Conduct a hearing on the appeal, consider all evidence and testimony, and take one of the following actions:

AGENDA ITEM #4.A TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Staff Report to the City Council SUBJECT: FROM: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 3,511 SQUARE FOOT, TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 1,398 SQUARE FOOT BASEMENT ON A.359 ACRE LOT AND SETBACK VARIAN CE REQUESTS; LANDS OF KDCI DEVELOPMENT, LLC; 25608 DEERFIELD DRIVE; FILE #233-14-ZP-SD CDP-VAR. Suzanne Avila, AICP, Planning DirectorSA APPROVED: Carl Cahill, City Manager C.C., RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council: Conduct a hearing on the appeal, consider all evidence and testimony, and take one of the following actions: 1. Uphold the appeal and approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances, as originally submitted to the Planning Commission; 2. Uphold the appeal and approve the Conditional Development Permit, Site Development Permit and Variances for parking and vehicle back-up area in the side yard setback, as revised 3. Deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision; or 4. Remand the revised project back to the Planning Commission for their review. Further, staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to prepare a resolution of findings consistent with the City Council's determination. BACKGROUND On March 7, 2014, the Town's Consulting Surveyor, Cyrus Kianpour, approved a Certificate of Compliance which was recorded on March 13, 2014 recognizing two legal parcels of.37 and.35 acres on lands identified as Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 175-26-043 and 175-26- 044 (see Attachment 4 - the subject parcel is identified on Exhibit "C" of the document). One parcel is at the comer of Burke and Deerfield (former address of 13531 Burke Road) and the other is an interior lot directly abutting the comer lot and fronting on Deerfield Drive. The certificate confirms that the parcels comply with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. Further, the certificate states: "The parcels described herein may be sold, leased

Lands of KDCI Development LLC Page2 or financed without further compliance with the Subdivision Map Act or any local ordinance enacted pursuant thereto." The applicant owns both properties, however, the current proposal is to develop only the interior lot at this time. On February 5, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project for a new 3,511 square foot, two-story dwelling with variances to allow encroachments into the side and rear setbacks for roof eaves, a chimney, required parking, back-up area and a rear patio. Additional background information and details on the original proposal are included in the February 5, 2015 Planning Commission staff report with attachments (Attachment 5). Staffs initial recommendation was to approve the project as conditioned with variances only for the parking, back-up area and the rear patio. At the hearing, the Commission heard from six surrounding residents on Deerfield Drive and received e-mails and letters from other residents. Their concerns centered on the bulk and mass of the proposed dwelling, the number of variances requested, driveway access, and visual impacts. In addition, several residents stated that the two lots should be merged as the existing parcels are substantially below the one-acre minimum required for new parcels and that developing the lots individually results in a development density that is not compatible with the neighborhood. The Planning Commission discussed the issues and determined that the requested number of variances was excessive. Concerns were also raised about the lack of neighborhood support, the desire of the neighbors to have the lots merged to limit development to one house, and whether or not the proposed structure was compatible with surrounding properties. The applicant stated that the design could be modified to eliminate the need for variances on the roof eaves and the chimney and requested guidance from the Planning Commission on potential design changes. The Planning Commission, upon further discussion, was split on the issue of suggesting design changes and eventually voted 4-1 to deny the application. The minutes of the meeting are included in Attachment 6 and the plan set reviewed by the Commission is included as Attachment 7. On February 13, 2015, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission denial to the City Council. DISCUSSION Revised Project Design Based on the discussion at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant has chosen to redesign the new dwelling to eliminate the variances for the roof eaves, chimney and rear patio area. This has resulted in the following revised project data:

