2011030712 - staff report - 381 Pennsylvania Avenue�OS °�
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
March 3, 2011
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: 03/07/11
ITEM NO. i
GREG LARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M -10 -007. PROPERTY LOCATION: 381
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: 381 PENNSYLVANIA
AVE. LLC. APPLICANT: GREG HOWELL, APPEL MATTHEW
HABERKORN.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
UPHOLDING A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION
APPROVING A TWO -LOT SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY ZONED R -1 :8,
APN 510 -41 -057,
RECOMMENDATION
After opening and closing the public hearing, it is recommended that:
1. The Town Council remand subdivision application M -10 -007 to the Planning Commission
for further consideration (Attachment 10) (motion required) and
2. An environmental assessment be completed prior to the Planning Commission's further
consideration and action.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternatively the Council may:
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to approve subdivision
application (M -10 -007 (Attachment 11) (motion required).
Grant the appeal and deny subdivision application M -10 -007 (Attachment 12) (motion
required).
PREPARED BY . 0 Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by:l sistant Town Manager C �, own Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development
Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 3/3/11 3:49 PM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 381 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE / FILE #M -10 -007.
March 3, 2011
BACKGROUND
On November 16, 2010, the Development Review Committee (DRC) considered a request for a two
lot subdivision at 381 Pennsylvania Avenue. The DRC found that the Subdivision met Town Code
requirements and that the required findings of the State Subdivision Map Act could not be made to
deny the application and accordingly approved the application. Mr. Haberkorn, the property owner
of 371 Pennsylvania Avenue, appealed the Committee's decision on November 16, 2010. His
reasons and staffs responses are provided in the January 12, 2011, staff report (Attachment 1)
The appeal was scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission. on January 12, 2011, but
due to length of the Planning Commission agenda; the item was continued to January 26, 2011. On
January 26, 2011, the Commission voted 6 -0 to uphold the decision of the DRC approving the two -
lot subdivision and denied the appeal (Attachment 9). The decision was appealed to the Town
Council by Mr. Haberkorn on February 1, 2011 (Attachment 8).
DISCUSSION
A. Project Summary
The subject site is located at the southwest corner of Pennsylvania Avenue and Wissahickon Avenue.
The applicant is requesting approval of a two -lot subdivision. The existing lot size for the property
is 24,433 sq. ft.; the proposed lot sizes would be 11,352 sq. ft. and 13,081 sq. ft. The proposed lots
meet Town Code requirements in terms of lot size, lot frontage, and depth, and the required setbacks
for the existing structures will be maintained with the proposed property line.
The proposed subdivision meets the requirements of the R -1:8 zoning designation. The proposed
lots are consistent in size and dimension of those in the immediate neighborhood. Any new
development on the site will be required to comply with Town ordinances and standards, and will be
reviewed through the required process. Refer to the Planning Commission reports for additional
information on the proposed subdivision (Attachments 1 thru 6).
B. Planning Commission
On January 26, 2011, the Planning Commission considered the appeal of the Subdivision
application. Following public testimony, where members of the public spoke along with the
appellant and the applicant,_the Commission unanimously denied the appeal and upheld the decision
of the DRC. The Commission discussed that while 3 81 Pennsylvania Avenue was recommended for
local historic designation, the property is not designated historic and pursuant to Town Code, only
the main structure is classified as historic. It was the Commission's conclusion that the subdivision
application would not impact the historic structure. The Commission could not make any of the
findings required by the State Subdivision Map Act to deny to the subdivision (Attachment 9).
Therefore, the Commission upheld the decision of the DRC to approve the application and denied
the appeal.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 381 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE/ FILE #M- 10-007.
March 3, 2011
The Planning Commission recommended that "any proposal for a change, modification;
improvement, driveway, swale, landfill, future plans for a second house, or any modification to the
existing house" be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation and to
the Planning Commission for final action. The Town Council should note that the approval of the
subdivision includes a condition for driveway improvements that are required to meet parking
requirements for an existing second unit which will remain on the same lot as the existing house.
Consequently, subsequent review of the driveway is unwarranted.
C. Appeal
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on February 1, 2011 (Attachment 8). The
basis for the appeal is as follows:
The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion in that:
Their decision was arbitrary and capricious,
Their decision and findings are wholly lacking in evidentiary support,
Their decision failed to conform to the procedures required by law,
Their decision was procedurally unfair, and
They proceeded without mandatory CEQA review.
k There is new information that was not available at the time of the Planning Commission's
decision which is the Los Gatos Historic Resources Inventory prepared for the Town of Los
Gatos Planning Department in June, 1991.
Subsequent to filing the appeal, the appellant submitted additional new information (Attachment 13).
This new information includes opinions from two historical consultant firms. The consultants
conclude that the subdivision application is not exempt from CEQA in that the historical resources
exception to the categorical exemptions applies.
D. Staff Comment
Town Definition of Historic Structure - Section 29.10.020 of the Town Code defines an historic
structure as any structure that is located on a property with a Landmark Historic Preservation overlay
zone or any primary structure constructed prior to 1941. The house at 381 Pennsylvania is estimated
to be built between 1880 and 1910, and, therefore, is considered historic pursuant to Town Code.
