08 Desk Item - 15928 Union AvenueMEETING DATE: 12/07/09
ITEM NO.
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: December 7, 2009
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEYO
SUBJECT: 15928 UNION AVENUE
APN: 527-42-008; ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-08-30;
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-08-13; NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-09-
02; PROPERTY OWNER: 217 O'CONNOR LLC; APPLICANT/APPELLANT:
TONY JEANS
A. ADOPT RESOLUTION DENYING APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A REQUEST TO DEMOLISH A
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND TO SUBDIVIDE A .93 ACRE
PROPERTY INTO THREE LOTS ON PROPERTY ZONED R 1:8; OR
B. DECIDE WHETHER TO RECONSIDER DECISION DENYING APPEAL
(requires motion and approval by a majority of the quorum)
DISCUSSION:
The attached letters were received following distribution of the staff report for this item. Attachment
3 is from the applicant's attorney. Attachments 4 through 9 are from Panorama Way residents.
Attachments:
1.-2. Previously received
3. Letter from Norman E. Matteoni (two pages), received December 4, 4009
4. Letter from Geoff Mitchell (two pages), received December 6, 2009
5. Letter from Thomas Mangano (two pages), received December 7, 2009
6. Letter from Teny Harris -Hickey (one page), received December 7, 2009
7. Letter from Cecilia Holmberg (one page), received December 7, 2009
8. Letter from Stephanie Lynott (one page), received December 7, 2009
9. Letter from John Schwarz (one page), received December 7, 2009
WRR:SD
N:DEV\SUZANNE\COUNCIL\REPORTS\FWD. TO TC\APPEALS\UNION15928-DSK-120709.DOC
PREPARED BY: Wendie R. Rooney, Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: M Assistant Town Manager l/own Attorney Clerk Finance
Community Development
Revised:12/7/09 3:17 PM
Refonnatted: 5/30/02
1
�jatteoni
O'Laughlin
Hechttnan
AWYERS
Norman E. Matteoni
Peggy M. O'Laughlin
-Bradley M. Matteoni
Barton G. Hechttnan
Gerry Houlihan
848 The Alameda
San Jose, CA 95126
ph. 40.8.293.4300
•l fax. 408.293.4004
www.matteoni.com
December 4, 2009
Honorable Mayor and Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos
Town Hall
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
RECEIVED
DEC 0 4 2009
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Re: Proposed .Adoption of Resolution for 15928 Union Avenue;
Consent Calendar (Item #8)'for 12/7/09
Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council:
I note that the Staff Report indicates the possibility of reconsideration of the
decision denying the appeal in this matter, which I do believe is in order.
But, let me speak to the proposed resolution which I submit is not•supported
by findings required under the Subdivision Map Act,
First, the key findings identified by the Planning Commission and purportedly
applicable are that the site is not physically suitable.for the density and use of
the proposed development. These two findings cannot be made when the
• density is less (lot size) than indicated by the General Plan and Zoning District
and the use (residential) is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning
District. The parcel is regular shaped and has no topographical or other
physical problems.
The real issue appears to be over design (the third finding offered by the
Council vote for denial) and the Town Attorney has supplied a rationale of
creation of angled parcels, which was not mentioned by the Council in the
hearing of October 20, 2009. There was concern expressed by the Council,
however, over the appearance of a "corridor" or `_`flag" lot. While such lots
may be discouraged under the General Plan, tliey :are not prohibited. More
importantly, it is not the appearance that is discouraged but an actual flag lot.
There is no flag lot under the Town's code within the subdivision} presented;
the layout ,pf the two lots on the cul-d-sac have appropriate cul-d-sac frontage.
