2010081806 - Addendum.~pW N OF
X11 ?%
} --; ~~
., ~,
tos -~A~os
DATE:
~I'O:
FRO\~I:
SL B,1EC-I_
DISCliSSION:
COUNCIL AGE\rDA REPORT
August 12, 2010
~1.-~~'OR AND TO~~~~N COUNCIL
MEETING D ATE: 08/16/10
ITEM NO.
:~DDENDUI'I
GREG CARSON. TO~~-'N MANAGER J CiG'I ~-C`I~~ l~1
`i
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANT 'LNG COMMISSIO\~ DECISION
DENTING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH ASINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE,
TO SUBDIVIDE A .9 ~ ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS AND TO
CONSTRUCT T«%O NE«' RESIDENCES ONr PROPERTY' ZONED R-1:8. NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACTS HAVE BEENT IDENTIFIED AS
A RESULT OF TI-IIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. APN X27-42-008. ARCHITECTURE
AND SITE APPLICATIONS 5-08-30. S-09-33. ANTD 5-09-34: SL"BDNISION
APPLICATIOI I M-08-13; NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-09-2. PROPERTY
LOCATION: 1928 UNION AVENUE. PROPERTY 0~~~~NER: 217
O'CONNOR LLC. APPLICAI~IT/APPELLANT: TONY JEANS.
Exhibits 17 tlu-ough 20 are letters from neighbors that \yere recci~•cd follo\\•ina distribution of tale
staff report. y
Attachments:
1-16. Previously reeeiyed (attached to staff report)
17. Letter from Geoff ~~Iitchell vyith attaclmlents (7 pages total). received August 10. 2010
18. Letter and exhibits fi-onI Thomas Mangano (=I pages total). rcceiv°ed August 10. 2010
19. Email Ii-om Tom \%Iangano; received August ] 0. 2010
20. Letter from Jolm Schwarz with attaclunent (8 pages total), received August 12, X010
D1St]'lbllt1011:
cc: Jeff Grant. 39 Reservoir Road, Los Gatos. CA 9030
TonvJeans. T.H.I.S DesiQ1l. P.O. Box 118. Los Gatos. CA 9~0~1
~~'1ZIZ:SD:ah ~
PREPARL-D BY: ~~~~'endie R. Rooney, Director of Conmlunity Development
Reyie\yed by: ~' ~, Assistant Town 1\lanager \yn Atton)ey Clerk Finance
~ColIIlIIl1171ty DeyelOpnlellt Revised: 5 1~ ]0 -1:19 Plq
\: UL==\' S~"Z_~\1E CouncilReporuFnd. to TC'.appeals~.L`nion1~92S-081610-Add.doc
Refonnatred: ~r30'02
~~~~~,~`
Geoff Mitchell T0~1~id OF` LOS GA~OS
115 Panorama Way Q~'`'`'a• {'' G vl'JIS J ~
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Monday, August 09, 2010
Suzanne Davis
Community Development Dept.,
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Subject: 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision and Architectural
Dear Town Council members,
My name is Geoff Mitchell. My family resides at 115 Panorama Way, at the end of the street
where the Union Avenue property being discussed is located.
Numerous issues and concerns have been raised regarding this development, many of which
have some degree of subjective perspective and interpretation, yet one critical argument cannot
be ignored or refuted. This proposal goes directly against specific Town Codes, the General
Plan and Planning Guidelines.
The intensity of the homes and the deviation from the uniform use of the land violates the Land
Use Goal and Town's General Plan.
The attached January 2010 letter from our legal council highlights in detail exactly where the
Town's General Plan, Land Use Goals and Policies, and Government Codes dictate that a 3-lot
subdivision of this property would be a violation of those codes.
Any decisions of this town council other than the denial of this appeal must be based on legally
defensible findings that take these facts into full consideration, and do not go against these
codes, the general plan and the planning guidelines.
