2010081806 - Desk Itemto~Vn of MEETING DATE: 08/16/10
ITEM NO. +
.,N,,,t ~.~ DESK ITEM ~O
cos c`a~os COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: August 16, 2010
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: GREG CARSON, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH ASINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE,
TO SUBDIVIDE A .93 ACRE PARCEL INTO THREE LOTS, AND TO
CONSTRUCT TWO NEW RESIDENCES ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:8. NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS
A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED. APN 527-42-008. ARCHITECTURE
AND SITE APPLICATIONS 5-08-30, S-09-33, AND 5-09-34; SUBDIVISION
APPLICATION M-08-13; NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-09-02. PROPERTY
LOCATION: 15928 UNION AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: 217
O'CONNOR LLC. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: TONY JEANS.
DISCUSSION:
Attachments 21 through 23 are correspondence from concerned neighbors that were received
following distribution of the staff report and addendum.
Attaclunents:
1-20. Previously received (attached to staff report and addendum)
21. Letter from Cecilia Holmberg, received August 13, 2010
22. Email from Stephanie Lynott, received August 16, 2010
23. Email from Thomas Mangano, received August 16, 2010
WRR:SD:ct
~N
PREPARED BY: '~Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Comnnmity Development
Reviewed by: S~ Assistant Town Manager own Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development Revised: sn ono zs9 FM
N:\DEV\SUZANNEYCouncilVicports\Fwd. to TC\appeals\Union I5928A8I610-dsk.doc
Keformatted: 5/30/02
~~t
August 12, 2010
Los Gatos Town Council
110 East Main
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: 15928 Union Avenue
Honorable Mayor McNutt and Councihnembers:
60 9,a F~ S~E~ tl~
~~lu `, :± `~Ji~
TOWN Oi= I.OS GATOB
PLANNING DIVISION
I'm sure you're all well aware that many of us in the Panorama Way neighborhood have
been heavily and persistently involved in this proposed project since the first plans were
filed back in early 2008.
More than two years and multiple Planning Commission meetings in, we have wan
agreement from the Commmission at every turn, and often unanimously, that this three-lot
proposal is inappropriate for the property because the density and scale of the proposed
homes does not fit our neighborhood under the town's General Plan, and the proposal
itself does not meet CEQA regulations governing this type of development.
Now, at this critical point in time, we face a Council meeting which several of the most
impacted neighbors are unable to attend due to circuntstancesbeyond their control. I
sincerely hope that the Council will take the past two-plus years' worth of tireless
neighborhood involvement into careful consideration and continue the hearing at next
week's meeting to allow all of us to attend in person at a later date.
Howeuer, if that is not possible, then I respectfully exhort the Council to please uphold
all of the Planning Commission's previous votes on this matter, and deny this proposal.
Sincerel r
~l
~~i-
Cecilia Holmberg
103 Panorama Way
cc: Suzanne Davis, Planning Department, Town of Los Gatos
Geoff and Linda Mitchell, 11 S Panorama Way
Ian Esche and Golida van Haeriugen, 107 Panorama Way
Jeff and Terty Hickey, 100 Panorama Way
Mike Brown, 108 Panorama Way
Tom Mangano, 116 Panorama Way
Otv and Karen Buesing, 15892 Union Avenue
Stephanie Lynott, 15910 Union Avemie
Paul and Jane De Bella, 118 Cambrian View Way
Attachment 21
Suzanne Davis
From: Stephanie Lynott <slynott@stmaryslg.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 15, 2010 3:53 PM ~~~~~
To: Suzanne Davis
Subject: 15928 Union Avenue AUG ~ ~ ZU10
TOWN OF I.OS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Mayor McNutt and Council Members,
I am Stephanie Lynott, residing at 15910 Union Avenue, parallel to 15928 Union Ave. My family has lived in Los Gatos
for 70 years, all eight children graduating from Los Gatos High, and we are now onto the third generation, all in Los
Gatos, too. Five of us eight children, now very into adulthood, live is Los Gatos. I have taught over 30 years in Los Gatos
and my niece has been teaching in LGUSD for aver 10 years. We are embedded in this town and have an unending love
for this town.
Having been here for so many years and keeping up with local politics, I know how controversial the decisions of the
Planning Commission and Town Council can be and what a thankless job it can be at times. However, I would like to
thank all of you for the time, care, patience, and considerations given to the Panorama/Union contingency. We are a
fine group of "Los Gatans" who love the beauty of Los Gatos and want to preserve that beauty when and where
possible. Along with appreciation of Suzanne Davis, I also appreciate all of you have done, regardless of what the
outcome will be.
I would like to continue with a series of concerns, requests and/or comments regarding the development of the
property at 15928 Union Ave.
1. I ask that Lot 1 be represented as part of the package of Lots 2&3 and that Lot lplans should be fully disclosed before
any final decisions are made. Seeing the impact that Lot 2 has had, I feel we need to see Lot 1 to get the full scope of the
project. On numerous occasions I asked Tony about Lot Z designs, he said I didn't need to worry, it's bacl<there, it won't
heavily impact you. I said I just didn't want to see a monster home developed, he said there wouldn't. The monster
home has arrived and this has caused me lose confidence in Tony's words. I feel used and "schmoozed" by words. I now
want to see.
2. I ask that you uphold the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the plans as presented. Planning had valid
and realistic reasons for their decision and I am in agreement with them. These are reflected in the Council Agenda
Report, which I'm sure you have looked at. The points have also been brought up numerous times with Planning,
Commission, Town Council and by our neighborhood people.