Attachment 3
Madam Mayor and Members of the ,Council December 4, 2009
Page 2
The development, of this parcel requires a cul-d-sac to finish Panorama Way and provide an
appropriate emergency turn around. Cu1-d-sacs prevail throughout the Town and by
definition result in angled lots with houses not square to the street. Take as an example, at
• the corner of Bean and Massol, there is an angled street known -as Massol Court; the single
family residences on that court are angled to the lot pattern otherwise prevailing on the two
intersecting streets. The large house at the opening of Massol Court virtually cuts the corner
diagonally in its orientation to the two intersecting streets. There are other cul-d-sacs in the
Glen Ridge area of the town (three of which are off of Bachman), providing what are
considered a desirable variations in lotting patterns.
Certainly cul-d-sacs are not inconsistent with the Town's General Plan. And, there is nothing
in the General Plan or Zoning District which supports the Town finding against angled
parcels within a cul-d-sac.
There are even several in the Union Avenue area and soine nearly abutting lots on Panorama.
' Furthermore, one street does not make a neighborhood. Your zoning and subdivision
noticing requirements go to the entire surrounding area, not just to one side of the proposed
development.
While the neighbors and majority of the Council do not like the appearance of the so called
flag lot, that is not a reason for denial under the Subdivision Map Act when the lots meet
code requirements.
However, there is another solution within the record of the hearing in October. You will
recall that there was an alternate cul-d-sac 3 lot plan presented with no shared driveway off
of Panorama. The Council needs to identify that 3 lots are appropriate for this property under
the density and residential use allowed by the General Plan and Zoning. The alternate
provided, although on angles, alignment with the houses on the west side of Panorama.
Very truly yours,
NORMAN E. MATTEONI
cc: Town Attorney
Town Community Development Director
Jeff Grant
Tony Jeans
Page 1 of 2
Suzanne Davis - Town Council Meeting Agenda Item #8: 15928 Union Avenue APN: 527-42-008
From: Geoff Mitchell <gsm@geoffinitchell.com>
To: Suzanne Davis <SDavis@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/6/2009 9:24 PM
IVED
DEC 0 6 2009
Subject: Town Council Meeting Agenda Item #8: 15928 Union Avenue AP 5M,,g7d2LQ9 GATO$
CC: <panoramaway@googlegroups.com>, Ory Buesing <obuesing@gmrtilxcnoNalplet8N
Lynott <slynott@stmaryslg.org>, Paul De Bella <paul@debellamech.com>,
<luismartinez@comcast.net>, "May, Pat" <PMay@mercurynews.com>
Dear Suzanne Davis,
Please submit this email to the Town Council and as a desk item for the 12/07/2009 Town Council
meeting.
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Town Council Members,
I am writing regarding agenda item #8 for the upcoming Town Council meeting on December 7th, 15928
Union Avenue APN: 527-42-008.
As an impacted neighbor, I have followed the proposals for the lot at 15928 Union Avenue for almost 2
years now. I have spoken at both Planning Commission and Town Council meetings and have repeatedly
written regarding my concerns and objections to the concept of a 3 lot subdivision.
As you and the planning commissioners have heard from myself and all of the immediate neighbors,
none of us consider the development of 3 homes on this property to be an acceptable proposal, regardless
of layout or orientation. This was the unanimous conclusion of the Planning Commission, and the appeal
of this decision was denied by a majority vote of the Town Council on November 7, 2009.
I have been advised that the applicant has now requested that the November decision once again be
reconsidered, and that they be allowed to return to the planning commission with an alternate
configuration but still a 3-lot division.
My understanding is that the decision of the Planning Commission may be appealed with the Town
Council once, and once only. The decision of the Town Council on an appeal is a final decision, not one
subject to further appeal, regardless of the applicant's desire to negotiate or request an exception to the
existing process. In fact, were that an option or established as a precedent, I would imagine the appeal
process would quickly dominate the agenda for months to come with appeals of appeals.
The Planning Commission's decisions were appropriate, and the Town Council's denial of the appeal was
in keeping with the intention of the Planning Commission and the Town Codes that were referenced
supporting the Planning Commission's decision.
