2002-181-Denying An Appeal Of The Planning Commission Decision Denying A Request For A Grading Permit To Construct A Pool And Deck On Property ZonedRESOLUTION 2002 -181
RESOLUTION DENYING AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST FOR A GRADING PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT A
POOL AND DECK ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-21/2 .
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: MR-02-29.
PROPERTY LOCATION: 104 HILLTOP DRIVE.
PROPERTY OWNER: BRENDAN EICH.
APPLICANT:: ELAINE SHAW.
APPELLANT: JEAN McCOWN.
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on November 4, 2002, on an
appeal by Jean McCown from a decision of the Planning Commission, and was regularly noticed in
conformance with State and Town law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all
interested persons who wished to testify orsubmit 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 25, 2002, along with subsequent
reports and materials prepared concerning this. application.
C. The application in question proposes the .construction of a new 560 square foot lap
pool and a 250 square foot deck in the rear yard of an existing residence, which would result in a
total of 8 TO square feet of improvements on the hillside. The proposed deck would replace a deck
that had been demolished. Three retaining walls have been proposed for the site, none of which
would exceed approximately 10 feet in height.
D. On September 25, 2002, the Planning Commission denied the application on the basis
Page 1 of 4
that the proposed project was incompatible with the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan.
E. The appellant claims that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion
erroneously because "it arbitrarily concluded, with factual support in the record before it, that these
proposed improvements were incompatible with the General Plan policies and/or Hillside
Guidelines"
F. The Town Council finds that the Planning Commission decision was correct in that
the project is incompatible with the General Plan Policies and the Hillside Design Guidelines
Objectives, as follows:
General Plan Policies:
L.P.8.1 Preserve the Town's distinctive and unique environment by preserving and
maintaining the natural topography, wildlife .and vegetation and by mitigating and reversing the
harmful effects of traffic congestion, pollution and environmental degradation on our urban
landscape.
L.P.8.2 Limit hillside development to that specified in the Hillside Specific Plan.
Minimize development and preserve and enhance the rural atmosphere and natural plant and wildlife
habitats in the hillside.
L.P.8.4 Emphasize preserving the natural land forms by minimizing grading.
Grading should be limited only to the area needed to place the main house on the property.
L.P.8.5 Allow development if it is only environmentally suitable to such use.
CD.G.2.1 To preserve the natural beauty and ecological health of the hillsides.
CD.P.2.6 Hillside Landscaping: Hillside landscaping. shall be designed with the
following goals in mind:
Page 2 of 4
A. Preservation .and use of native/natural vegetation.
B, Minimization of formal landscaping and hardscape.
C. Siting formal landscaping and hardscape close to the house.
D. Following the natural topography.
E. Preservation of natural trees, vegetation, and wildlife habitats .and
migration corridors.
CD.P.2,3 Mass Grading in New Construction: Follow natural land contour and
avoid mass grading in new construction. Grading large, flat yard areas shall be avoided. Siting of
the house must consider natural topography.
Hillside Design Guidelines Objectives:
1. 'I'o preserve the natural terrain and landscaping
2. To achieve harmony with natural .and built environments..
The proposed pool and deck would be located on what currently is a 54% slope. Construction on
a slope of such severity would require extensive grading, would not follow natural topography,
would result in the loss of native vegetation, and would create a large flat area, all of which would
be harmful to the natural beauty and ecological health of the subject hillside area.
RESOLVED:
1. That the .appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Minor Residential
Development Application MR-02-29 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 of the Town Code of the Town of Los
Gatos. Any application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits
Page 3 of 4
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 18``' day of November, 2002 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steven Blanton, Sandy Decker, Steve Glickman, Joe Pirzynski,
Mayor Randy Attaway.
NAYS: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:
MAYOR OF E TOW F LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFO IA
ATTEST:
~~~~
CLERK OF TNF, TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATES, CALI'irORNIA
Page 4 of 4