Staff Report
PREPARED BY: SUSIE PINEDA
Contract Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Town Attorney, Community Development Department Director, and
Finance Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/20/2016
ITEM NO: 10
DATE: DECEMBER 13, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-011. PROJECT LOCATION:
16362 HILOW ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT: VALY JALALIAN.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION DENYING A
REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY
ZONED R-1:8. APN 532-04-082.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying Architecture
and Site application S-16-011 (Attachment 5).
BACKGROUND:
The existing 11,779-square foot site is currently vacant. Prior to annexation to the Town, the
applicant received approval from the County to demolish the 1,056-square foot, single-story
residence and carport. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story residence with
an attached garage.
The application was approved by the Development Review Committee (DRC) on June 7, 2016.
The DRC approval was appealed to the Planning Commission on June 15, 2016.
On July 27, 2016, the Planning Commission granted the appeal and denied the application. The
decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the property owner,
Valy Jalalian, on August 1, 2016.
On September 20, 2016, the Town Council considered the appeal. Concerns raised by the Town
Council, appellant, and neighbors included: height, building mass, and neighborhood
PAGE 2 OF 7
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2016
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\12-20-16\10 16362 Hilow Rd Appeal\09 Staff Report FINAL.docx 12/15/2016 3:28 PM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
compatibility. The minutes for the September 20, 2016 meeting are provided in Exhibit 5 of
Attachment 1.
After holding a public hearing and asking questions of the applicant, the Town Council granted
the appeal and remanded the project to the Planning Commission to formalize the changes
offered by the applicant. The Town Council resolution is provided in Exhibit 6 of Attachment 1.
The changes offered were: retaining the existing redwood tree that was previously proposed to
be removed; obscuring the glass of the second floor windows on the right (north) elevation;
and ensuring that the proposed drainage plan was correct. Additionally, the Council asked the
applicant to consider reducing the size of the cellar and the size of the garage.
On October 11, 2016, the applicant resubmitted a letter of justification and revised
development plans (Exhibits 8 and 9 of Attachment 1), incorporating the following changes:
1. Retaining the existing redwood tree that was previously proposed to be removed;
2. Obscuring the glass of the second floor windows on the right (north) elevation;
3. Correcting the drainage plan so that all drainage flows to the front yard;
4. Reduced the cellar square footage from 1,800 to 1,600 square feet; and
5. Reduced the garage square footage from 932 to 733 square feet.
The application was considered by the Planning Commission on November 9, 2016. Concerns
raised by the Planning Commission and neighbors included square footage, mass and scale,
privacy, and neighborhood compatibility. After holding a public hearing and asking questions of
the applicant, the Planning Commission voted to deny the application based on concerns
regarding mass and scale, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy (4-2, Commissioners
Erekson and Hudes opposed, Commissioner Burch absent). Verbatim minutes for the
November 9, 2016 meeting are provided in Attachment 3.
On November 11, 2016, an appeal of the Planning Commission decision was filed by the
property owner, Valy Jalalian (Attachment 4).
The Town Council is the deciding body for the appeal. If the Council decides to grant the
appeal, it must make one or more of the following findings, in accordance with Town Code
Section 29.20.300:
1. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
PAGE 3 OF 7
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2016
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\12-20-16\10 16362 Hilow Rd Appeal\09 Staff Report FINAL.docx 12/15/2016 3:28 PM
DISCUSSION:
A. Project Summary
Architecture and Site Application
The project site is located on the east side of Hilow Road south of Shannon Road (Exhibit 1
of Attachment 1). The property is surrounded by single-family residential uses.
The applicant has revised the project in response to the Town Council direction on
September 20, 2016, and is proposing a 3,479-square foot two-story residence, 733-
square foot attached garage, and 1,600-square foot cellar. The project would have a
maximum height of 26 feet. The proposed materials include: stucco and wood siding,
stone veneer, and a composition shingle roof. A color and materials board will be
available at the Town Council meeting and a project data sheet is provided in Exhibit 2 of
Attachment 1.
B. Appeal to the Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on November 11, 2016 (Attachment
4). The appeal states that the Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion per
Town Code Section 29.20.300 (1), for several reasons. Staff responses are shown in italics
under each item raised in the appeal.
1. The Planning Commission erred and abused its discretion in that it did not follow the
direction of Town Council, which was to “formalize those issues that have been raised
by the applicant.”
The Town Council granted the appeal and remanded the project back to the Planning
Commission with direction to formalize changes offered by the applicant on September
20, 2016. While the applicant submitted revised development plans incorporating the
proposed changes, the November 9, 2016 Planning Commission hearing was not a
continuation of the Town Council hearing, but a de novo hearing. The Commission had
the purview to review the revised application for any land use and/or design issues, as
they would any new application. Commissioners asked questions of the applicant about
the nature and extent of the changes made, and listened to public testimony from
neighbors regarding the above grade bulk and mass. The Commission acknowledged
that the development plans incorporated the proposed changes, but denied the project
as revised based on concerns regarding mass and scale, neighborhood compatibility, and
privacy.
