Loading...
Attachment 02LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Planning Commissioners: Mary Badame, Chair D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair Kendra Burch Melanie Hanssen Matthew Hudes Tom O’Donnell Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti Community Development Director: Joel Paulson Town Attorney: Robert Schultz Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337-1558 ATTACHMENT 2 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 P R O C E E D I N G S: CHAIR BADAME: Item 4, 105 Newell Avenue. Planned Development Application PD-14-002. Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-002. Requesting approval of a Planned Development to rezone a property from R-1:12 to R-1:12:PD, to demolish an existing building, and construct four single-family residences on property zoned R-1:12. APN 409- 24-026. May I have a show of hands from the Commissioners who have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from Commissioners? We’re still gathering speaker cards, so I’ll give it a moment before we’re ready to receive a Staff Report. Thank you for the speaker cards. Ms. Armer, I understand that you’ll be providing us with a Staff Report this evening. JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, good evening. Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. The project in front of you this evening is a proposal for four new homes on the site currently occupied by the Elks Lodge. The site is at the corner of Newell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. The project site is a sloped corner lot of approximately 1.4 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 acres with residential on two sides and the aforementioned streets on the other two. The four proposed homes would be two stories, and two of them have alternative floor plans, which include kind of an in-law unit, a secondary dwelling unit, as a possibility. The proposed Planned Development zone would include numerous exceptions to the underlying R-1:12 zoning regulations. The proposal to redevelop the site was first seen by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee on December 11, 2013. At that point there were two different proposals that were included. One of them was 11 attached residential condo units; the other was five single-family residential units. One of the primary elements that the Applicant heard at that meeting was a concern over the density and intensity of the uses that were proposed, and so they decided to go for the single-family residential version or idea for redevelopment, and they went from five units down to four. The application was submitted approximately six months later in July 2014, and then over the following year they had five different Staff technical review meetings, coming back to work with Town Staff over technical issues and resubmittals. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In the middle of that process there was also review by the Town’s architectural consultant and the Town’s arborist. Both provided review in February 2015, so that was about six months after the formal submittal. Their final Staff technical review was actually last July, at which point even though there were still some unresolved technical issues the Applicant decided that they wished to move forward with the review, and with advice from Staff they did decide to conduct the environmental review so that there was an opportunity to have a decision rather than having the application reverted back to Staff for environmental review. A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in the first half of this year, was available for public review from June 17th to July 7th of 2016, and is now before you along with the proposed PD zone. Staff’s concerns are still detailed in the Staff Report. There are a number of different concerns; the main ones fall into three categories. The first being details that are left unresolved from the Staff reviews. Issues like the height measurement in Lot 4 that was done incorrectly was shown different, and these are items that could potentially be addressed through LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Planned Development, through specific exceptions, or through the Architecture and Site review process. The second category of main concern is the grading and retaining walls that are proposed; the depth of the cut and fill; and noncompliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines that do apply certain categories, including the grading section of those guidelines, to apply to this lot, because it is a greater than 10% slope. Also, that includes a section that discusses maintaining the existing landform where the proposal goes a pretty far way in trying to create flat parcels for the four proposed houses. The third category that is of concern for Staff is neighborhood compatibility, both the proposed two-story character of the homes, which is out of character with the immediate neighborhood as well as the floor area, and the total proposed square footage of the homes, which is significantly larger than the next largest home in the existing immediate neighborhood. Based on these concerns, as well as those included in the written Staff Report, Staff recommends that the Commission forward the Planned Development application to the Town Council with a recommendation for denial. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be happy to answer any questions. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for the report, Ms. Armer. Questions for Staff? Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your report. I had a couple of quick questions. One of the guidelines for approving the current Planned Development, not the ordinance that we’re hopefully revising but it’s not approved yet, is to take into consideration open space. My question is how much open space is there now? I actually used to run on that lot, we did hill running, but it’s a parking lot. With the Elks Lodge, how much open space is there now, and how much would there be with the proposal, as we know it? JENNIFER ARMER: I’m going to recommend that we take that question to the Applicant when they have the opportunity to speak, but beyond the front yards and the private driveway there isn’t a whole lot of open space that’s proposed. The existing site is predominantly the single building and the parking lot as well. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, so we can come back to that. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A second question; it’s quick as well. Have we ever allowed a Planned Development with this level of grading, of cut and fill, flattening the hill, basically? JOEL PAULSON: I think it’s a distinction between quantity, so there’s probably many that have had similar quantities, depths of cut and fill. Since the new Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines were adopted, probably not, but quantity, I’m sure that we’ve had projects that have had the quantity of cut and fill that this project would propose. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The volume of yards, okay. Then last question, is the Town Arborist here tonight? JOEL PAULSON: They are not. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Because my question was when I was reading her report she only recommended to keep one tree, but her recommendation was based on construction impacts, and this isn’t approved as a Planned Development or as an Architecture and Site Application, so I would have wanted to know what trees she would have wanted to save, period, versus with construction? If we have all our questions answered, maybe there’s a way to get the answer later. JOEL PAULSON: One option there is obviously you’ll be making a recommendation moving forward to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Council. When you decide to make that recommendation, should that happen this evening, then that would be direction and we can get that answer prior to the Council taking a final action. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Birch followed by Commissioner Hudes followed by Vice Chair Kane. COMMISSIONER BURCH: Thank you so much for the detailed Staff Report, so I’m going to apologize; I’m about to ask a redundant question. Just for the sake of conversation, one of the things that you noted at first was there were a number of exemptions that we’re asking for. Can you list those out for us? JENNIFER ARMER: Sure. Part of the list of exceptions is based on things that they are specifically asking for, and some are based on things that were left unresolved from the Staff technical meetings and therefore were incorporated here, because that is what’s being proposed in the current set of plans. The Planned Development section of your Staff Report, page 13, exceptions would include reduced lot depth, exceeding the maximum allowed floor area, exceeding the maximum cut and fill depths, no sidewalks on private LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 streets, maximum height, and encroachment of eaves into setbacks. COMMISSIONER BURCH: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes. COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had a couple process questions for Staff. Commissioner Hanssen alluded to this, this is being we’re asked to make a recommendation to Council on this and it’s under the current Planned Development Ordinance, correct? JENNIFER ARMER: Correct, because it would be a rezoning. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Should the recommendation from Planning Commission be to deny, is there any point at which the new ordinance might come to play on this particular application? JOEL PAULSON: It would not, because the application has been deemed complete prior. Depending on the action of Council, they may remand it back to Planning Commission, or they may deny it, in which case a new application would have to be filed, so the new ordinance may have caught up by then. COMMISSIONER HUDES: So that would trigger off of the Council’s action, not this body’s action? JOEL PAULSON: Correct. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER HUDES: The other question I had, because I haven’t seen Planned Developments myself before, is it normal to have two designs come before the Planning Commission? It seems there is an alternate design. JOEL PAULSON: I will just offer that they’re proposing options, and we have had Planned Developments in the past with options. One that pops into my mind is the old McHugh site where currently the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is at Los Gatos Boulevard and Gateway. They had two different site layouts and designs for that proposal when it came through. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Then within regard to CDAC, since the discussion with CDAC was a very broad set of options ranging from condominiums to five single-family homes, is there any circumstance where this would go back to CDAC? JENNIFER ARMER: The advice from CDAC is generally something that’s done at the beginning of the process to give some direction and sense of concerns for a project before it’s begun. Once it gets to this point, unless they were proposing a totally different project, no, it would not return. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you. That’s all I had. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane, did you still have a question? VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you for an excellent report and the written Staff Report; comprehensive can make our job easier. What doesn’t make my job easier is the excessive detailed bioengineering, all of the things that go into a Mitigated Negative Declaration. We can do this off record, but maybe somebody else is interested. I have three of them, and they’re all terribly detailed, and what they’re essentially designed to do in about 15 different categories is say it’s something potentially bad about this project, and it comes in different response categories. Yes, it’s very bad. No, it’s not that bad. Well, it’s kind of bad, but we can fix it with mitigation. All of the standard categories are treated that way. A simple education in two points. One, why do we have three of them? I know they’re sequential and I expect they’re a response to each other, but I couldn’t find clear responses or clear revisions that something said in the first one had to be fixed by the second one that had to be fixed by the third one. It (inaudible) the issue, and a lot of them are very, very objective on soils and noise and emissions, but there was a subjective one, and I don't know LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that I’m going to put my finger right on it; maybe I can. This is page 46 of the report dated May 31st, revised final, July; they’re both 2016. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane, is there an exhibit number so we can be sure we’re looking at the same one? I have Exhibit 13. JOEL PAULSON: Exhibit 13. VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 30. Sorry about that. Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 30, and I don’t know, I guess this was one of the originals we received, May 31st. They’re good, they’re comprehensive, they’re scientific, they’re engineering, and all of this clearly has to be done. When we get to the subjective portion on zoning, and does the project comply with ordinances and standards and guidelines, this particular one, the one I mentioned, May 31, 2016, revised July 2016, says, “The proposed project would not conflict with any existing land use plan or policy, therefore no impacts have been identified,” and yet in your excellent Staff Report, Ms. Armer, you pointed out a number of issues that argumentatively may not be consistent with our policies and may have impact. I’m not a professional. How do I reconcile LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 those two things, and I guess really what should I be doing with these three reports? JENNIFER ARMER: I’m going to start with a few clarifications. I believe you should have two reports, so number three maybe you borrowed one from your neighbors, but there was a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared, and then the consultant this time decided to prepare a revision to that, so that’s what you’re looking at right now. There were only minor changes, but they were done in tract changes so you can see where those were throughout the document, and that was just some minor changes in response to comments, so there should be two documents that you have in your materials for the project tonight. Your question about the environmental document and its comments on land use, I’m going to let Joel add to this if he has anything, but I’ll just start by saying that the environmental document and CEQA have a very specific set of parameters for what it looks at, and so the proposal for residential in this location does comply with the General Plan. It is generally the type of use that is appropriate by our land use regulations, so this view that CEQA takes is a much higher level view in terms of those predefined categories by the state. The environmental LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consultant found that this project did not have any significant impacts and that the potential impacts could be mitigated; that that is the conclusion that they and their consulting experts came to. However, you now have the opportunity to look more at a more detailed rather than the 30,000 feet level review to look at the specifics of what is being proposed for this PD zone and how it works with our more detailed requirements. VICE CHAIR KANE: It may not follow CEQA requirements or Town standards, but I was thinking of when they provide the Initial Study, if there’s a Final Study to come back—and don’t tell me it’s in here, because I’ll be embarrassed—an executive summary of what in fact was changed on the part of further review or the Applicant would be extremely helpful. I now confess, because I’d better do it, so overwhelmed was I that the third additional study is from a different project. Nobody’s perfect, but thank you for your explanation. The broader view, they did not see potentially significant issues when they clarified meeting General Plans and Policies, such as there are no impacts. It’s a LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 broad statement, and then I should look to the Staff Report for more specific guidance? JENNIFER ARMER: Correct, and I would add that in your review of the project and the changes that were made to the environmental document, I would recommend looking at the Response to Comments, which is Exhibit 12, which does have copies of the comments that were received on the environmental document. It has a specific response to each of those comments as well as a reference to what changes, if any, and where they were made within the environmental document. VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions for Staff? VICE CHAIR KANE: I may have. I thought somebody would. CHAIR BADAME: No, go ahead. VICE CHAIR KANE: The CDAC minutes that were provided, for which I thank you, is there anything broader than that, or is that the representation of the 2013 meeting of the CDAC? JENNIFER ARMER: That is what is available, and what was approved and adopted by the CDAC at their following meeting. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR KANE: As I read them, a number of recommendations, 14 or 15, were made. Is it a fair question to ask whether or not you know in providing the Staff Report, was attention given to those 14 suggestions, or is that not the job of the CDAC, but to provide general guidance? JENNIFER ARMER: My understanding of the job of the CDAC is to give general comments and response, general impressions to preliminary proposals to provide some sense for the Applicant of what type of project might be appropriate on their site. The Applicant then has the responsibility to take those comments and move forward in the way that they feel is appropriate. VICE CHAIR KANE: So whether or not any attention was given to any of those recommendations would essentially not be germane, because they were general guidance? JENNIFER ARMER: It is general guidance, and it is up to the Applicant to choose how to proceed based on the opinions that were shared at that hearing, and it is up to them to respond to any questions that you have as follow up to that. VICE CHAIR KANE: One final question, if I may? CHAIR BADAME: Yes, Vice Chair. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR KANE: Inside the report, when they met in 2013 there was a Plan A and a Plan B. A was houses and B was condos, loosely construed. I believe the Applicant in one of the documents made the statement that the condos were laid by the wayside, because CDAC did not express favor for them, which I didn’t necessarily find in the document itself, but also because there was strenuous opposition from the neighbors. Do we have anything at this point that would document that opposition, letters or memories from 2013? JENNIFER ARMER: I do not, since I was not staff here for the Town at that time. JOEL PAULSON: You’ll hear from a number of members of the public in the neighborhood, and so you’ll probably receive a response to that. VICE CHAIR KANE: I thought the statement was important; I wondered if we could substantiate it, that’s all. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: All right, before we open the public portion of the hearing, we are going to take a ten- minute recess. (INTERMISSION) CHAIR BADAME: We are back from break and ready to open the public portion of the hearing. The Applicant is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 at the podium. If you could please state your name and address for the record, and if you have not filled out a speaker card, I will need one. You have ten minutes to address the Commission. KURT ANDERSON: I told him; he didn’t believe me. My name is Kurt Anderson, associate architect with Camargo & Associates. My office address is 120 West Campbell Avenue in Campbell. Madam Chair and Members of the Commissioner, we are really, really glad to be here. as you can tell by Jennifer’s report, it’s been a long time to get to this point, and we want to take this moment to thank the Staff. Jennifer, that was a fantastic report; you did a really great job summarizing your report. Thank you very much for that. And I want to thank all the neighbors that we’ve had a kazillion meetings with. Many of them are here in the audience, and we appreciate your time being here and supporting the project, we hope. Without further ado, let’s run through a quick presentation. Jennifer took a little of the thunder out of my sails, because she did such a great job, but let’s go through this quickly just to bring you back up to speed. Jennifer, which way do I go, to the right? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Here is a rendering of the proposed project. As you can tell, on the lower left is the intersection of Newell and Winchester. This is what we are proposing tonight. This is where we started. This is what we presented to CDAC. We had five single-family homes on the left, then we have the condominium on the right. Based on CDAC’s comments we immediately met with the neighborhood, and I will tell you that the neighbors were adamantly opposed to five homes and the condos, and they can address that when they come up and do their presentation. So we came back and we looked at doing a couple of different configurations on a four-lot subdivision. We had always planned to do a PD approach, because the configuration of this parcel, the slope, the size, the location, it really works using a PD approach to this project under what’s allowed under the General Plan and by the Town. On the left, you see that was a flat lot subdivision. This wasn’t going to work, because we couldn’t get a fire truck turnaround, so we didn’t do that one. The one on the right is a full city street with a cul de sac, and you can see at least minimal area for development for the homes. That is an aerial view looking LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 down at the corner, and so this would actually be looking at the southwest corner and you can see the access right here. You