As published in the Town Council minutes, the motion made and approved was as follows:
The Planning Commission did not err because under Sub Division Map Act "B" that the design or
improvement of the proposed sub division is not consistent with the applicable General and Specific
Plans and the reason for that is under the General Plan, Section L.P. 3.5 the land use shall be
consistent with that of the immediate neighborhood and Section C.D. P. 1.5 to avoid abrupt changes
in scale and density. Additionally, Sub Division Map Act Section "C" the site is not physically suitable
both for the type of development and that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
file://C:\Users\sdavis\AppData\Local \ Temp \XPgrpwise\4B 1 C2109TOWN_DOTOWNPC Attachment 4
Page 2 of 2
the development based on facts relating to the inconsistency of the lot configuration which would lead to
inconsistency in house configuration which was also supported by neighborhood compatibility
mentioned in Sub Dividion Map Act "B".
Please continue to uphold the conclusions of the Planning Commission and your published Town
Council conclusions as well. Please also make it clear that, as indicated in the motion, the issue is not
merely "Flag Lot" orientation, but the density that will come from any configuration of 3 lots. Any
further proposals for the development of this property should adhere to the conclusions of these
two governing bodies, and should be limited to a maximum subdivision of 2 lots.
Respectfully,
Geoff Mitchell
115 Panorama Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
file://C:\Users\sdavis\AppData\Local \ Temp \XPgrpwise\4B 1 C2109TOWN DOTOWNPO1... 12/7/2009
RECEIVED
DEC 0 7 2009
Suzanne: TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Here are the facts:
1) On November 2, 2009, the Council denied the applicant's
appeal for the 15928 Union Avenue project.
2) The Council clearly explained and documented multiple reasons
for its decision as stated in the subject resolution:
a. Geometry and lot orientation
b. Flag lot
c. D ensity
3) At the Planning Commission's August 26, 2009 meeting, when
asked by Commissioner Philip Micciche if he had considered
other alternatives, the applicant replied: "No."
4) As you explained to me when the initial 4-parcel application for
Union project was also denied by the Planning Commission, the
associated "risk" of a Planning Commission appeal being denied
is that the permit application is terminated and the applicant
must start the process over from the beginning for any
alternative plans.
The applicant had 14 months to discuss alternative plans with the
neighbors, the council, and/or the planning commission. But instead
of listening to the neighborhood or the planning commission, the
applicant proceeded to appeal the flag lot proposal to the council.
Now, rather than following established procedures (when an appeal is
denied), the applicant wants to pretend the appeal denial vote "never
happened".
If the applicant wants to submit another plan, of course he has that
right, and I look forward to reviewing the new proposal and working
with the applicant to achieve common objectives. He just needs to
start the permit process anew like any other applicant and pay the
fees like any other individual who requires a NEW building permit!
I cannot imagine that the Council is entertaining the notion of
changing the rules after the vote. This is a serious matter that extends
Attachment 5
beyond the Union Avenue project. The applicants request must be
denied by a 5-o vote to maintain not only the future harmony of any
Los Gatos neighborhood but also the very integrity and credibility of
the Town's appeal process. I strongly hope our elected officials vote to
publish the pending resolution as the anticipated outcome of the
denied appeal vote on November 2, 2009.
Thomas Mangano
112 Panorama Way
Los Gatos, Ca 95032
--- On Fri, 12/4/09, Suzanne Davis
<SDavisplosgatosca.gov> wrote:
Page 1 of 1
Suzanne Davis - RE: Town Council Meeting Agenda Item #8: 15928 Union Avenue APN: 527-42-
008
From: "Terry Harris -Hickey" <tharris@integra-insurance.com>
To: "'Suzanne Davis" <SDavis@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/7/2009 8:56 AM
Subject: RE: Town Council Meeting Agenda Item #8: 15928 Union Avenue APN: 527-42-008
CC: "'Ory Buesing'" <obuesing@gmail.com>, "'Stephanie Lynott'"
<slynott@stmaryslg.org>, "'Paul De Bella'" <paul@debellamech.com>, RECEIVED
<luismartinez@comcast.net>, "'May, Pat"' <PMay@mercurynews.com>,
<panoramaway@googlegroups.com> DEC 0 7 200:)
To Suzanne David for submission as a desk item for the 12/7/09 Town Council meeting:
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Town Council Members,
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I am writing to you with regards to agenda item #8 (15928 Union Avenue APN:527-42-008) for tonight's Town
Council Meeting.