Respectfully,
Geoff Mitchell
Attachment 17
~ LOGAN & POWELL LLP
A~rrou,~~'s ~T L~~v
Rcbert J. Logan, of Counsel
61 East .U.ain Street, Sui:e C Los Galos, Calitomia 95030 ^ Teie~hore (4081 395-1350 ^ Fax (408j 395-:354 E-mail: info@logaapowell.com
Hand Delivered
January 28, 2010
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members:
This office represents residents of Panorama Way, Union Avenue and Cambrian
View in their opposition to the above listed matter. These neighbors remain opposed to
this project and any reconsideration of this Council's denial of this project on November
2, 2009. The November 2, 2009, decision was the right decision for the neighborhood
and the Town of Los Gatos.
With three (3) lots, this project is trying to put too much on too narrow of a parcel.
No matter how the lots are sliced, it will still be too much on too narrow of a parcel. As
outlined in more detail below, the project with three {3} lots is inconsistent with the
Town's General Plan and the surrounding neighborhood and therefore, must be denied.
Reconsideration of this project is unnecessary.
Pursuant to Government Code § 66474, the Tov~rn Council "shall deny approval
of a tentative map..." if it makes any of the findings outlined in that section. Given the
facts of this project, the following findings must be made: "(b) That the design or
improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans; (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;
and (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development."
"A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan
only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision
or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs
specified in such a plan.' (Government Cade § 66473.5) Due to the density and design
of this three (3) lot subdivision, it is inconsistent with the Land Use Element and the
Community Design Element of the Town's General Plan. In addition, the narrow parcel
is not physically suited for the development of three (3} lots.
~+a~r,e+~. c^onrca~,r~aa,eu To-~n ;,o~.~cs r ., ; .zs. t c ~,
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-O8-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 2
INCONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE ELEMENT
As you know, the Town prides itself on its small town heritage, natural setting
and architectural diversity. In the Land Use Element of the Town's General Plan, the
Town acknowledges that preserving these attributes is important to this community and
new development should be well-designed to preserve and enhance these attributes.
To that end, the Town has established goals, policies and implementing strategies
which must be followed. The project as proposed is inconsistent with several Land Use
Goals and Policies.
Land Use Goal 3.1 (L.G.3.1) requires the Town "to maintain the existing
character of residential neighborhoods by controlling development." (L.G.3.1) One of the
policies adopted to reach this goal is L.P.3.5 which states "assure that the type and
intensity of land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood." As
determined by this Council on November 2, 2009, the immedia#e neighborhood is the
Panorama WaylUnion Avenue neighborhood. The project will be accessed on Union
Avenue and through Panorama Way. The immediate neighborhood is not Leewood
Court because "it is physically separated from the project site by an eight (8) foot
retaining wall and a fve (5} foot grade separation." Development consistent with
Panorama Way/Union Avenue should follow the rectilinear orientation and involve only
two (2) lots on that parcel as shown on Exhibit A. This development pattern is
consistent with the development pattern that was approved on a similarly narrow parcel
on Blossom Hill Road as shown on Exhibit B. The developer of that parcel also
requested a three (3) lot subdivision but was constrained to two (2) lots for these same
reasons. The development pattern of the proposed project with three (3) lots is
inconsistent with the immediate neighborhood.
Another goal outlined in the Town's General Plan is Land Use Goal 2.1 (L.G.2.1)
which requires the Town "to limit the intensity of new development to a level consistent
with surrounding development and with the Town at large." For all of the reasons
previously expressed by the immediate neighbors of this project, approving three (3)
lots on this parcel is not consistent with the intensity of development in the surrounding
neighborhood. As stated above, the immediate neighborhood {Panorama Way and
Union Avenue} is developed in a traditional rectilinear orientation. In order to squeeze
three (3) lots onto this narrow parcel, the developer is forced to orient the lots at angles
to meet the minimum requirements. This change in orientation is contrary to the
development pattern of the neighborhood and should not be approved merely to allow a
developer to maximize his investment. It is inconsistent with surrounding development.
