1999-025-A Negative Declaration And A Conditional Use Permit To Construct 12 Studio ApartmentsRESOLUTION 1999 - 25
ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION FROM THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY AN ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION, A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT 12 STUDIO
APARTMENTS, A VARIANCE APPLICATION TO LOCATE A DETACHED STRUCTURE
WITHIN THE REQUIRED SIDE SETBACK ON PROPERTY ZONED RM:5 -12 AND A
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE FOR 351.72 SQUARE FEET OF TOWN
SURPLUS LAND FROM FM:5- 12:LHP TO RM :5 -12.
PROJECT APPLICATION: PRJ -98 -100
VARIANCE APPLICATION: V -98 -09
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ND -98 -0009
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION: DEF -98 -012
PROPERTY LOCATION: 71 MILES AVENUE
PROPERTY OWNER /APPLICANT /APPELLANT: COMMUNITY HOUSING DEVELOPERS.
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before the Council for public hearing on February 16, 1999 on an appeal
by the property owner/applicant from a decision of the Planning Commission and was regularly noticed in
conformance with State and Town law.
B. The Council received testimony and docuunentary evidence from the applicant and all interested
persons who wished to testify or submit documents. The Council considered all testimony and materials
submitted, including the record of the Planning Conunission proceedings and the packet of material contained
in the Council Agenda Report dated February 5, 1999, and the addendum dated February 10, 1999 concerning
this application.
C. Development Review Conunnittee considered the application on June 23 and July 21, 1998 and
deemed the application complete. The Development Review Conunittee forwarded the matter to the Planning
Commission and reconunended approval subject to conditions.
D. On January 13, 1999 the Planning Commmission considered these applications.
E. Planning staff reported to the Planning Connnnission and Town Council that variances seeking
reduced visitor parking and a six (6) foot sound wall were deterinined to be unnecessary in light of Town Code
section 29.10.150(b) allowing the reduction of required visitor parking, and the fact that PG &E had upgraded
the transformers in the neighboring substation thus reducing the noise level and negating the need for a sound
wall.
F. Appellant is appealing the Planning Coimmission's decision because it believes the Planning
Commission erred or abused its discretion and failed to consider the community benefit of the project.
G. The Council makes the following findings:
As required by Section 29.20.190 of the Town Code for granting a Conditional Use
Permit, the Council finds:
(a) The uses are desirable to the public convenience or welfare because there is
an unprecedented need for housing, and particularly affordable housing, in the Santa Clara Valley which is
currently at, or near, the most expensive it has ever been in history.
(b) The use will not impair the integrity and character of the zone which is
currently multiple-family residential (RM:5 -12) and, with a 100% density bonus, can allow up to twenty -four
units per acre.
(c) The use would not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare because
the project meets all appropriate health and safety codes such as accessibility, non -point source pollution,
sanitation and fire requirements. The project, though isolated in that it is not currently surrounded with
residential uses, it is located adjacent to a heavily traveled public trail and within walking distance of most
downtown services. The project will assist in remedying a very serious housing shortage and homeless problem
with the addition of twelve (12) affordable housing units.
(d) The use is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General
Plan, especially the Housing Element, Downtown Specific Plan, and with the purposes of the Town Code
because it meets many of the intentions of these plans and the Town Code, and because there is nothing in the
project that is inconsistent with these plans and the Code. The project will help to meet a goal of improving
2
the choice of housing opportunities for Senior Citizens, families and singles of all income groups by adding to
the variety of housing types and sizes available in the Town. The project will help to meet the goal of reducing
the homeless population. It will meet the goal of providing affordable housing for people who work in the
Town.
(e) The project can be adequately accommodated by the streets serving the
development which would add seven (7) trips in the morning peak period and eight (8) trips in the evening peals
period, and this fits the category of minor intensification of use which would not significantly add to the impact
on Town streets.
(i) The design of the development as residential housing, which is consistent with
the General Plan and current zoning, and characteristics of the lot which will provide adequate spacing and
buffering from the neighboring uses, will be such that adjacent properties such as the Corporation Yard, the
PG &E substation, the Creels Trail, and Highway 17 will not be adversely affected by the project.
(g) The individual dwelling units will be have adequate light, air, off street
parking, open space, privacy and other such amenities and this project will consist of only two small residential
buildings and one accessory building on a 19,000 square foot parcel. Evidence demonstrates that parking is
adequate without a need for a variance, and there will be only one person, or at most, two persons per unit and
most people in this type of dwelling have only one car. The project would provide 24 " -26" box trees that will
be planted around the project and fiirther screen the project.
(h) The finding regarding any multiple residential development existing on the
date the zone classification is applied is not applicable because there is no existing multiple residential
development.
Council finds:
As required by Section 29.20.170 of the Town Code for granting a Variance, the
(a) The project has special circumstances relating to the location of the small
utility building because the property line is adjacent to a PG &E facility and the project will not create any
visual impact or noise for a residential neighbor.
(b) The granting of the variance would not constitute a special privilege because
there are no other properties similarly situated near a PG &E substation, a municipal corporation yard and a
freeway, and because the combination of the rectangular lot shape and multi - family zoning necessitates using
all of the narrowest part of the lot in order to maximize the opportunity to provide buffering from neighboring
uses. Granting a variance, therefore, does not constitute special privileges for this project only,
As required to determine that the zone change is consistent with the General Plan and
Downtown Specific Plan, the Council finds and incorporates the facts contained in section G.1.(d) above.
4. As required by Section IV.B of the Redevelopment Plan for the Central Los Gatos
Redevelopment Project, the Council finds that fifteen percent (15 %) of the projects within this area must be
for low, very low, or moderate income families and this project meets this requirement of the Plan.
As required by the Town's Traffic Policy for a coimmunity benefit, the Council finds
that the project furthers the efforts of the Town to meet its obligations to provide affordable housing, and this
is the overriding benefit of this project.
6. As required by the Town's Infill Policy for a coimmunity benefit, the Council finds:
(a) The project will provide twelve (12) deed restricted housing units that will
be affordable to very low income persons, increases the variety of housing in the Town by providing small
rental housing units, and is also designed consistent with the surrounding zoning.
(b) The project establishes a new residential neighborhood on Miles Avenue and
is consistent with multiple family residential units located directly behind and above the project site and,
therefore, is in context with the surrounding area.
7. As required by Section 29.10.150(b) of the Town Code for lowering the visitor
parking requirement for residential uses in the downtown, the Council fords and incorporates the facts contained
11
in section G.1.(g) above.
8. The Council fords that it has considered all relevant matter as required by Town Code
section 29.20.150 in reviewing applications for architecture and site approval.
9. As required by section 29.20.300 of the Town Code for granting an appeal reversing
a decision of the Planning Commission, the Council finds that the Planning Commission lacked the discretion
to modify or address prior policy determinations of the Town that the subject property is appropriate for
residential uses as reflected in the existing multiple - family residential (RM:5 -12) zoning.
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission is therefore granted.
2. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.6 as adopted by section 1. 10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any application
for judicial relief from this decision mist be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the procedures
established by Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by state or federal law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California, held on the 1st day of March, 1999 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES: Steven Blanton, Linda Lubeck, Mayor Jan Hutchins.
NAYS: Randy Attaway, Joe Pirzynski
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
SIGNED:,
(YOR OF TUETOWN OF LOS GATOS
S GT-O ,CALIFORNIA
ATTEST: •.a..,'
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LO GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
M