I am having a hard time understanding why this item is once again on the agenda and why we did not receive an
official notice on this. The neighborhood has been following this issue for two years, we have never missed a
meeting with regards to this issue and yet we did not receive an official notice that this was back on the
agenda? I am wondering why this was?
On November 2, 2009 the Town Council denied this appeal and noted that "the site was not physically suitable
for the proposed density of the development". We were led to believe that once an appeal had been declined
there was no further recourse on the part applicant other than to start over again with the planning
commission. Why are there special allowances being made in this situation?
I am asking that you uphold the original and binding vote of November 2nd as well as the intent of the Planning
Commission's decision and consider nothing more than two lots on this parcel.
Respectfully submitted,
Terry Hickey
100 Panorama Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Terry Harris -Hickey I Partner
Integra Employee Benefits Insurance Services
+'•
•
I# t+ g --t
InuurtcricaSQIUSiQnzr
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
Attachment 6
file://C:\Users\sdavis\AppData\Local\Temp\XPgrpwise\4B 1 CC342TOWN DOTOWN1
Page 1 of 3
Suzanne Davis - Re: Town Council Meeting Agenda Item #8: 15928 Union Avenue APN: 527-42-
008
- ,_
ED
From: cecilia holmberg <ceciliashao2000@yahoo.com> DEC 0 7 2009
To: Suzanne Davis <SDavis@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/7/2009 9:43 AM TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Subject: Re: Town Council Meeting Agenda Item #8: 15928 Union Avenue APN: 5 ' -A 'J83 DIVISION
CC: <panoramaway@googlegroups.com>, Ory Buesing <obuesing@gmail.com>, Stephanie
Lynott <slynott@stmaryslg.org>, Paul De Bella <paul@debellamech.com>,
<luismartinez@comcast.net>, "May, Pat" <PMay@mercurynews.com>
Hi Suzanne, please submit this email to the Town Council as a desk item for the 12/07/2009 Council
meeting as well.
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Town Council Members,
As yet another Panorama Way resident who has followed this matter from the beginning, I am writing to
echo what my neighbor, Geoff Mitchell, has written below.
Mr. Grant's and Mr. Jeans' application for a three lot subdivision was ultimately and unanimously denied
by the Planning Commission because the density is too high for our neighborhood, not simply because
of the flag lot configuration. They then lost their appeal to the Town Council. I am dismayed to hear,
through the neighborhood grapevine and less than 24 hours ahead of tomorrow's Council meeting, that
they seem to have been granted some kind of exceptional dispensation to appear before the Council
again, without notice to the interested parties.
Even a casual inspection of the record will show the conflict that the neighborhood has had with the
applicants over statements that did not have a sound basis in fact. I find this surprise appearance before
the Council to be more evidence of the lack of integrity around this project, and I'm deeply troubled by
it. The record should also show that the flag lot configuration was chosen by the applicant to avoid
having to get a variance on the frontage requirement of a pie configuration, and so that larger buildable
footprints would be available.
Please do not allow the applicant to subvert the Town's own process by reconsidering the denial of their
appeal, but support the Planning Commission's, and the Council's own, previous decisions to deny this
proj ect.
