Highland Appellant Council Presentation Final19 Highland Ave
Town Council Appeal
December 20, 2016 1
Overview
• Why We Are Appealing
• Justification for Our Appeal
• Suggested Actions for the Town Council
2
Why We Are Appealing
• Significant portions of the project (more than 40%) outside the Least Restrictive Development Area
(LRDA) on areas exceeding a 30% slope
• Significant encroachments into required 25’ creek setback and the road
• Unnecessary impacts and removal of mature trees
• Visual Impacts from excess Bulk and Mass
• Multiple elevations from which more than two stories of the home are visible
• Unnecessary grading along nearly the full length of the very long site
Fundamental Problem: Too Big a House on a Highly Constrained Site
Challenging Numerous Standards and Guidelines
3
Justification for Our Appeal
• CEQA: Fair Argument Standard
- The Planning Commission Failed to apply the Fair Argument Standard Required by the Friends Case
• Planning Commission Erred
- Violated General Plan Rule against having structures with more than Two Visible Stories
- Abused its discretion by allowing excessive exceptions to other non-discretionary hillside standards
- Abused its discretion by making extreme unjustified exceptions to numerous hillside guidelines in violation of intent
and goals of HDS&G
- Did not properly consider the true facts and enforcement of laws related to trees
- Evaluation of actual and relative FAR based on misleading, unreliable and inaccurate Neighborhood Analysis Table
- Based approval on false conclusion that project is not visible from other sites and completely disregarded view from lot
directly across roadway
Planning Commissioned Based Approval on Wrong Information 4
Appeal Ground 1: Errors
! Failure to Require EIR
! Failure to Enforce Mandatory Regulations
! Visible Two-Story Rule (Policy CD-14.3)
! Visible and Adjoining Trees Rule (HDS&G No. 3 of p. 54)
! Driveway Grading Rule (HDS&G p.22)
! Visible Bulk Rule (HDS&G p. 36).
! No Retaining Wall-Created Yard Rule (HDS&G p. 45)
! 25-Foot Creek Setback Rule (Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams)
! Findings Unsupported by Substantial Evidence
! Finding of revised plan “saving” trees
5
Appeal Ground 2: Discretion Abuses
! Excessive exception to LRDA
! Approval of project size almost 5 times larger than complying project size
! Improper reliance on FAR
! Specific site constraints outweigh otherwise permitted FAR maximums.
(HDS&G p. 10.)
! Commission relied on misleading and inaccurate FAR table
6
Appeal Ground 3: New Information
! Staff’s admission of proper applicable CEQA standard
! Staff’s admission of non-enforcement of Visible Two-Story Rule
! Staff’s admission of increase and not decrease in project maximum elevation
! Applicant’s placement of false height netting
! Still misleading story poles
! New Plan Elevations clarifying existing and finished grade
7
CEQA: The Fair Argument Standard Applies
• The Planning Commission erred in approving the October 2016 Addendum to the
2010 Mitigated Negative Declaration
• The Whole Record supports a fair argument that changes to the project, new
information, and changed circumstances may have significant environmental impacts
• The Fair Argument Standard is a low-threshold test. Any substantial evidence of
any single potential significant environmental Impact requires preparation of an EIR
• Appellants have submitted evidence of numerous potential significant Impacts
Unless the Project is Significantly Revised, an EIR Must be Prepared
8
More than Two Visible Stories (Not Stacked Stories)
“Three-story elevations are prohibited.”
“A maximum of two stories shall be visible from every elevation.”
General Plan and HDS&G Are Not Being Enforced
HDS&G p. 36
Policy CD-14.3, p. CD-21 GP
west elevation (front)
1
2
3
Diagram taken from Town of Los Gatos Website, 19 Highland Plans, Studio Three Designs, Sheet A3.1
(standards violation)
9
Other Standards Violations
1. “Driveways shall be located so as to minimize the need for grading.” HDS&G p.22
2. “Buildings shall be designed to minimize bulk, mass and volume so as not to be prominently visible
from a distance or from surrounding properties” HDS&G p. 36
3. “Retaining walls shall not be used to create large, flat yard areas.” HDS&G p.45
“Standards Are Mandatory Non-Discretionary Regulations That Must Be
Followed.” HDS&G p. 10
10
Planned For Removal: 16,17, 21, 25, 56, 60, 61
Nearly Certain To Be Destroyed: 62, 63, 65
Questionable Survival: 9, 13, 14,18, 22, 23, 40, 54, 59
19 Trees *
*
7
3
9
Tree Impact
Planning Commission Failed to Consider that 37 Trees Will Have
Been Impacted By Development on This Site 11
18 Protected Trees Already Removed
(3 without permit) from Site as part of 2010 project
* Due to effects of grading and proximity to structures
Increase in Maximum Elevation
Planning Commission Given Misleading Information During Hearing
• Maximum Elevation increased from 444’ to
445’ between July and October meetings
• Planning Commission was told the house was
lowered by ~18” to 442’ (which it was in a
certain area, but increased by a foot in another
area)
• Elevation confirmed by applicant’s engineer
on December 12th, 2016 (attachment 22) to be
445’
12
FAR: Misleading Comparisons, Maximization
• Planning Commission commented that project
was in lower 25% of comparable homes, but…
• Table is comprised of homes with different
zoning, or not near site and uses gross lot size
• FAR in HR zone is governed by Net Lot Area
exclusive of rights of way and adjusted for slope
• “The FAR is a numerical guide and achieving
the allowable square footage is not a goal.
Greater weight shall be given to issues
including, but not limited to height, building
mass and scale, visual impacts, grading and
compatibility.” HDS&G p. 27
13
Surrounding Homes
Staff report, August 24, 2016 p. 6
PC Based Approval on Misleading and Faulty Information
View From Adjacent Lot Not Considered
“Buildings shall be designed to
minimize bulk, mass and
volume so as not to be
prominently visible from a
distance or from surrounding
properties” HDS&G p. 36
14 Planning Commission Did Not Consider All the Facts
Suggested Actions for the Town Council
Uphold the appeal and direct applicant to:
• Reduce the perceived bulk and mass by eliminating the third level
• Detach the garage or design the garage to enter on the top level. Consider using the existing roadway
instead of requiring a fire turnaround
• Reconsider the visual impact of the cumulative loss of trees since 2010 and potential loss of highly
impacted trees
• Prepare and circulate an EIR for this project or design a project that doesn’t require one.
Require the Project to Adhere to the Town’s Rules and Guidelines Resulting
in a Home that Conforms to the Site’s Unique Qualities
15