Item 2 - Staff Report.248 Jared LnPREPARED 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: 04/24/2019 ITEM NO: 2
DATE: APRIL 19, 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 with direction to May 23, 2018. 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 with direction to November 14, 2018.
The application was subsequently continued to December 4, 2018 and January 9, 2019 to
provide the applicant more time to complete the revisions. The revised application was last
considered by the Planning Commission on January 9, 2019 and continued with direction to
March 13, 2019, to allow the applicant to address the following:
•Reduce the massing with the goal of reducing the excavation depths into the hillsides
and becoming more compliant with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
(HDS&G); and
•Continue outreach to neighbors.
The application was subsequently continued to April 24, 2019 to provide the applicant more
time to complete the revisions.
PAGE 2 OF 8 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 19, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Jared Lane, 248 - PC 04-24-19.docx
DISCUSSION:
A. Architectural Considerations
The applicant has revised the design of the residence in response to the direction of the
Planning Commission. The project architect provided a letter of justification responding to
the recommendations of the Planning Commission and Architectural Consultant (Exhibit
26). The overall size of the residence, including both countable and below-grade square
footage, has been reduced from the January 9, 2019 design by approximately 16.2 percent
(1,082 square feet). Additionally, the width of the residence has been reduced by
approximately 18 percent (21 feet) (Exhibit 26). The applicant proposes a Spanish style
residence reflective of the original design, with a painted cement plaster exterior with
sections of stone cladding; metal clad wood windows; stone lintels; exposed wood rafter
tails; mission clay tile sloped roof; and wrought iron railings (Exhibit 29). The residence
would have 2,736 square feet of countable square footage and 2,874 square feet of below-
grade square footage. The maximum height of the residence would be approximately 20
feet where 25 feet is allowed. A comparison of the floor area of the original, January 9,
2019 (hereafter “previous”), and April 15, 2019 (hereafter “current”) designs is provided
below:
Floor Area Comparison
Original Design Previous Design Current Design
(square feet)
Upper Level Above-Grade 2,560 2,530 2,160
Below-Grade 0 0 0
Middle Level Above-Grade 229 0 576
Below-Grade 2,755 3,009 2,001
Lower Level Above-Grade 0 0 0
Below-Grade 855 1,153 873
TOTALS
Above-Grade 2,789 2,530 2,736
Below-Grade 3,610 4,162 2,874
Total Area 6,399 6,692 5,610
To reduce the visual impact of the west elevation, the applicant has revised the lower
retaining wall on the north side of the driveway, turning it south and east, extending to the
residence. The revised location of the wall, along with the reduction in the width of the
building, results in a larger area along the west elevation that allows for the grade above
the retaining wall to be tapered up the slope to the building. By tapering up to the
residence, less mass is visible. The increased area also allows for more landscape screening
to be planted, further mitigating the visible mass on the west elevation (Exhibit 29, Sheets L-
2 and L-3).
PAGE 3 OF 8 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 19, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Jared Lane, 248 - PC 04-24-19.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
Access from the lower level to the middle and upper levels of the residence would be
provided by two stairways and an elevator. The first stairway and the elevator would be
integrated into the core of the residence, providing interior access between all levels. The
second stairway would provide access from the driveway and the garage to the middle
level, facilitating exterior circulation to the front door. Both stairways have been integrated
into the design of the residence as previously recommended by the Architectural
Consultant.
As was the case with the previous design, the residence continues to conform to the
limitations of the LRDA. Like the previous design, the attached lower-story garage is shifted
south to pull it out from beneath the house and reduce the three-story appearance of the
west elevation. This location, while partially outside of the LRDA, allows the residence to
more effectively step down the hillside, as recommended by the HDS&G.
Additionally, the garage has been shifted approximately five feet east and slightly uphill
from its previously proposed location. By moving the garage east, the area of the garage
located outside of the LRDA is reduced from the previous design by approximately 248
square feet. The shift allows the driveway to be lengthened and the finished floor of the
garage to be raised two feet, further reducing the depth of excavation within the footprint
of the garage. This reduction helps to reduce impacts to the area outside of the LRDA and
bring the project more in conformance with the HDS&G. A comparison of the area outside
of the LRDA of the three designs is provided below:
Comparison of Area Outside of LRDA
Original Design Previous Design Current Design
House 94 sf 0 sf 0 sf
Garage 252 sf 835 sf 587 sf
Amenities* 886 sf 532 sf 181 sf
Total 1,232 sf 1,367 sf 768 sf
* Amenities refers to terraces, decks, porches, and stairs.