Respectfully,
Cecilia Holmberg
Attachment 7
file://C:\Users\sdavis\AppData\Local \Temp\XPgrpwise\4B 1 CCE3 3TO WN_DOTO WNP
1 YE•
From: Stephanie Lynott <slynott@stmaryslg.org>
To: Suzanne Davis <sdavis@losgatosca.gov> DEC 7 2009
CC: Geoff Mitchell <gsm@geoffmitchell.com>
Date: 12/7/2009 11:40 AM 'WN C" , GATr"
Subject: 15928 Union Ave. .t11 ...
Dear Ms. Davis,
Would you please submit the following letter to the Town Council
members for desk tonight's meeting, December 7, 2009? Thank you,
Stephanie
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Town Council members,
I reside at 15910 Union Ave., the half acre lot adjacent to 151928
Union Ave. and I am concerned, once more, regarding item #8 at
tonight's meeting related to the15928 Union Ave. subdivision proposal.
Because of my close proximity to this proposed development, and the
total impact on my privacy, view, and lighting going the full length
of the half acre, I am concerned about yet another attempt to get
permission to develop a three lot subdivision.
This issue has gone on and on, and between the Planning Department
votes and the Town Council votes, only two votes have been in support
of this three lot development. It is my hope that the Town Council
will stay in alignment with the vast majority of votes against this
three lot subdivision for the reasons that Geoff Mitchell has
expressed in an earlier email. I have received a copy of his email
and concur with all points given.
What we have seen over this two plus year period is this shifting
around of houses and drives and roads in an attempt to plop a house
in the middle of a lot. As I said at the Town Council meeting, I see
the reason for this going on and on being the developer trying to
fit something in that does not fit. Clearly, the Planning Department
and the Town Council must see the same issue. The developer also seems
to have no regard for final votes and outcomes of many meetings. How
long can this keep going on? If we don't get what we want do we
continue to bombard Town meetings until we get what we want? Where
does it stop?
It is also clear that the developer is only out for his own financial
gain, which is why he is not willing to accept decisions that have
been turned down twice by the leaders of Los Gatos. His financial
gain is to the entire neighborhood's loss. We are the ones who have
to live with the project in the years to come, losing privacy,
lighting and views.
With all due respect, I urge you to continue to uphold the votes that
have been casted by both the Planning Department and Town Council and
reflect the desires of the neighborhood and it's people who have to
live with your decisions.
Thank you for your serious considerations,
Attachment 8
Page 1 of 2
Suzanne Davis - FW: 15928 Union Ave.
From: "John Schwarz" <jschwarz@davidjpowers.com>
To: "Suzanne Davis" <SDavis@losgatosca.gov>, <council@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 12/7/2009 1:10 PM DEC 2009
Subject: FW: 15928 Union Ave.
CC: "Geoff Mitchell" <gsm@geoffmitchell.com>, "Stephanie Lynott" n'VN c' ' C;,qT
<slynott@stmaryslg.org>, "Thomas Mangano" <thomas.mangano@verizon.lii't>
Hi Suzanne,
Thank you for your correspondence on this issue. Please forward this email to the Council members as desk item
as well. I concur with all of Mr. Mitchell's and Ms. Lynott's comments below and would like to echo those
sentiments to the Town.
I do not understand Mr. Jeans' request — if the proposed subdivision plan was denied, and he wants to propose a
different version of a 3-lot plan, it seems to me that Tony must resubmit a new application to the Town, and go
through the proper design and engineering reviews with Town staff. The idea of sending his "pie -lot" plan back to
the Planning Commission seems be an "end run" attempt at circumventing the Town's proper review process, not
to mention the CEQA process. Neither the public nor the Town has had ample opportunity to review this new
subdivision layout — the only time we have seen it was at the last Council meeting, when the applicant put it on
the overhead.
I also urge you to uphold the prior votes on this project — please do not dilute the Town's process by re -opening
this decision. The subdivision was denied based on subsections (b), (c), and (d) of the Subdivision Map Act, not
just the flag lot configuration, and the Resolution accurately captures the Council's decision. If the applicant
wants to propose something new, send him back to the application stage.
John Schwarz
104 Panorama Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Attachment 9