the pitch if the Commission requires it. • Commented that massing was reduced by the new design per the Council's direction . Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked about the fencing and screening and if Mr. Jeans intended to provide it at the onset. Tony Jeans • Commented that he believed there is a condition requiring the fencing and screening to be provided at the onset and they have agreed to it. They have also agreed to plant two trees on Ms. Lynott's side of the fence . The tree in the front will block Ms. Lynott's view of things she does not like to look at. A storm drain must be put in out to Union A venue. He suggested that the trees be put on Ms. Lynott's side of the fence so they can be planted right away for maximum growth. They are proposing screening of about 12 to 15 foot hedges rather than redwood trees. Chair John Bourgeois • Asked about adequate room for planting versus corridor access . Tony Jeans • Commented the corridor is 1 0 feet wide leaving room for trees and access. That area of the house does not have Ms. Lynott's main viewshed. • Commented that he would prefer that the Commission condition the application rather than send it back for redesign. Chair John Bourgeois closed the public input portion of the hearing and returned to the Commission for deliberations. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked staff to confirm the conditions regarding fencing and screening trees. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that Condition #9 does require that the two trees on Ms. Lynott's property be planted at the start of construction. The remainder of the landscape screening would not be required up front. Construction activities make it difficult to plant additional trees at the onset, but can be added, if required. The condition on fencing states that the fencing along the north property line should be retained and if it needs to come down during construction, it must be replaced when grading and utility construction is completed. It would be a six-foot wood fence that would match what is currently in place. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Asked what Council 's direction was regarding bulk, massing and square footage. Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 December 8, 2010 Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that Council was talking more about the massing, but square footage does play into it. The second story is substantially smaller, but the house does remain about the same size . The massing has been significantly improved. It has come down, but it goes out. The Council did not have a lot of discussion regarding floor area, but it is all interrelated. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Asked about the resolution stating that the height shall be lowered by at least two feet and if the Commission is left with only two feet. • Asked staff if massing does affect square footage . Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that the Commission could require a greater height reduction than two feet. The applicant presented to Council an option that would lower the height by two feet and that is where the two feet came into play . • Commented that square footage does affect massing. Chair John Bourgeois • Confirmed that the proposal tonight is not the two-foot reduction presented to Council. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Confirmed that Council was presented a schematic outline of the house with a two-foot reduction, and this proposal lowers the bulk of the house by three feet. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented the Commission must follow the direction of the Council's resolution and must consider the proposal in front of it. • Commented that "shall" is a mandate and the Council gave a mandate; the applicant chose not to comply. She has a problem endorsing this and the precedent it may be setting for future applicants. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he does not believe that the issue is "shall," or the three inches. The issue is size, massing and bulk. The design is good. The critical issue is what the neighborhood is. His issue is if the Commission does something again that does not take into consideration what the Council has already done. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that the applicant knew the concerns ofthe neighbors and the Commission regarding neighborhood compatibility . The applicant had an opportunity to design a house that took those concerns into consideration, but he did not go far enough to address the sensitivity. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented that she agrees with Commissioner Talesfore that the applicant came back with something that does not fit and the three inches is just one indication of that. Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 December 8, 20 10 Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked what the Council 's definition of neighborhood was. Commissioner Mar cia J ensen • Commented that she recalled that two Council Members defined the neighborhood as Union Avenue and Panorama Way, and the other Council Members did not address it. Commissioner Joanne Talesfo r e • Commented that the way she would interpret that is if the other three Council Members did not respond, they were possibly in agreement. Chair John Bourgeois • Commented that may not be a safe assumption. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked staff to comment on its understanding of neighborhood. Senior Planner Suzanne Davis • Commented that the houses on Leewood Court are more relevant to Parcel 3 because they abut Parcel 3 . The houses on Panorama Way and Union Avenue immediately abut the property. The neighborhood is not well defined, but what is most relevant to Parcel2 are the Union A venue house, Ms. Lynott's house, the Mitchell's house across the street, Mr. M a n gan o's house which is abutting , Parcel 3 and ultimately what goes in on Parcel 1. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Commented that he would have trouble assuming that the Council considered the Union Avenue and Panorama Way houses in relation to neighborhood compatibility when they approved a 3 ,400 square foot house. He is not clear on the Council's direction on what is a reasonable size house . The same would be true when the Commission gets to Parcel 1. Commissioner Thomas O'D onnell • Commented that he agreed with Commissioner Erekson, and commented that the Commission struggles with the definition of neighborhood more than the Council does . What he has observed is that the line that the Commission draws gets moved. The question here is where the Council is on this . If the Council approved a 3,400 square foot house, it is hard to argue that it wanted this house to be less than 3,000 square feet. • Commented he does not believe the three inches was an insensitivity to the Council's mandate . The design worked better that way, but the applicant has offered to drop the three inches. Chair John Bou rgeois • Commented his concern is neighborhood compati bility. A neighborhood is experienced where you walk or where you drive; not as the crow flies . He has t rouble in defining it any other way than Panorama Way. He asked how the Commission could resolve the fact how the Council approved the 3 ,400 square foot house at the end of this cul-de-sac. The bulk and mass of the house is better from some vantage points, but it is broader and longer in others. Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 December 8, 2010 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented she hopes that the Council referred the application to the Commission because it hoped the Commission would make the best decision. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Asked Ms. Propp if there is any avenue to get other direction from the Council on this application. Town Attorney Judith Propp • Commented that there is no mechanism to get further direction from Council and then have the matter sent back to the Commission. That is completely at the Council's discretion and purview to decide the matter on appeal. There are three options tonight. The first option would be to deny the project and the applicant could appeal it to Council and the Council could make a decision on its own without additional Commission input. Another option is to approve the project, then the neighbors would have the ability to appeal it to Council. The project could also be approved with additional conditions where any party could appeal it to Council for clarification. Motion by Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell and seconded by Commissioner Charles Erekson to approve Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 subject to the conditions as noted in Exhibit 3 of staff report dated December 8, 201 0, with the added condition of moving the balcony as suggested by Mr. Jeans. The required findings were made as noted in Exhibit 2 of staff report dated December 8, 2010 . Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Asked ifthe motion included the three inches. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that the three inches were not important to him so he did not include it, but he would amend the motion to include it if it is important to someone else and it would move this project along. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Commented he seconded the motion because he agreed with Commissioner O'Donnell that the three inches is not the material issue and that moving the balcony is a reasonable accommodation to be responsive. He does not believe that the direction from the Council is that the Commission should not approve a house of this size based on its approval of the larger house on the smaller parcel. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that even though the Council approved the house on Parcel3, this is a different case. Motion failed 2-4 with Chair John Bourgeois, Vice Chair Marico Sayoc, Commissioner Marcia Jensen and Commissioner J oanne Talesfore dissenting , and Commissioner Phil Micciche absent. Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 December 8, 2010 Motion by Vice Chair Marico Sayoc and seconded by Commissioner Joanne Talesfore to deny Architecture and Site Application S-09-33 on the basis that it has not met the mass and height reduction as directed by Town Council. Based on the ambiguity regarding neighborhood compatibility, she would rather move it to Council to make the fmal decision rather than hold up the project or s·end it back for redesign and have it come back to the Commission. She would hope that if the project is appealed , the suggestion to move the balcony would be included in the decision. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that if the application does go to Council, she hopes the Council will take into consideration the lingering privacy issues which she believes are significant. Commissioner Marcia Jensen • Commented that she supports the motion and if it is appealed, her request of Council would echo Vice Chair Sayoc's. The Commission is struggling with a lack of direction from Council. She would like Council to consider what the neighborhood is for determining neighborhood compatibility and if the Council views mass and size as interrelated. It would be helpful to get direction on those issues since the Commission will be reviewing a third house. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked the maker of the motion if neighborhood compatibility turns on mass or size or both. Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Commented that the two are related and she believes size dictates mass. Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that, as seconder of the motion, she agrees with that. Commissioner Charles Erekson • Asked if there is a magic number size for this Parcel and how much of a reduction under the 3,400 square feet would have made it okay . Vice Chair Marico Sayoc • Commented that she defines mass by walking the neighborhood, and as she walked down the street, the one-story homes that are in the area range from 1,500-2,300 square feet , then it jumps to 3,000 square feet. That, along with the way it looks on the cul-de-sac, is her definition of mass . Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell • Commented that he hopes that Council will get into this discussion and that the neighborhood will be defined . Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 December 8, 2010 Commissioner Joanne Talesfore • Commented that in this particular case you have to consider that this is a unique neighborhood and how this project relates to the houses that are closest to it on Panorama Way and also the neighbors that are to the side of them on other streets. Chair John Bourgeois • Commented that he will support the motion to deny mainly because of the question of neighborhood compatibility. He would have trouble making a finding that it is consistent with the Residential Design Guidelines. · Motion carried 5-1 with Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell dissenting and Commissioner Phil Micciche absent. Planning Manager Sandy Baily recited appeal rights . CONTINUED OTHER BUSINESS --NONE NEW OTHER BUSINESS 4. Report from Director of Community Development a. Planning Manager Sandy Baily reported that the Town Council approved amending the Planning Commission Policies and Procedures to allow the Commission to change the appointment date ofthe Chair and Vice Chair from the second meeting in February to any meeting in January. Chair John Bourgeois confirmed with Ms. Baily that they needed to make a decision on that tonight. Planning Manager Sandy Baily stated that the appointment of the new Chair and Vice Chair would be agendized for the next Planning Commission meeting. b. Chair John Bourgeois asked if the Council had a discussion about removing subcommittee authority from the Planning Commission to the Council. Planning Manager Sandy Baily commented that the Council did not approve that. 5. Commission Matters a. Chair John Bourgeois commented that this is officially Commissioner Phil Micciche's last meeting of the Planning Commission after 12 years. The Planning Commission appreciates his service to the Town, his humor, his pragmatic nature, and his cooking. Commissioner Thomas O'Donnell commented that Phil is a larger than life person and that he will miss him. He is an extraordinary person, and a fine Commissioner. Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 December 8, 2010 This Page Intentionally Left Blank