A51Uie11, GeowCOmTitchei Tavn Cowuil Itr Ot.26.10.sq
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-O8-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 3
Another policy in the Town' General Plan that is relevant to this project relates to
infill development.' Although the Planning Commission inferred this was not an infill
project because the land is developed with one residential unit, the policies and goals
are applicable because that one residential unit is proposed to be demolished to make
way for the creation and development of three (3} new lots within an area that is already
largely developed. Therefore, the following policies should also be considered:
1) Land Use Policy 1.7 (L.P.1.7} provides "In-fill projects shall contribute to the
further development of the surrounding neighborhood (e.g. improve circulation,
contribute to or provide neighborhood unity, elimina#e a blighted area, not detract
from the existing quality of I'tfe)."
2} Land Use Policy 1.8 (L.P.1.8) provides "In-fill projects shall be designed in
context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the
existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather
than compete with the established character of the area."
The strategies to implement these policies include:
"L.1.1.3. In-fill project/Community Benefit: Applicants for in-fill projects shall
demonstrate that the project has a strong community benefit."
"L.1.1.4. !n-fill projecbCommunity Benefit: The deciding body shall make specific
findings of community benefit before approving any in-fill project."
As stated repeatedly by the neighbors, this project with three (3} lots is not
designed in context with the surrounding neighborhood. Cramming three (3) lots onto
this narrow parcel does not create any community benefit.
INCONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
The Town's General Plan includes a Community Design Element which is
intended to protect the unique characteristics that define the Town. To do so, the
element includes a goal "to preserve and enhance the Town's character through
exceptional community design." (CD.G.1.1) The policies to reach this goal include
"avoid abrupt changes in scale and density" (CD.P.1.5) and "new structures, remodels,
landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale
and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area." (CD.P.1.7) Forcing
three {3} lots onto this narrow parcel results in an abrupt change in scale and density
~ The General Plan defines Ir,fill Development as °Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or
left-over properties) within areas that are already largely developed.
Mi~ctie~. Ge~Y,iCorrR.titcrel 'm+.n Cc~~c~i it 01 28.5'u.sq
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 4
and breaks the established rhythm and pattern of the Panorama Way/Union Avenue
neighborhood. Any three (3} lot subdivision is inconsistent with the Town's Community
Design Element of its General Plan and therefore, must be denied.
Any development proposal on this parcel that provides for the creation of three
(3) lots will be inconsistent with the Town's General Plan. No further consideration of
this project is necessary as long as the developer is proposing the creation of three (3)
lots. The narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the creation of three (3) lots. The
creation of three (3) lots is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. These
findings will not change. Therefore, this subdivision or any subdivision creating three (3)
lots on this parcel cannot be approved. This project should be denied on February 1,
2010. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours, ~ ~ p
Kirsten M. Powell
KMP:sq
enclosures
cc: client
Michael Martello, Interim Town Attorney
Suzanne Davis, Project Planner
MitUiell, G60ff/COrtlf.SlChea Ttr~'n COtmc! Itr OS.Z9.~O.sq I
Exhibit A
u
Page ~ of 1
Exhibit B
~~
~m
4 ~
A
~:
r~
rq' .
o%
.+
i
c
e.
~;
I<
~.
rQ
N ~ ~n ~ ~.~: ~ ~~l L~ } wt i _ _ n rr y
DETAIL VIEW AND CALCULATION OF SQ FT ON THE UNION AVE AND BLOSSOM HILL LOTS USING THE
1998 TRACT DIAGRAM FROM THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
Exhibit
Page 1 of____~
THIS PAGE
1.\"TE.\"T IO_\:-ALL ~' LEFT BL.-1 _\~Ii
Augustl0, 2010
Honorable Mayor; Diane 1vlcNutt
Vice iviayor; ]oe Pirzynski
Council Members; Steve Rice, Barbara Spector, Milce ~Vassermatt
15928 Union Appeal -Deny appeal
While adding a cul-de-sac technically (according to code) increases the frontage of 15928 Union Avenue,
in reality it does nothing to increase the 105-foot width of the property. As I look from my home
towards the hills, the poles and orange netting towering into the sky make it clear that this property is
just not wide enough to support the massive constructs the developer is proposing.
As the applicant himself inadvertently conceded (Council appeal hearing 11/2/2008 video 2:18:04),
when lined up against the pattern of homes on Panorama Way and Union Avenue, "I don't think it is
right in this context."
