Item 2 - Staff Report.248 Jared Ln
PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 01/09/2019 ITEM NO: 02
DATE: JANUARY 3, 2019 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-054. PROJECT LOCATION:
248 JARED LANE. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: SAM PAN. REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REMOVAL OF LARGE PROTECTED TREES ON VACANT PROPERTY ZONED HR-1. APN 532-34-071.
BACKGROUND:
The Planning Commission considered this application on April 11, 2018 and continued the
matter to May 23, 2018 to allow the applicant to address the following:
• Provide more information on cut, fill, and grading as it relates to the placement of the
driveway;
• Continue outreach to the neighbors;
• Consider building within the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) or reduce the
encroachments outside of the LRDA; and
• Consider reducing massing.
The application was subsequently continued to June 27, 2018 and September 26, 2018 to
provide the applicant more time to complete the revisions. The revised application was
considered by the Planning Commission on September 26, 2018, at which time the application
was continued to November 14, 2018, to allow the applicant to address the following:
• That the home be more sympathetic to the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines (HDS&G) in terms of:
o Massing;
o Three-story façade visible from other residences;
o Visible front staircase; and
o Move the massing within the LRDA.
PAGE 2 OF 7 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 JANUARY 3, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\2019 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\1-9-19\Item 2\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx
BACKGROUND (continued):
• Consider pulling the garage from under the house in order to have a lighter impact on
the hillside (i.e., grading);
• Minimize development outside of the LRDA to better comply with the HDS&G. This may
mean adjusting the square footage of the house itself so that the encroachment can be
reduced;
• Specify whether each tree will remain or not. Eliminate the “intend to preserve”
category in the tree plan;
• Eliminate the front staircase, which is not in compliance with the HDS&G;
• Revise the retaining walls to have a more natural appearance. Give the walls a rounded
appearance that closely matches the contours of the land. Consider alternative
materials that are more natural looking than the proposed Allenblock, such as stone;
and
• Address all of architectural consultant’s concerns.
The application was subsequently continued to December 4, 2018 and January 9, 2019 to
provide the applicant more time to complete the revisions.
DISCUSSION:
A. Architectural Considerations
The applicant completed the revisions in response to the comments received from the
Planning Commission at the September 26, 2018 meeting. The revisions were forwarded to
the Town’s Architectural Consultant who provided a final report recommending several
changes to improve the revisions (Exhibit 18). In response, the applicant submitted a
revised design incorporating the recommendations of the Architectural Consultant.
Additionally, the applicant and project architect provided letters of justification responding
to the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Architectural Consultant (Exhibits
19 and 20).
The design of the residence has been revised to conform to the limitations of the LRDA. At
the suggestion of the Planning Commission, the applicant shifted the attached lower-story
garage south to pull it out from underneath the house and reduce the three-story
appearance of the west elevation. A comparison of the area outside of the LRDA of the
original and revised design is provided below:
PAGE 3 OF 7 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 JANUARY 3, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\2019 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\1-9-19\Item 2\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
Comparison of Area Outside of LRDA
Original Design Revised Design Difference
House 94 sf 0 sf -94 sf
Garage 252 sf 835 sf +583 sf
Amenities* 886 sf 532 sf -354 sf
Total 1,232 sf 1,367 sf +135 sf
* Amenities refers to terraces, decks, porches, and stairs.
As previously proposed, a stairway would provide a connection from the driveway to the
mid-level and upper-level of the residence as it traverses east across the front of the house.
Responding to the Planning Commission’s concern with the original stairway, the revised
stairway has been integrated into the overall building form to comply with the HDS&G. A
comparison of the floor area of the original and revised design is provided below:
Floor Area Comparison
Original Design Revised Design Difference
(square feet)
Upper Level Above-Grade 2,560 2,530 -30
Below-Grade 0 0 0
Middle Level Above-Grade 229 0 -229
Below-Grade 2,755 3,009 +254
Lower Level Above-Grade 0 0 0
Below-Grade 855 1,153 +298
TOTALS Above-Grade 2,789 2,530 -259
Below-Grade 3,610 4,162 +552
In the final report, the Architectural Consultant clarifies that the review of the original design
was positive based on the clear architectural style, substantial articulation, and visual richness.
The Consultant indicates that the revised design is less successful and provided
recommendations for improvement. The applicant has responded by incorporating the
Consultant’s recommendations into the revised design. The Consultant states that the original
design would be visually superior if the other changes desired by the Planning Commission
could be incorporated to their satisfaction (Exhibit 18, page 8). The consultant indicates that
the curved stairs in the original design could be incorporated into the building as was
accomplished with the revised design. In their letters to the Commission, the applicant and
architect discuss and provide a comparison of both projects. The applicant also indicates that
either design would be acceptable, but their preference is for the original design once the
additional recommendations have been incorporated (Exhibits 19 and 20).
PAGE 4 OF 7 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 JANUARY 3, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\2019 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\1-9-19\Item 2\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
B. Retaining Walls
On September 26, 2018, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed retaining walls
adjacent to the driveway and provided direction to the applicant to revise them to have a
more natural appearance. The applicant has revised the retaining walls, replacing the
previously proposed Allenblock construction with concrete walls (Exhibit 20, page 2). The
concrete walls would be poured-in-place and clad with natural looking manufactured stone
to visually blend into the surrounding hillside. As previously proposed, landscape screening
would be planted along the base of each wall to further reduce their visual impact (Exhibit
23, Sheets L-2, L-3, and L-4).