The site is included in the Town's Historic Resources Inventory and has been given the historic
rating of 5S, which means that the property appears eligible for local designation. The survey for the
site only references the house and does not reference any other historically significant features at or
on the site.
The historic evaluation of the site, which is used to develop the survey of the site, notes the
architectural style of the house is a good craftsman example and that the environmental setting has
"nice setbacks and elevation above the street." The "new information" provided by the appellant
(Attachment 8) is an excerpt from the summary report for the Los Gatos Historic Resources
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 381 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE/ FILE #M -10 -007.
March 3, 2011
Inventory of the entire Town, which lists all the properties and districts recommended for designation
or further investigation (which includes the subject property since it was rated 5S; appears to be
eligible for local designation).
The Town's Historic Resources Inventory for the subject site was considered by.Town staff during
the review process of the subdivision application to determine if there were any historic features of
the site that warranted protection. In addition in numerous emails from the appellant to the Planning
Commission (included as exhibits to the Planning Commission report), reference is made that the
historic nature of the property has been well documented by the Town and noted excerpts that are
from the Town's Historic Resources Inventory. The appellant's attorney also stated during the
Planning Commission public hearing that the site appeared eligible for local designation. A copy of
the inventory was not provided to the Planning Commission by Town staff since the historic house,
not the property, was the subject of the survey and the house would not be impacted by the proposed
subdivision.
CEQA Section 15064.5(3) of CEQA states that "any object, building, structure, site, area, place,
record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in
the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political,
military, or cultural annals of California maybe considered to be an historical resource, provided the
lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the
resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.
Code §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following:
(A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns
of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
(C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values; or
(D) Has yielded; or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
CEQA requires state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of proposed
discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify
alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to
the environment. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5020,1(q), substantial adverse change
includes demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical
resource would be impaired.
While demolition and destruction are fairly obvious significant impacts, it is more difficult to assess
when change, alteration, or relocation crosses the threshold of substantial adverse change. For
example,. CEQA Guidelines provide that a project that demolishes or alters those physical
characteristics of -an historical resource that convey its historical significance (i.e., its character -
defining features) can be considered to materially impair the resource's significance.
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 381 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE/ FILE #M -10 -007.
March 3, 2011
Prior to taking an action on the subject application Town staff determined that the proposed
subdivision would not have the potential to impact historical resources. The basis for this
determination is as follows:
The subdivision application would not result in any architectural changes to the historic
house.
Aside from the main house, the historic resources inventory did not reference any other
historically significant features at or on the subject site.
However, based on the.new information provided by the appellant (Attachment 13), if Town Council
determines that the project should return to the Planning Commission for further consideration, in
the interest of streamlining the process for all parties, an environmental assessment could be
conducted to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision would impact any historic resources
that may be associated with the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project has been deemed categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15315 of the
State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town in that the proposal is for a two -lot
subdivision that conforms to the Town Code and General Plan. No exceptions are being requested,
and the application is not part of a recent subdivision approval. In addition, the proposed subdivision
will not demolish or alter any physical characteristics of the historical resource that convey its
historical significance.
CONCLUSION
It is recommended that Town Council remand the application to the Planning Commission for
further consideration (Attachment 10). In the interest of streamlining the process of all stakeholders,
prior to the Planning Commissions review, it is recommended that an environmental assessment be
conducted prior to the Planning Commission's reconsideration.
If Town Council determines that the appeal should be denied and the decision of the Planning
Commission should be upheld to approve the subdivision, Town Council should adopt the resolution
shown on Attachment 11.
If Town Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific findings as to how the
application does not meet the General Plan must be incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 12).
FISCAL IMPACT None
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: APPEAL FOR 381 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE/ FILE #M -10 -007.
March 3, 2011
Attachments previously provided
1. Report to the Planning Commission for January 12, 2011
2. Addendum Report (1) for Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2011
3. Addendum Report (2) for Planning Corrnnission meeting of January 12, 2011
4. Desk Item for Planning Commission meeting of January 12, 2011
5. Report to the Planning Commission for January 26, 2011
6. Desk Item.for Planning Commission meeting of January 26, 2011
7. Materials submitted by appellant at the January 26, 2011, Planning Commission meeting
8. Appeal of the Planning Commission decision received February 1,_ 2011
9. Verbatim minutes from January. 26, 2011 Planning Commission (28 pages)
New Attachments:
10, Draft Resolution remand the subdivision application to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration
11. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and to uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission to approve the application
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and to deny
the subdivision application
13. Letter from Rachel Mansfield - Howlett (14 pages), received March 3, 2011
Distribution
Greg Howell, 136 Glen Ridge Los Gatos CA 95030
Matthew Haberkorn, 371 Pennsylvania Avenue, Los Gatos CA 95030
WRR:MM:ct
N:\DEV\TC REPORTS\2011 \381 Pennsylvania- appeal,doc