Indeed, the General Plan and building guidelines go beyond the building codes the applicant is citing and
beyond the property line. They also serve as the voice of reason and the protector of neighborhood
character and harmony and, ultimately, the defender against the series of attempts the developer has
made to thwart them during the 26 months of public hearings on this matter.
As you contemplate the issues involved for your August 16`~ decision, and as you continue your
important work on the new Los Gatos General Plan, I ask you to uphold and remember two significant
quotes from current General Plan:
• "Proposed development projects are held to a higher standard and what is approved in
other communities may not be acceptable in Los Gatos."
• "Support of new developments from surrounding residents and property owners will be
a major consideration during any development review process."
Thank you for taking the time to review my June 9`" letter to the Planning Commission in which I
detailed objections to the proposed development. Attached to this letter is a picture of the story poles
and images portraying the proposed unacceptable massing that Panorama Way and Union Avenue
neighbors are counting on you to prevent by denying this appeal.
Thomas Mangano
112 Panorama Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
I lILS !'. 1 GL•
1_I:1=7~ BI_. 1.A7i
+~
~.J
1
~_
.C
L.«
~'
L
.~
,~
e_~
V
L
T
V
L
i./'1
.~
~!
77115 P. I Gl.
L 1. FT !3l_. I .\7~
~;~~ _
.Y•_.`.!
+i .
~~
r~
~~~
l~ ~'
~~
4
3
e~-y , ,
~- Y- ~ i
-.~' ~
j ~i:
.Y ~ ' _
.'T- s
,e ~.
!.:I
~_
_.
'S.6~
St '~q
1 ~
~: ~`
.~t
4
.~ ~~
i+ ~
P
~~
V
e~
V 7
a~
i
!~
i
[y,~
~/
3~
+ MI
V I
r f~~
V
1~
~Y
•~
Tf11.S' Y.1G1~
fl.J
y.~~
x~
~ 1
a
0
._
a
.~
~.
~.
O
cn
7711.5 P.1 GE
Suzanne Davis
From: Thomas.mangano <hunthunter@verizon.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2010 2:11 PM
To: Suzanne Davis
Cc: 'Thomas.mangano'
Subject: Response to applicant desk item date 6_9
Suzanne and Council members:
In the unlikely event that Council approves the A&S portion of the appeal, I want to document my response to the
applicants "Conditions [for discussion) that might Benefit Neighbors: desk item submitted by applicant on June 9`°, 2010.
Second item:
Six (6) Myrica California 24" box trees...
Response:
I have no problem with the use of a myrtle tree variety, for that would complement the use I have used
of them on my southern property line.
However, the specie must be of a "petite" variety (as I used), to prevent towering massing and
additional shadows. -
The trees must be no higher than home roof ridge lines. As an example the petite myrtles on my
property are approaching 20 years in age and remain well below my roof ridge line.
The placement of the one tree to the furthest East of the grouping of the six trees is problematic. I see
no use for the tree other than to act as a further screen to what little views and sun I will have
remaining. I request that tree be removed or be changed to a type no higher than the fence.
Third item:
Fence along the north property...
Response:
I would support the style as proposed to match the existing fence style between Mangano/Lynett
property. However, the specified height of 6 ft and 1 ft lattice is NOT acceptable. There is a 6" to 18"
difference in he finish grades between the applicants property and my property. The proposed height
would create 7'6" to 8'6" foot high fence from my viewpoint, blocking all remaining views and casting
longer shadows. The top of the lattice of the fence must not be higher than 5 feet from the finish
walkway grade on my property side.