C. Trees
During the September 26, 2018 meeting, the Planning Commission requested that the
applicant specify whether each tree will remain or not, eliminating the “intend to preserve”
category in the tree plan. The applicant has revised the tree plan per the direction of the
Commission (Exhibit 23, Sheets C4, C5, L-1A, and L-1B). The revised tree plan recognizes an
additional 100 trees on the site outside of the project area which would remain. As a
summary, a comparison of the proposal for the 128 trees included in the original plan
against the revised design is provided below:
Summary of Tree Inventory
Action Original
Design
Revised
Design
Remain 37 82
Large Protected 4 8
Protected 33 74
Remain – impacted by project 29 0
Large Protected 2 0
Protected 27 0
Remove 57 41
Large Protected 3 1
Protected 54 40
Not protected 5 5
Total 128 128
PAGE 5 OF 7 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 JANUARY 3, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\2019 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\1-9-19\Item 2\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
D. Grading and Excavation
The cut and fill depths quantities have changed as a result of the design revisions. The
majority of the changes are related to excavation located within the revised building
footprint. The driveway and retaining wall designs have not changed. It should be noted
that there are no limitations on excavation for below-grade square footage. A summary of
the grading and excavation is provided in the table below.
Maximum Cut and Fill Depths and Retaining Wall Heights – HDS&G
Original
Design
Revised
Design
Difference Maximum
Allowed
Maximum
Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill
House Footprint (Excavation)
Depth (feet) 24* 0 19* 0 -5 0 8* 3
Driveway (Grading)
Depth (feet) 15* 12 15* 12 0 0 4* 3
Site Work (Grading)
Depth (feet) 7* 0 4 0 -3 0 4* 7
Maximum Retaining
Wall Height (feet) 8.3 8.3 0 5
* – Excludes below-grade square footage
Bold – requires exception to the HDS&G
STORY POLES:
The story poles for the project have not been revised and continue to reflect the original
design. The applicant has provided elevations showing a massing comparison between the two
designs (Exhibit 21). The exhibits show that the revised design would be contained within the
massing of the original design, with the exception of the garage. Most of the garage mass
would be located below the existing grade, as shown on Sheet A-6 of Exhibit 23. Given the
similarities in massing between the two designs and the very limited height of the new massing
at the garage as compared to existing grade, the story poles have not been revised.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
No public comments have been received as of the writing of this report.
PAGE 6 OF 7 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 JANUARY 3, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\2019 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\1-9-19\Item 2\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Conclusion
The applicant has responded to the Planning Commission’s direction with a revised design
and additional information. The Planning Commission should determine whether the revised
design and additional information adequately addresses the direction provided at the
September 26, 2018 meeting.
B. Recommendation
If the Planning Commission determines that the revised design and additional information
adequately address the direction provided at the September 26, 2018 meeting and finds
merit with the proposed project, it can approve the application by taking the following
actions:
1. An Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program (MMRP) were adopted in 2011 for a similar single-family
development application. An Initial Study for the current application concluded that the
project is within the scope of the previous project. The Initial Study found that the
current project would not result in any new environmental impacts or result in a
substantial increase to a previously identified significant environmental impact. All
previously identified significant environmental impacts would continue to be mitigated
through implementation of the measures included in the adopted MMRP from 2011. An
Addendum has been prepared for the proposed application under CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 and 15164 (previously received under separate cover). The decision-
making body shall consider the Addendum with the adopted Mitigated Negative
Declaration prior to deciding on the project. No additional CEQA findings are required.
2. Make the finding that due to the constraints of the site, exceptions to the Least
Restrictive Development Area, maximum retaining wall heights and lengths, and
maximum cut and fill depths are appropriate, and the project is otherwise in compliance
with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
(Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 2);
4. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
5. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-054 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 23.
PAGE 7 OF 7 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 JANUARY 3, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\2019 - Scanned PC Rpts & Exhibits\1-9-19\Item 2\Item 2 - Staff Report.docx
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions;
2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
3. Deny the application.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
Addendum to previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
Previously received with the April 11, 2018 Staff Report:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations (one page)
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (16 pages)
4. Site Photos (five pages)
5. Color and Materials Sheet, received August 4, 2017 (one page)
6. Letter of Justification, received February 1, 2018 (15 pages)
7. Consulting Architect Report, dated May 15, 2017 (six pages)
8. Applicant’s Arborist Report by Ian Geddes, dated August 18, 2016 (29 pages)
9. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review Report by Walter Levison, dated May 5, 2017 (20 pages)
10. Applicant’s Arborist Addendum by Ian Geddes, dated October 25, 2017 (seven pages)
11. Applicant’s Arborist Addendum by Ian Geddes, dated December 1, 2017 (nine pages)
12. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review Report by Walter Levison, dated December 1, 2017
(19 pages)
13. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 6, 2018
14. Development Plans, received March 1, 2018 (33 sheets)
Previously received with the September 26, 2018 Staff Report:
15. Revised Required Findings and Considerations (one page)
16. Additional Letter of Justification, received September 4, 2018 (19 pages)
17. Development Plans, received August 29, 2018 (34 sheets)
Received with this Staff Report:
18. Consulting Architect Report, dated November 13, 2018 (eight pages)
19. Letter of Justification – Applicant, received December 20, 2018 (four pages)
20. Letter of Justification – Architect, received December 19, 2018 (two pages)
21. Massing comparison between original and revised project design (five pages)
22. Project Information Sheet by Engineering Division (two pages)
23. Development Plans received December 20, 2018 (20 sheets)
Distribution:
Sam Pan, 1901 Nobili Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051