The revised design was forwarded to the Town’s Architectural Consultant who provided a
report with recommendations for improving the current design (Exhibit 27). In the report,
the Consultant references the two previous iterations of the project, noting that the original
design was well designed with substantial articulation and well utilized materials and details
appropriate to the architectural style. The second submittal, which was reviewed by the
Planning Commission in January 2019, resulted in a greatly compromised design without
the clear statement of architectural style, details, and special design qualities of the original
design. The Consultant notes that the changes from the previous design to the current
PAGE 4 OF 8 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 19, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Jared Lane, 248 - PC 04-24-19.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
design are substantial, resulting in an overall design that is markedly improved with fully
sloped tile roofs and a clearly distinguishable architectural style. The Consultant made the
following recommendations related to details to increase consistency with the selected
architectural style:
1. Extend a sloped tile roof at the upper level Master Bedroom balcony in lieu of the
awkward trellis;
2. Add either exposed rafter tails/corbels or soffit moldings at the roof eaves. Adjust
window head heights as necessary;
3. Use substantial corbels to support the bay window. Other shapes and materials are
possible;
4. Deep set the doors at the Computer Room and eliminate the awkward trellis.
5. Increase the width of the rectangular vertical windows, and inset all windows and doors
from the outside face of the wall;
6. Provide proper lintels over windows and doors set in stone; and
7. Use decorative metal railings rather than standard vertical element only.
In response, the applicant revised the plans by incorporating all recommendations of the
Architectural Consultant. The April 15, 2019 Development Plans included as Exhibit 29
reflect the revised project and the recommendations of the Architectural Consultant.
B. Grading and Excavation
The cut and fill depths and quantities have changed as a result of the current design. The
majority of the changes are related to excavation located within the revised building
footprint. Except as discussed above, the driveway and adjacent retaining wall designs have
not changed. The HDS&G address grading through limitations of cut and fill depths outside
of the footprint of structures. The current project continues to request exceptions to these
cut and fill depth limitations for construction of the driveway and associated retaining walls.
It should be noted that the HDS&G places no limitations on excavation for below-grade
square footage.
The current design achieves reductions in excavation depths and quantities through a
reduced footprint, slab-on-grade construction, raising the swimming pool elevation, and
raising the garage finished-floor elevation. The result is a reduction in excavation depths
and associated excavation quantities for the residence. The revised retaining wall locations
and lengthened driveway adjacent to the garage, as discussed above, results in an increase
in grading quantities. A summary of the grading and excavation is provided in the table
below:
PAGE 5 OF 8 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 19, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Jared Lane, 248 - PC 04-24-19.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
Grading and Excavation Summary
Original
Design
Previous
Design
Current
Design
Maximum
Allowed
Maximum
Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill Cut Fill
House Footprint (Excavation)
Depth (feet) 24* 0 19* 0 18* 0 8* 3
Quantity (cubic yards) 2,891 332 2,301 332 1,382 0 -- --
Driveway (Grading)
Depth (feet) 15 12 15 12 15 12 4* 3
Quantity (cubic yards) 110 1,118 397 853 530 978 -- --
Site Work (Grading)
Depth (feet) 7 0 4 0 4 0 4* 7
Quantity (cubic yards) 20 0 20 0 20 0 -- --
Maximum Retaining Wall Height
Height (feet) 8.3 8.3 8.3 5
* – Excludes below-grade square footage
Bold – requires exception to the HDS&G
C. Neighbor Outreach
The applicant provided a summary of their efforts to communicate with their neighbors
(Exhibit 28).
STORY POLES:
Story poles have been installed on the project site reflecting the original design in orange
netting and the current design in yellow netting. The two sets of poles and netting allow a
comparison of the massing of the two designs. As previously noted, most of the garage mass
would be located below the existing grade, as shown on Sheet A-8 of Exhibit 29.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Public comments received by 11:00 A.M. on Friday, April 19, 2019, are included as Exhibit 30.
PAGE 6 OF 8 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 19, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Jared Lane, 248 - PC 04-24-19.docx
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Conclusion
The applicant has responded to the Planning Commission’s direction with the current design
and additional information. The Planning Commission should determine whether the current
design and additional information adequately addresses the direction provided at the
January 9, 2019 meeting.
B. Recommendation
If the Planning Commission determines that the current design and additional information
adequately address the direction provided at the January 9, 2019 meeting and finds merit
with the April 15, 2019 Development Plans, 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 24);
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 24);
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 24); and
5. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-054 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 25 and the development plans in Exhibit 29.
PAGE 7 OF 8 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 19, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Jared Lane, 248 - PC 04-24-19.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)
Previously received with the January 9, 2019 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)
PAGE 8 OF 8 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 19, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Jared Lane, 248 - PC 04-24-19.docx
Received with this Staff Report:
24.Revised Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
25.Recommended Conditions of Approval (16 pages)
26.Letter of Justification – Architect, received April 18, 2019 (seven pages)
27.Consulting Architect Report, dated February 19, 2019 (10 pages)
28.Summary of applicant’s neighbor outreach efforts (two pages)
29.Development Plans, received April 15, 2019 (24 sheets)
30.Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 19, 2019
Distribution:
Sam Pan, 1901 Nobili Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051