I have addressed my A&S concern in my submittal for the 6_9 commission hearing on pages 12, 13 and 14. Those are still
open concerns except for the driveway edging that was address on 6_9 desk item because of city intervention.
tom mangano
Attachment 19
THLS P.9 GE
LI~TE_~'TIO_A==~LL~' LLFT BL.-1_A~K
John Sch«-arz
104 Panorama ~~%ay
Los Gatos, CA 9032
(408)623-1~9~
August 12, 2010
Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 9032
RE: RECDNSIDERATION OF THE 15928 UNION AVENUE
SLBDIVISION PROJECT
Application #hI-08-04 and \~-09-02
Dear Members of the Town Council:
~-~ „~
fi;~ ~±a I ~ ~ t? ~I 0
TO~~lN Or L_OS GA T OS
PJ_.aP~J~JIiVG DIVISION
Thank you for your time in reviewing this proposed Subdivision (again) and for considering my
input. As you know, there has been much prior correspondence on this project, and with that in
mind, I would like to hereby incorporate by reference, the comments that I and my neighbors
have made in prior correspondence and testimony on this project; particularly the fact that this
project is inconsistent with the Town's General Plan, and the Town's Land Use Goals and
Policies (see attached letter from Logan and Powell).
My main points to you are the following:
1) The same Subdivision Map Act Findings for denial apply to this current incarnation of
the project, and
2) The project has been segmented and the CEQA documentation is not adequate.
1. Subdivision Ian Act Findings
As several of us have outlined in our correspondence with the Town, and as you can see if you
review the deliberations at the prior Planning Commission and To«-n Council hearings, the Totvn
denied the previous Subdivision on the basis of subsections (b), (c}, and (d) of Section 66-174 of
the Subdivision '~~Iap Act.
The Planning Commission unanunously agreed last year that Subsections (c) and (d) applied to
the prior incarnation of this project, and these same fmdings still apply to the latest Subdivision
layout. In fact.. at your direction, this latest version of the project was carefully considered by the
Planning Commission in June 2010, and was denied again based on the Subdivision Map Act
findings. I ask you to concur with your Planning Commission findings on this incarnation of the
project.
Attachment 20
Letrer to the Toirn Council
Racwuideration of ly9'8 C'nion :•ive. Suhdii~siorr
:3 rrgrrst I Z, ~ 010
Page ? of 4
2. CEO.a Revie~~ Has Been Segmented and Documentation \ot Adequate
«11i1e this project may be relatiyel}~ small in scale compared to other developments evaluated
under CEQA, given the change in the project scope (the project now also includes Architecture
and Site [A~:S] approval on t.yo lots. but not the third, and may or may not propose demolition
of the existing house), the CEQA documentation completed for this project is not adequate in
accordance ~;~ith CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and relevant case lain.
Since the To~z•n Attorney downplayed and characterized my comments at the June Plannin~~
Commission as just "using the appropriate buzzwords," let me provide a little more detail to this
argument than I was able to in three minutes of verbal testimony. Although my im olyement in
this project is solely as an interested neighbor, as a CEQA practitioner in my professional career,
I am quite familiar Frith the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and relevant case law
on this subject.
CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines, and the courts have repeatedly stated that informed decision
making and public participation are fundamental purposes of the CEQA process [see Citi~erLS of
Goleta Y'alley v. Board of Supen~isor-s, Laurel Heights Impr•overnent Association v. Regents of
the University of California, and :Vo Oil, Irrc. v. City of Los Angeles]. ~ In analyzing and
disclosing the impacts of a project, CEQA very specifically requires the consideration of the
"~~~hole of an action.'•^
CEQA does not allow segmenting or "piecemealing" the project into parts, so as to avoid
analyzing and disclosing all of the enyiromnental impacts of a project. There are numerous legal
cases analyzing this very issue -- see Bo~ung v. Local.Agencv FOr-rrlatrOll COIIZIIIrSSIOII Of Venurra
County and Citizens Association: for Sensible Development ojBishop :4rea v. Corottl- of Lrvo.
According to the court in the Citi.ens :4ssociation.for Sensible Development of Bishop .Area v.
