09 Desk Item - 115 N. Santa Cruz Avenue and 112 Wilder Avenue Coggeshall Mansion~pW N OF
~0scpips COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: April 7, 2008
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
MEETING DATE: 4/7/08
ITEM NO:
DESK ITEM
SUBJECT: 115 N. SANTA CRUZ AVENUE AND 112 WILDER AVENUE
COGGESHALL MANSION
PROPERTY OWNER: SANTA CRUZ WILDER, LLC
APPLICANT: JOHN LIEN
APPELLANTS: SANTA CRUZ WILDER, LLC AND LEE QUINTANA
REMARKS:
Under the recommendation section of the report to Town Council on this matter, the action on
the variance and the variance findings were not included. This is needed to eliminate the parking
in the lot on Wilder and to approve the residential land use on Wilder Avenue. Therefore, the
following motion (noted in bold) will also need to be made by Council. In addition, three of the
attachment numbers were referenced incorrectly. Following in bold are the correct attachment
numbers:
b. Approve the residential land use on Wilder Avenue
■ Make the required findings for the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change
(Attachment 9 10);
■ Move to adopt a Resolution approving the General Plan Amendment (Attachment
11);
■ Move to waive the reading of the Zone Change Ordinance (Attachment 12);
■ Direct the Clerk to read the title of the Zone Change Ordinance (Attachment 12) (no
motion required);
■ Move to introduce the Ordinance to effectuate the zone change (Attachment 44 12).
■ Make the required findings to approve a variance (Attachment 9) and approve
the variance application.
c. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the lot line adjustment
subject to conditions (Attachment 44 13).
(Continued on Page 2)
PREPARED BY: BUD N. LO Z
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
N:ADEV\CNCLRPTS\2008\nsc1 15.dsk.doc
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney
Clerk Administrator Finance Community Development
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 115 N. SANTA CRUZ AVENUE
April 7, 2008
Also attached is correspondence received after the staff report was sent to the Council.
Attachments:
1-20. Previously submitted
21. Correspondence from Brandt-Hawley Law Group (3 pages), received April 7, 2008
BNL: RT: S LB: mdc
BRANDT-HAWLEY LAW GROUP
Susan Brandt-Hawley Chauvet House PO Box 1659
Brian R. Turner Glen Ellen, California 95442
Preservation Law Fellow
April 7, 2oo8
Mayor Barbara Spector and Councilmembers
Town Hall
11o E. Main Street Tr_
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Item # 9, Agenda of April 7th
Coggeshall Mansion
Appeal of Lee Quintana
Dear Honorable Mayor Spector and Councilmembers,
Legal Assistants
Sara Hews
Sbannen Jackson
On behalf of appellant Lee Quintana, I ask that you uphold the appeal of
the proposed negative declaration for the Santa Cruz Wilder LLC project at the
historic Coggeshall Mansion at 115 N. Santa Cruz Avenue and 112 Wilder Avenue.
Respectfully, the project application and appeal materials are incomplete and
additional analysis is required to comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act and to assist this Council in its decisionmaking. It also appears that
the public notice of this appeal is inadequate.
Since I have not appeared before this Council, by way of introduction my
law practice has focused on CEQA's application to historic resources in
administrative and judicial forums for twenty years, including such cases as
Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) at the California
Supreme Court, and League for Protection of Oakland's Architectural and
Historic Resources v. City of Oakland (1997), Architectural Heritage Association
v. County of Monterey (2005), Lincoln Place Tenants Association and 20th
Century Architectural Alliance v. City of Los Angeles (2005), and Preservation
Action Council v. City of San Jose (2oo6), at the California Court of Appeal.
707.938.3908 707.576.0198 fax 707.576.0175 susanbh,Oeconet.0r9
ATTACHMENT 21
In this matter, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration fail to adequately
assess the environmental setting of the proposed project relative to the historic
context of the Coggeshall Mansion. As explained in the expert report of
architectural historian Franklin Maggi, assisted by Leslie Dill, the impacts of the
proposed construction and tree removal have not been considered pursuant to
accepted practices by historic consultants vis-a-vis the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards. As you are no doubt aware, the "fair argument" standard applies to
your review of the adequacy of the negative declaration. The fair argument
standard provides a "low threshold requirement for initial preparation of an EIR
[which] reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental
review when the question is whether any such review is warranted." (League for
Protection v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.41h 896, 905.) The low threshold
is met when any substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that
significant impacts may occur, even if a different conclusion may also be well-
supported. (Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988,
1000-1003.) A failure to conduct adequate investigation adds to the inference of a
fair argument. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.)
The fair argument standard markedly differs from the deferential review
normally enjoyed by agencies:
if a lead agency is presented with a fair argument that a project
may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency
shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other
substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect.
(Guideline § 15064, subd.(f)(1).) Consistently, Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma
(1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307, holds that under the fair argument standard
the question is one of law, i.e., `the sufficiency of the evidence to
support a fair argument.' [Citation.] Under this standard, deference to the
agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision not to require
an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the
contrary.
(Id. at 1317-1318, italics added.) Thus, the agency must prepare an EIR "even
though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the
project will not have a significant effect." (Pocket Protectors v. City of
Sacramento (2005) 124 Cal.ApP.4th 903, 927.)
Here, the expert report of Franklin Maggi suffices to meet the fair
argument standard, and the fact that your staff may have a different opinion
cannot change that fact or undo the fair argument.
2
However, appellant Quintana suggests that at this point, rather than
prepare an EIR it may be most appropriate for the Council to refer the entire
project file back to its planning staff for preparation of an adequate Initial
Study and further consideration of the whole project as recommended by the
Planning Commission. There is much confusion as to the chronology of events
and decisionmaking. And even without construction of the two new buildings,
questions remain regarding the alterations to the mansion, tree removal, and
the height of the proposed new deck that may impact the surroundings. As
your staff has noted, impacts to an historic resource include alterations to an
historic resource "or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of
an historical resource would be materially impaired." (CEQA Guideline §
15o64.5.)
After the preparation of an adequate historic report and consideration of
impacts of the "whole of the action" for this project, the town would again
consider whether or not a negative declaration is appropriate. Absent such
remand and reconsideration, preparation of an EIR will be required by law.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Susan Brandt-Hawley
3