3. I fully support the 2 lot, single story housing proposal put forth by the Panorama/Union group. If not 2 lots, then
single stories should be the outcome. We are the ones heavily impacted by the plans of the developer, the ones who will
live with the results of your choices. Supporters that signed a petition for Jeff Grant's proposal are from the Tersini
DEvelopment on Lausen, totally removed the impact of the decision.
4. The present design of the two story house on Lot 2 is overwhelming, intense, immense, and does not just interrupt
views, it completely obliterates the views. When I have to bend over to see the sky from my dining porch, family room,
bedroom, and kitchen, that is the first indicator of immense. Lot 1 will do the same thing even at a single story.
Although only the garage wall story poles are up, my views from two bedrooms and the bathroom are gone.
Attachment 22
5. As a design question, if Lot 1 on Union is single and Lot 2 becomes two story behind it, you will see this house sticking
up from behind Lot 1 house when looking at it from Union Ave. That's a head scratcher......... where is that house back
there???????? Is it part of Lot 1??????? How did it get there?????
I am not sure at what point the following requests would come up in this process, but I would like to put them out there
now for your consideration.
1.That the developer put up all fencing and screening plants at the onset of the project. This will at least afford some
privacy over the years and give the plants a head start ingrowth. We have been told that the fence will match the
Lynott/Mangano backyard fence.
2. I ask that there be no weekend hours for development, as I have seen on the Robson project at the Boulevard and
Caldwell. If three lots are approved, I have the next few years of traffic, noise, dirt and lack of privacy to live with next
door to me. This will be lengthened as Lots 2&3 are said to be developed first and then start the whole process again on
the side of my house with Lot 1. Living with the noise for years from the Tersini Development across the street was a
nightmare, this will be worse, especially when I have summers off from school. At least there would be two days for a
reprieve and you can have company over and be able to sit in your yard to visit and hear a conversation.
3. I request that not ALL construction vehicles and employee parking enter and exit Union Ave., which will go back and
forth next door to me. I feel the traffic burden should spread out, not left solely on me to receive because i am one
compared to many.
In conclusion, even with single story houses, my views will be gone, but at least the overwhelming design of Lot 2 will be
reduced and more in proportion to our neighborhood. I ask for responsible, compatible, design. You may not like the
work of Frank Lloyd Wright, but his philosophy of design are correct, be in harmony with your surroundings, fit in, so to
speak. Even the Native Americans lived that way. The present proposals do not fit this philosophy in any way, shape, or
form. In fact, the present plans do just the opposite.
I ask that you makeappropriate design happen.
Respectfully, Stephanie Lynott, along with Benny Pierce
Suzanne Davis
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
August 15, 2010
Suzanne Davis:
Thomas.mangano <hunthunter@verizon.net>
Monday, August 16, 2010 1:53 PM
Suzanne Davis
thomas.ma ngano@verizon.net
Desk item: General plan summary 8 16
I want to document a number of General Plan conflicts that 15928 Union avenue proposal
presents. Because I do not have time to present them, please accept this email as a desk
item for documentation of my concerns. Given that the council is very familiar with the
content of the Los Gatos General Plan this should not be considered new information, but
the Council may want to reference this document in the case they have any questions for
me tonight when I talk about the appeal and General plan context.
Thank you
Tom Mangano, 112 Panorama Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
1.1 VISION FOR LOS GATOS
Los Gatos is a truly special place and residents want to protect their community from the increasing
development pressures of the region.
......Residents make it clear when development projects fail to meet their expectations. Proposed development
projects are held to a higherstandard and what is approved in other communities may not be acceptable in
Las Gatos.
Extreme care must be used in approving all new development applications......
Support of new development from surrounding residents and property owners will be a major consideration
during any development review process.......
Preserving the small-town character of Los Gatos is a collection of related issues, including human scale of
development historic preservation, density and intensity, population growth, downtown, development in the
Route 85/North 40 area, congestion, open space, views of the hills, the nature of businesses located in Town,
protection of the Town's various neighborhoods, and community design.
USE and Purpose of the General Plan
Attachment 23
L.P.43 Maintain the character and identity of existing neighborhoods. New construction, remodels, and
additions shall be compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood.
L.P.8.3 Preserve and protect the natural state of the Santa Cruz Mountains and surrounding hillsides, by,
among other things discouraging development on and near the hillsides as well as development that blocks
the views of the hillsides.
L.P.8.11 Encourage the use of scenic easements to preserve viewsheds.
L.1.2.6
Limit the amount of increase in the floor area of a project when the number of units is reduced as part of
the development review process. (L.1.2.6 -revised)
Community Design Elements
CD.P.1.1 Promote and protect the physical and other distinctive qualities of residential neighborhoods
CD.P.1.4 Promote and protect viewsheds.
CD.P.1.5 Avoid abrupt changes in scale and density.
CD.P.1.7 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.1.8 Building elements shall be in proportion with those traditionally in the neighborhood.
CD.P.1.9 Building, landscape and hardscape materials shall be used that will reinforce the sense of unity of a
neighborhood and blend with the natural setting.
CD.P.1.11 New structures or remodels that will affect existing scenic views of neighbors shall be designed so
that all affected properties have equitable access to views.
NOISE ELEMENT
N.P.1.5 Protect residential areas from noise by requiring appropriate site and building design, sound walls,
and landscaping and by the use of noise attenuating construction techniques and materials.
N.P.1.12 Evaluate the noise impacts of new development in terms of any increase of the existing ambient
noise levels and the potential for adverse noise impacts on nearby or adjacent properties. The evaluation
shall consider short term construction noise and On-going operational noise.