Counh~ of Ingo case:
"Project means the tit~hole of an action, x•Ilich has the potential for resulting rn a pTn•sical
change in the ern•ir-omnent, directly or ultin:atelv... The terra project' refers to the
aCtll'Itl' bt'hlCh IS bern7g appYOVed CnId 1y177C1r Inal' be Subject l0 Seyer'al dISCr'C'tlOnaly'
approvals bti• gover-nn:ental agerrcie.s. The terra project 'does not mean each separate
gol~ernrrrental approval... 1171ere the lead agency could describe the project...as a
development proposal ~t•hich ti~~ill be subject to several gorer•nmerrtal approvals...the lead
agency shall describe the project as the dcvelopntent proposal for the purpose o/~
environunental analysis. "
The To~~n's Initial Study'_~Iitiaated l~egative Declaration was prepared for the prior incarnation
of the Subdivision project in July ?009. The IS 1L`~D has not been revised to address the new
Subdivision layout, and it has not been expanded to address the specifics of the AR.S approvals
or the potential implications of leaning the existing residence in place on the site. Page 1 and
` Practice t'nder the California En.ironmental Qualin~ Act. First Edition. Section 1.18. 199i.
CEQ:~1 Guidelines Sections 1 ~ 163(x)(1). 1~ 126. and 1?~ ; 8, as amended. ?U1l).
Letter to the To~ti~n Council
Reconsideration of ].1928 (JS:iorz At%e. Subdirisiai
.4ugtut 12, 2010
Page 3 of 4
of the Town's prior IS~I~~-D describe the project as only including the proposed Subdivision and
demolition of the existing house. Page 2 of the Initial Study specifically says:
"The project application does not irtclude specific del~~elopment desid is for homes on the
proposed lots. Spec f c development desi~as on the proposed lots tit-ould be evaluated at
a later phase of project plantiirzg, as part of the !I&S approval process. "
Some of the enviromnental impact conclusions in the Initial Study were deferred until the AR;S
stage. Similarly, the Staff s responses to the public comments on the ISi~LtiD ul ?009 state that
the land use compatibility as well as the aesthetics/view- impacts of the future homes "...will be
evaluated as part of Architecture and Site review when specific building designs are proposed."
Now, subsequent to the Town Council granting '`reconsideration" of this Subdivision project
earlier this year, the applicant has changed the project, and is actually seeking A&S approval for
houses on to-o of the lots. It is clearly inappropriate to add additional project elements and
discretionary approvals to the project after the public development review process and in the
midst of a "reconsideration" appeal. (Since the AR'S elements have never been "considered" by
the Town, how can they be added to the project in this reconsideration stage`') Moreover, the
site specific impacts of these houses and their designs have never been evaluated under CEQA
(and if any additional analysis has been done; it has not been circulated to the public for review).
In fact, the Initial Studv_ explicitly calls for and pronuses such further evaluation, but it has not
been completed.'
Therefore, the public has not had any opportunity to review or comment on such analysis of the
A&S; w-hick clearly violates one of the primary goals of CEQA cited above. Therefore, there is
no CEQA clearance for the A&S, and the Town has no ability to approve the ARTS for any of the
houses on this site.
Additionally, it is project segmentation and piecemealing under CEQA to only evaluate some of
the proposed and necessary discretionary actions on this site in the Initial Study. The whole
"project" needs to be evaluated comprehensively in one public CEQA document and recirculated
to the public for another 30-day review period. An adequate CEQA document for this project
must evaluate all of the following project elements: 1) the currently proposed Subdivision; ?)
A&S for all 3 proposed houses; 3) impacts from the eventual demolition of the existing
residence; 4} a discussion and analysis of the proposed construction phasing and timing of
buildout; and ~) analysis of the implications for the site design and project construction if the
existing home remains indefinitely.
' See Practice >rnder the California Environmental Quality Act. First Edition. Section 12. 1997. and CEQA
Guidelines Section 1~378(a) and (c).
Letter to tl~e ro~t•n Council
Reconsideration aJ 1 ~9~8 Union Are. Subdivision
Ata~tst 11, ?010
Pa,Qe 4 of 4
This is a clear deficiency with the CEQ:~ analysis and development review process for this
project. ~t~e have asked the Town repeatedl}• verbally and in «~riting to undertake this additional
«-ork to correct this deficiency. and have exhausted all admitvstrative remedies.' If this project
is appro~'ed ~;-ith only the information currently available, there is clear cause for a legal
challenge to the CEQA process and approval of this project.