Lands of KDCI Development LLC March31, 2015 Page3 Area Maximum (sq.ft.) Development 5,690 Floor 3,590 Basement (exempt) Total area of dwelling with basement and garage Previous Design (sq.ft.) 5,689 3,511 (1,398) 4,909 Revised Change Remaining Areas Design (sq.ft.) under Revised (sq.ft.) Plan (sq.ft.) 5,412-277 278 3,214-297 376 (1,251) -147 4,465-444 The redesign retains the parking in the side yard setback and encroachment of the vehicle backup area within 10 feet of the property line, although the distance from the property line has increased from four (4) feet to five feet four inches (5'4). The maximum building height has been reduced by one foot, the second floor has been set back on the front elevation, exterior materials were changed from siding to shingles, and the driveway location was shifted to provide additional landscape screening from the street and avoid aligning the new driveway with a driveway across the street. The revised site plan and elevations are included in Attachment 8 which also includes a proposed schematic landscape plan (see Sheet Al.l in the revised plan set). Parcel Merger Issue The Planning Commission report included a discussion on the lot merger requirements in the Town's Municipal Code. In order to address concerns raised at the Planning Commission hearing, staff consulted with the City Attorney regarding the validity of the Town's Merger Ordinance and whether or not the parcels can be merged under the State Subdivision Map Act. On the first issue, the Attorney's office has determined that the Town's Merger Ordinance does not conform to or implement the procedures outlined in Section 66451.11 of the Subdivision Map Act (see Attachment 9). Furthermore, the Municipal Code cites a state code section that has been repealed. Under the preemption doctrine, local laws that are in conflict with state laws are void. Therefore, since the Town's Merger Ordinance does not conform to the merger requirements in the Map Act, the Merger Ordinance is void and cannot be enforced. Regarding the second issue, under Section 66451.11, a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the merger of contiguous parcels held by the same owner if the parcels meet two basic criteria and one or more of seven listed conditions. In the attorney's opinion, it is unlikely that the parcels are eligible for merger because on the current facts, it appears that the parcels likely do not satisfy any of the seven conditions listed. Therefore, even if the Town developed a merger ordinance in accordance with the Map Act, the parcels in question would not be eligible.

Page4 Neighborhood Compatibility In order to evaluate the proposed project and its compatibility with surrounding residences, staff reviewed the Town's records for variances on properties along Deerfield Drive and on several substandard properties along Burke and Fremont Roads. A map showing the location of these properties is included as Attachment 10. The following table provides a summary of those findings: Surrounding Properties with Approved Variances Address Net Lot Existing or Overall Size of Variance Granted Size/LUF New Dwelling incl. Residence garage 13621.453 acres New 2,988 sq.ft. 1994-Parking in side yard Burke.453 LUF setback and increase m MFA 13631 NIA Existing/ 1,567 sq.ft. 1962 - Guest Cottage m Burke Addition side yard setback 25561.4 acres New 3,917 sq.ft. 1988 - Allow for a 20 foot Deerfield.4LUF side yard setback for dwelling 25620.44 acres Existing/Room 3,271 sq.ft. 1983 - Expansion over Deerfield.37 LUF Addition maximum allowed building coverage and 4 foot encroachment into side yard 25700.43 acres Existing/Room 3,920 sq.ft. 2001 - Exceed maximum Deerfield.31 LUF Addition MFAandMDA 25701.381 acres New 3,267 sq.ft. 2005 - Parking in the side Deerfield.33 LUF yard setback 25731.478 acres Existing/Room 3,172 sq.ft. 1994 - Exceed maximum Deerfield.43 LUF Addition MFAandMDA 13530.397 acres New 4,365 sq.ft. 2005 - Parking in the side Fremont.397 LUF yard setback Revised Project 25608.359 acres New 3,214 sq.ft. Request for parking and Deerfield.359 LUF back-up area in side yard setback; request for roof eaves and chimney in side yard, patio in rear yard Of the 12 properties on Deerfield Drive, five have been granted some type of variance over the past 30 years. With regard to variances granted on new dwellings in the area, the two most