PAGE 4 OF 7
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2016
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\12-20-16\10 16362 Hilow Rd Appeal\09 Staff Report FINAL.docx 12/15/2016 3:28 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
2. The Planning Commission abused its discretion by ignoring the new information
provided to them through watching and/or reading the September 20, 2016 Town
Council meeting where clarifications were made in how to evaluate the proposed
project:
a. Exercising judgment in evaluating neighborhood compatibility, and using 2-2-5 as
a guideline, not a rule.
The Residential Design Guidelines provide guidance regarding the context for
evaluating neighborhood compatibility as well as other design parameters. The
Guidelines state that “the greatest attention will be given to the immediate
neighborhood” and a diagram is provided on page 11 of the document that
“illustrates the Town’s interpretation of the immediate neighborhood in standard
subdivisions.” The immediate neighborhood diagram depicts two structures on
either side of the subject site and the five structures across the street (2-2-5). At
the September 20, 2016 Town Council meeting, at least one Councilmember
stated that the general use of the 2-2- 5 outlined in the Residential Design
Guidelines to evaluate neighborhood compatibility was intended to be a
guideline, not a rule.
The project is adjacent to a two-story residence to the north, which is two feet
taller than the proposed project. The Planning Commission did not deny the
project because it would be the second two-story home in the immediate
neighborhood. The Planning Commission denied the project based on the
combined concerns of mass and scale, neighborhood compatibility, and privacy.
b. Including homes in the County in neighborhood compatibility evaluations.
At the September 20, 2016 Town Council meeting, the Council discussed the two-
story home adjacent to the north of the project site and stated that all homes
should be included when evaluating compatibility with the immediate
neighborhood, regardless of whether they are located within the Town limits or
within the County.
The Planning Commission took this into consideration when discussing the relationship of the
proposed project to the existing neighborhood at the November 9, 2016 meeting. The
Commission determined that the project would be incompatible with the neighborhood relative
to above ground bulk and mass.
PAGE 5 OF 7
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2016
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\12-20-16\10 16362 Hilow Rd Appeal\09 Staff Report FINAL.docx 12/15/2016 3:28 PM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
c. The street is in a unique position to have two-story homes.
At the September 20, 2016, Town Council meeting, the Council learned that Hilow
Road is proposed to be a new safe school route, which could potentially be a
reason to support a two-story home because it may allow for a larger rear yard
for children to play.
The Planning Commission took this into consideration when discussing the
proposed project at the November 9, 2016 meeting. The Commission determined
that the project would be incompatible with the neighborhood relative to above
ground bulk and mass.
3. Planning Commission erred by stating in their denial motion that they "cannot make it
comply" in regards to mass and scale and incompatibility. Their motion to deny
included the following references to the Residential Design Guidelines:
a. Homes will respect the scale and character of their immediate neighborhoods
(Section 1.4, first bullet) and ensure that new development is compatible with its
surrounding neighborhood (Section 1.2, third bullet).
The proposed home would be 26 feet tall, two feet shorter than the two-story
home to the north. The total square footage of the proposed new residence,
including the cellar, would be 5,079 square feet. The above ground square
footage would be 3,479 square feet, which would be approximately 105 square
feet smaller than the adjacent single-story home to the south. The Commission
discussed the intent of the Cellar Policy to allow cellar square footage in lieu of
visible mass. The Commission then determined that with the proposed location
of the second story and the inclusion of the cellar, the above ground bulk and
mass would be incompatible with the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 5, denying the
appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission denying Architecture and Site
application S-16-011 with the findings provided in Exhibit A of Attachment 5.
PAGE 6 OF 7
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2016
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\12-20-16\10 16362 Hilow Rd Appeal\09 Staff Report FINAL.docx 12/15/2016 3:28 PM
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Town Council could:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 6) granting the appeal and remanding the Architecture and
Site application to the Planning Commission with specific direction, determining that the
Planning Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, and finding one or more of
the following, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 7) granting the appeal, making the required findings and
considerations (Exhibit A of Attachment 7), approving Architecture and Site application S-
16-011 subject to conditions (Exhibit B of Attachment 7), determining that the Planning
Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, and finding one or more of the
following, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
3. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction.
COORDINATION:
Community Development Department staff worked with PPW and Fire in the development
review of the proposed project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is a project as defined under CEQA but is Categorically Exempt (Section 15303, New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). A Notice of Exemption will not be filed.
Attachments:
1. November 9, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-9)
2. November 9, 2016 Desk Item (includes Exhibit 10)
3. November 9, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
PAGE 7 OF 7
SUBJECT: 16362 HILOW ROAD/S-16-011
DATE: DECEMBER 12, 2016
S:\COUNCIL REPORTS\2016\12-20-16\10 16362 Hilow Rd Appeal\09 Staff Report FINAL.docx 12/15/2016 3:28 PM
Attachments (Continued):
4. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received November 11, 2016 (four pages)
5. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings)
6. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
7. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibits A, Findings
and B, Conditions of Approval)
8. Public Comment received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, December 15, 2016
Distribution:
Valy Jalalian, 140 Clover Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
Shannon Susick, 16407 Shady View Lane, Los Gatos CA 95032