I respectfully request that you uphold the prior land use decision on this site and deny the
currently proposed Subdivision on the same grounds of the Subdivision flap Act Findings. In
am' case, the environmental review documents need to be augmented and recirculated to address
the entire project as currently proposed.
Thank you again for your time and for considering my input on this project.
Sincerely.
John Sch~yarz
cc: Suzanne Davis, Planning Department, To«-n of Los Gatos
Geoff and Linda Mitchell, 115 Panorama «'ay
Ian Esche and Golida van Haeruigen, 107 Panorama ~~-ay
Greg and Cecilia Holmberg, 103 Panorama ~Vay
Jeff and Terry Hickey, 100 Panorama ~~'ay
Mike Brown, 108 Panorama ~Vay
Thomas Mangano, 116 Panorama ~~'ay
' See Practice L-nder thz California En~ironmentat Quality Act. First Edition. Section "?~.9=. 1997.
L~GAN & P4WELL LLB
ATTOR~`~EI'S AT it._A~V
Robert J. Logan, of Counsel
Fl East bfain Street, Suite C ^ Los Gatos, California 95030 ^ Telechone (405) 395-1350 ^ Fax (40S) 395-1354 E-mail: info@loga.^.powell.com
Hand Delivered
January 28, 2010
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-0$-13, ND-09-02
Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
This office represents residents of Panorama Way, Union Avenue and Cambrian
View in their opposition to the above listed matter. These neighbors remain opposed to
this project and any reconsideration of this Council's denial of this project on November
2, 2009. The November 2, 2009, decision was the right decision for the neighborhood
and the Town of Los Gatos.
With three (3) lots, this project is trying to put too much on too narrow of a parcel.
No matter how the lots are sliced, it will still be too much on too narrow of a parcel. As
outlined in more detail below, the project with three {3} lots is inconsistent with the
Town's General Plan and the surrounding neighborhood and therefore, must be denied.
Reconsideration of this project is unnecessary.
Pursuant to Government Code § 66474, the Town Council "shall deny approval
of a tentative map..." if it makes any of the findings outlined in that section. Given the
facts of this project, the fo!!o:":,ng findings must be made; "(b) That the design oC
imnrnuamcnt of tha nrnnncari ci lhrliyisinn is not r_.nngigtent with annlir_.able n~neral and
r... ~„ .., r.., .....- -- r r -
specific plans; (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;
and (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development."
"A proposed subdivision steal! be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan
only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision
or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies; general land uses, and programs
specified in such a plan." (Government Code § 66473.5) Due to the density and design
of this three (3) lot subdivision, it is inconsistent with the Land Use Element and the
Community Design Element of the Town's General Plan. In addition, the narrow parcel
is not physically suited for the development of three (3) lots.
Mitthe!I. Gea'pCOrrlMitchell Ta+.n Council tt: C1.2@.7 G.sq
Honorable Mayor and ToVrn Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 2
INCONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE ELEMENT
As you know, the Town prides itself on its small tovrn heritage, natural setting
and architectural diversity. In the Land Use Element of the Town's General Plan, the
Town acknowledges that preserving these attributes is important to this community and
new development should be well-designed to preserve and enhance these attributes.
To that end, the Town has established goals, policies and implementing strategies
which must be followed. The project as proposed is inconsistent with several Land Use
Goals and Policies.
Land Use Goal 3.1 (L.G.3.1} requires the Town "to maintain the existing
character of residential neighborhoods by controlling development." (L.G.3.1) One of the
policies adopted to reach this goal is L.P.3.5 which states "assure that the type and
intensity of land use shall be consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood." As
determined by this Council on November 2, 2009, the immediate neighborhood is the
Panorama Way/Union Avenue neighborhood. The project will be accessed on Union
Avenue and through Panorama Way. The immediate neighborhood is not Lee~vood
Court because rt is physically separated from the project site by an eight (8) foot
retaining wall and a five (5} foot grade separation." Development consistent with
Panorama Way/Union Avenue should follow the rectilinear orientation and involve only
two (2) lots on that parcel as shown on Exhibit A. This development pattern is
consistent with the development pattern that was approved on a similarly narrow parcel
on Blossom Hill Road as shown on Exhibit B. The developer of that parcel also
requested a three (3) lot subdivision but was constrained to two (2) lots for these same
reasons. The development pattern of the proposed project with three {3) lots is
inconsistent with the immediate neighborhood.