March31,2015 Page 5 most recent occurred in 2005, for parking in the side yard setback. It is possible to construct a dwelling with required parking on the subject site without the need for any variance. However, the City Council could find that a setback variance for the required parking and back-up area is necessary due to the substantial reduction in the development area that results from the strict application of the 30 foot side and rear yard setbacks on the.359 acre lot. In addition, the proposed project with the parking and back-up area encroachments results in a design that the City Council could find is more architecturally compatible with the neighborhood and could be screened from the street. Furthermore, the Council could find that the garage and parking along the easterly portion of the lot will not have a detrimental impact on surrounding residents because the improvements abut property owned by the applicant and any new structure on that abutting lot will be designed to address that impact. With regard to the size of the structure, the previous table includes the lot sizes, Lot Unit Factor and the total square footage of the structure including the garage (basements were excluded). Based on the data collected from the actual building plans, the proposed dwelling is within the range of home sizes in the surrounding area with the average floor area of the Deerfield Drive homes on the list being 3,509 square feet, approximately 300 square feet less than the proposed dwelling on the subject lot. Conditional Development Permit and Variance Findings To approve a Conditional Development Pennit (CDP), the following four findings must be made: 1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape and topography to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures, yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other features as may be required by this chapter. 2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and harmonious appearance in relation to the size, shape and topography of the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood; 3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and alteration of natural land forms. 4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth in the Site Development ordinance. To approve a Variance, the following four findings must be made: 1. That, because of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applicable to the subject property, including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application of the provisions of this title is found to deprive such property of

Page6 privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification; 2. That upon the granting of the variance, the intent and purpose of the applicable sections of this title will still be served and the recipient of the variance will not be granted special privileges not enjoyed by other surrounding property owners; 3. That the granting of such variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property, improvements or uses within the immediate vicinity and within the same zoning district; 4. That the variance will not authorize a use or activity which is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zoning district regulations governing the parcel or property. CONCLUSION In summary, the Deerfield Drive neighborhood is a mix of one and two-story homes that were originally built in the 1940s, the majority of which have been remodeled or replaced with new dwellings that are larger than the previous home. A majority of the properties are less than half an acre in size with an LUF of.5 or lower. As shown in the table above, five of the properties have received CDP and Variance approvals over the past 30 years for reduced setbacks, parking in the setback, and/or increases in MF A and MDA. The proposed request for a new residence is below the maximum floor area and development area, is similar in size to surrounding homes, and meets all other development standards with the exception of setbacks for parking and vehicle back-up. The City Council could find that the proposed development has: (1) adequate area to provide screening, and (2) is compatible with the existing development pattern in the area. In evaluating the variance findings #1 and #2, the City Council could consider the fact that the lot area is substantially less than the one acre minimum and the imposition of the same setbacks and zoning standards could deprive the property owner of certain privileges, including a substantial reduction in the property's buildable area, reduced patio and outdoor recreation areas, and limitations on the siting of the dwelling and parking areas. Furthermore, the City Council could find that the development of the property would not be detrimental to public welfare or surrounding properties because the parking and back-up encroachments can be screened by landscaping and will not be significantly visible to existing residents. In evaluating variance finding #4, the City Council could determine that the finding is met because the requested variance is not for a use or activity that is not permitted in the zone district. PUBLIC COMMENTS As of the writing of the staff report, the Town has received several e-mails from residents in the Deerfield Drive neighborhood related to the existing sewer agreement (which includes

Page 7 the subject lot) and there have been requests to view the revised plans. Copies of letters and e-mails are included under Attachment 11. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this project. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA) The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15303(a) - construction of a new single family residence where public services are available in a residential zone. ATTACHMENTS 1. Conditional Development Permit Findings 2. Variance Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. February 5, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments 5. Recorded Certificate of Compliance 6. Excerpt of Minutes from February 5, 2015 Planning Commission meeting 7. Original Plan Set provided to the Planning Commission for February 5, 2015 hearing 8. Revised Plan Set dated "Received March 20, 2015" and stamped "REVISION" 9. California State Government Code Sections 66451.10-66451.24 10. Map of Variance Approvals in the Surrounding Neighborhood 11. Correspondence from the Public Report Prepared by: Steve Padovan, Consultant Planner