Another goal outlined in the Town's General Plan is Land Use Goal 2.1 (L.G.2.1)
which requires the Town "to limit the intensity of new development to a level consistent
with surrounding development and with the Town at large." For ail of the reasons
previously expressed by the immediate neighbors of this project, approving Three (3)
lots on this parcel is not consistent with the intensity of development in the surrounding
neighborhood. As stated above, the immediate neighborhood (Panorama Way and
Union Avenue} is developed in a traditional rectilinear orientation. In order to squeeze
three (3) lots onto this narrow parcel, the developer is forced to orient the lots at angles
to meet the minimum requirements. This change in orientation is contrary to the
development pattern of the neighborhood and should not be approved merely to allow a
developer to maximize his investment. It is inconsistent with surrounding development.
Atiictvl, Geof4'Com'hk~ct~ei 'own CouncllU 01.28.?C.sq
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 3
Another policy in the Town' General Plan that is relevant to this project relates to
infill development.' Although the Planning Commission inferred this was not an infill
project because the land is developed with one residential unit, the policies and goals
are applicable because that one residential unit is proposed to be demolished to make
way far the creation and development of three (3) new lots within an area that is already
largely developed. Therefore, the following policies should also be considered:
1) Land Use Policy 1.7 (L.P.1.7) provides °In-fill projects shall contribute to the
further development of the surrounding neighborhood (e.g. improve circulation,
contribute to or provide neighborhood unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract
from the existing quality of life)."
2} Land Use Policy 1.8 (L.P.1.8} provides "In-fill projects shall be designed in
context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the
existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather
than compete with the established character of the area."
The strategies to implement these policies include:
"L.1.1.3. 1n-fill project/Community Benefit: Applicants for in-fill projects shall
demonstrate that the project has a strong community benefit."
"L.1.1.4. !n-fill project/Community Benefit: The deciding body shall make specific
findings of community benefit before approving any in-fill project."
As stated repeatedly by the neighbors, this project with three {3} lots is not
designed in context with the surrounding neighborhood. Cramming three (3) lots onto
this narrow parcel does not create any community benefit.
INCONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
The Towns General Pian includes a Community Design Element which is
intended to protect the unique characteristics that define the Town. To do so, the
element includes a goal "to preserve and enhance the Town's character through
exceptional community design." (CD.G.1,1) The policies to reach this goal include
"avoid abrupt changes in scale and density" (CD.P.1.5) and "new structures, remodels,
landscapes and hardscapes shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale
and rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area." {CD.P.1.7} Forcing
three (3) lots onto this narrow parcel results in an abrupt change in scale and density
' The General Plan defines Ir.nll Development as "Develcpment of vacant land {usually individual lots or
left-over properties) within areas that are already largely developed.
h!iic~8. 3e~lCcrclMitc^.ee Tovn Co~ru! Its C1.2d.? Csq
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 4
and breaks the established rhythm and pattern of the Panorama Way/Union Avenue
neighborhood. Any three (3) lot subdivision is inconsistent with the Town's Community
Design Element of its General Plan and therefore, must be denied.
Any development proposal on this parcel that provides for the creation of three
(3} lots will be inconsistent with the Town's General Plan. No further consideration of
this project is necessary as long as the developer is proposing the creation of three (3)
lots. The narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the creation of three (3) lots. The
creation of three (3) lots is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. These
findings will not change. Therefore, this subdivision or any subdivision creating three (3)
lots on this parcel cannot be approved. This project should be denied on February 1,
2010. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours, _ p
~~ ~~~J ~
Kirsten M. Powell
KMP:sq
enclosures
cc: client
Michael P~9artello, I;,terim Tovrn Attorney
Suzanne Davis, Project Planner
Mrt;hell, GeolOCwrtltitche~ Tenn Counc'. Is 05?9.t0.sq