notice when you’re out at the site that this is a very dangerous situation, and I could tell you for a fact that I used to live on La Montagne Court, I owned a home over there for years and years and years, so I’m very familiar with this site. This corner right here, you’ll see as we get further through this process that we have relocated this entry further up Newell, which we think in our opinion really increases the safety factor at that corner, because especially when they had events with all the people coming out of there that was a major issue, especially with the increased traffic from Netflix and other commercial development down the street on Winchester. So here is our proposal. We have Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 3, and Lot 4. In this proposal what we’ve done is we have elevated this area here, and it has a lot to do with the relationship of getting the street from this point here up to the parcel so we could access into the garages on the site. The only reason that we’ve got the site configured this way is because this is an extremely busy commercial street and we did not want to have those houses, the private space, the rear yards right here, being at street LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 level from a noise standpoint, and also from a safety standpoint, people coming through this intersection, losing control, coming down the street. By getting these houses up, we’re protecting the inhabitants of those residences. This is the current condition. There’s that retaining wall along Winchester. This will look at it from Lark Avenue. That’s the existing structure. You can see the orange netting here depicting the forms of the homes. This rail right here is backing right up on the parking lot that is on that building. There’s another shot of that street. And that is what it looks like with the homes that we’ve proposed. You can see how the back yards have been elevated through grading retaining walls. This is additional fencing here. We can create layers of landscape along the side to soften the structures to make it a very, very attractive development to that corner. As you know, that corner right now is just basically a sea of asphalt. This is looking at it from, again, the southwest. There’s that intersection we were talking about. You can see, this whole parcel, this 1.3 acres, is primarily roof and asphalt. It’s basically impervious coverage. Now, you know dealing with the new C.3 regulations we have in the State of California that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impervious coverage is to be minimized, because you have to be concerned about the runoff that goes into our bay and into our groundwater and contaminates it. One of the things that we’re doing with this project—there’s another picture of it—is we are getting rid of all of that asphalt and we’re turning it into landscape. We have a smaller street that we’re proposing here, and you can see as you go up Newell and up the hill that this access point right here is about probably 7-8’ above this corner right here, and that slopes up to the site. There it is with superimposed landscaping. There’s another shot looking directly up the drive from Newell to the four parcels. You can see how it’s terraced up the hill and then it conforms to the rest of the slope of that existing street. If you really think back about that area, if you really look at that slope, that whole hill that went down to Lark Avenue, Winchester was cut into that hill. That’s why the Town constructed the retaining walls along Winchester over on that side back here. So we’re getting back more in conformance with the original contours. Here’s the plan. Winchester, Newell. Here’s our access drive. We’ve got garages here, here, here and here. Here’s our fire truck turnaround, with the requirements of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Central Fire. We’ve got some on-street parking here, and as mentioned in Jennifer’s report, we do have a sidewalk here, and we do have a sidewalk here. Now, a lot of these things that we feel that were expressed in the report, these technical nuances I want to call them, we know those need to be resolved. We’re here in front of the Planning Commission because we want you to recommend approval to the Council to convert this to a PD Residential zoning so we’ve got affirmation that we’re going in the right direction, and then we’ll continue to expend the time and the energy to work with Staff to get all the technical nuances and exceptions minimized as we go through the process, through Architecture and Site review. We’ve spent a lot of time and a lot of money to this point, three years, and we still don’t know whether or not the Commission or the Council want to see a residential development. Jennifer said it great in her report: We’re in conformance with the General Plan, and we’re in conformance with the zoning. This really is a residential site. Right now it’s a nonconforming commercial use. We want to get this back to what it’s supposed to be according to the General Plan and the zoning. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 This Conventional Subdivision, you can see we’ve got 60’ diameter bulb, width 40’, street parking, lot sizes less than 10,000, on and on and on. In this under Planned Development. We’re going to build and construct that road, and we’re going to maintain it so there is no cost to the Town. From Newell up, that will be part of the development. They have to maintain the infrastructure, storm, water, sewer, all those things, so that cost will go to those homes and not to the Town, thereby not further burdening the tax base. Part of this right here is when our clients purchased this property one of the things they looked at was the whole neighborhood, and they looked at La Montagne Court—I used to live right here, the house that you see—and this here is only one parcel away, so when we looked at this we felt that was in the immediate neighborhood, that this was comparable to the design of La Montagne. We have statistics that we can share with you— I’ll let Maurice do that—in regard to the house sizes for that. But you’ll see on the next site, there’s La Montagne, and there are the homes’ sizes that you can read as they come up. You can see they go from 3,960, 4,000, and 4,248; there are a whole variety of sizes there. These other parcels back here are homes that have been renovated and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 expanded. Now, currently the rest of the subdivision are not this large, because they’re still the single-family ranch-style homes, 2,500 square feet, that… Madam Chair, may I keep going? CHAIR BADAME: Yes, you have 30 seconds remaining. KURT ANDERSON: Why don’t I just cease and I’ll do my closing comments at the end? Because I can’t do much with 18 seconds left. Okay? CHAIR BADAME: Okay. All right, thank you for your presentation. Do Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much. I will now invite comments from members of the public. Our first speaker will be Liat Perlman. LIAT PERLMAN: Good evening, I live at 183 Newell Avenue, which buttresses against I think Lot 3, and I’m very much in support of this development. I think it’s a very reasonable plan, not overusing the piece of property. The property at 183 has also got quite a significant cut and fill, probably more of a cut than a fill, but that goes back to the 1960s when the house was originally built. I’ve noted the delta of use on this property, and given its size it seems appropriate. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 In addition, I think it has a really good fill for the space in terms of keeping with the property and the community. It doesn’t exceed the La Montagne type of development, which is nearby, and although I think that what are considered the most relevant houses are small in nature, my comparison to some of these houses, if somebody was to apply for a remodel and add some square footage, we would be at about the same. Given where we’re at in the neighborhood today, I welcome this. My family has lived here for 40 years and I’m representing the household, and we all welcome this development. We can’t wait for the work to begin, and I’m hoping there won’t be too many holdups in terms of that. This is a space that needs to be filled in and basically utilized in keeping with the nature of the development of the area. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Perlman, and don’t go away. We have a question for you from Commissioner Burch. COMMISSIONER BURCH: In reviewing this, which I understand that you support and I appreciate you coming and speaking tonight, would you be in favor if it were a Class A office space? LIAT PERLMAN: Absolutely not. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. For anyone speaking tonight, when you step up to the podium please remember to state your name and address for the record. Our next speaker is Khilil Fattahi KHILIL FATTAHI: Good evening. I’m Khilil Fattahi, as you mentioned, and I live just adjacent to this project. For 21 years I’ve lived in this one, so I have part of my back fence side and all of my side yard (inaudible) Lot 2. The builders have been in touch with us, they have satisfied everything that we want, and my wife and me are both very much supportive of the plan as it is presented. The height of this building, even though this is going to be a two-story on Lot 3 next to mine, it still is a little even below my roofline because of the way that the land slope is. For 21 years we have been living next to Elks parking lot. At night motorcyclists who like this cozy corner and throw their pizza boxes over our fence have bothered us, and we receive eggs and beer bottles, and by the time we call the police it’s too late, so we really LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 welcome just four homes for this size lot, which is not big to us. My lot size is 11,400, I believe. I went to the Planning Department a few months ago and just wanted to find out how much more I can have. I have 2,500 square feet right now and between 1,850 square feet I can add. So for this lot, especially next to mine, Lot 3, which is going to be 16,000 square feet, if they’re going to that size around 4,000, it should be perfectly fine. This is an exceptional plan, which you will see, because the whole neighborhood is behind this. We don’t want anything commercial there, we don’t want tennis courts from Courtside there, and we don’t want this turned into another parking lot. We’re very much in support of this. I heard some comments from the Planning Department; they were making the comment that they need sidewalks. The whole Newell Avenue on all three courts don’t have one inch of sidewalks, but I heard that from the builder that they’ve going to even put a sidewalk there. We are just very much in support of this and I hope without much trouble this plan goes through. We are fed up with the ugly Elks building there, and it’s a nuisance. Thank you. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Fattahi. Our next speaker is Harvey Yap. HARVEY YAP: Good evening, my name is Harvey Yap and my address is 119 Newell Court. I’ve been at this address for 40 years. My property is one of six that adjoin the proposed development, and I support their application to build these four homes. I’ve read the Planning Commission’s Staff Report and the recommendation for denial. There are six exceptions that I feel are reasonable and should be granted, because this site is unique, it’s not easy to develop, it’s only 1.4 acres, and it’s on a hill, and you’re looking at putting four homes in that location. Although these four homes will be larger than most of the houses in the neighborhood, being two stories, I would not object to it; I feel that they would be compatible. I request that this PD be approved and allowed to move forward. The Elks Club has been vacant for many years and I consider that this will be a good replacement for this property. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for your comments, Mr. Yap. Dale Miller. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DALE MILLER: My name is Dale Miller, 115 Newell Court. If you look at that number four on the drawing up there, I’m behind Lot 1 of this development. I, too, am for this development. This property is zoned R-1 and this project has been intended for, and I think as the neighbors have all said, we’re all in support of, houses. We’re tired of the Elks, we’re tired of an empty parking lot, and we’re tired of Courtside coming over and using it for their exercise classes, as was pointed out earlier. This is the first time in any development, or any suggested development, that the actual architects and developers came and talked to the neighbors. Everything else has been forced down our throat. As Mr. Paulson knows, I’m the neighborhood grump. I organize everything and we come out and complain about what’s going next. The neighborhood definitely wants to make sure this is residential. We don’t want commercial. We don’t want Courtside or anybody else. We want houses; it’s a neighborhood. The original developer was Duke. According to my ex-neighbor, Jack Aiello, who died, Duke willed these four lots to the Elks Club originally in the sixties when they had a downturn. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 There was a comment about landscaping. There is no landscaping on this. The Elks have never taken care of the landscaping. Everything is dead, everything is old, and it’s run down. There is actually a tree that fell over by the Courtside parking lot into the street one night about three months ago. There is no landscaping worth saving. Maybe there are a couple of trees, but not many. The only thing that was ever taken care of in this would be when we called the Fire Department about fire hazards in the spring when the weeds grew; that’s the only time the Elks did anything to improve this lot. I’ve read through the Planning Commission report. I’d like to see you guys get together and compromise and make this happen as a Planned Development. There are things that can be agreed upon, changed, modified. This is the first time we have a builder that’s talked to us, worked with us, had several meetings with us, taken our concerns and fixed them, so we appreciate that. But the one additional request I have is because parking in the area. As Khalil Fattahi talked about, there are no sidewalks in this neighborhood. I complained to the Town before and the previous Town traffic planner said the streets conform to the California standards. They do, they’re 34’; I measured them the other night. That allows LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for two 11’ lanes for cars, and two 7’ lanes for parking, but there are no sidewalks. I’d like to see this development have no parking on the south edge of Newell Avenue, which is where this development is, so that people can actually walk and not get run over when they walk down the street. Other than that, I’ll close by saying that we are definitely for this development. The developers have talked with us, they’ve worked with us, they’ve had several meetings with us, and we are definitely in favor of this. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Miller. Richard Potter. RICHARD POTTER: Good evening, I’m Rick Potter; I live at 144 Newell Avenue, which is a little farther up the street, but as my neighbors who back up to this property so aptly pointed out, it’s a project that is due. The property has been sitting there vacant for a long, long time, and the plans that has been proposed for all of us who live in the neighborhood—I’ve been there for 25 years—we all seem to think it’s going to be a great project and we encourage you to support it. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Potter. Our last speaker is Tobin Lehman. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 TOBIN LEHMAN: Hi, I’m Tobin Lehman; I live at 175 Newell Avenue, which is right on that corner. It was nice being last, because I get to just say, “Yeah.” Everyone has made all the good points, and I just want to agree with them and say yes, please approve this Planned Development. I’ve had the benefit of being next to this vacant lot, and all the RVs and motorcycles and everything that come up in there. It would be really nice to have high- quality housing. My wife Shannon and I really are looking forward to having new neighbors. Thanks. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. The Applicant, Mr. Anderson and his team, is now invited back to the podium for five minutes to add further comments. KURT ANDERSON: Thank you, everybody. We really appreciate it. They really have been a joy to work with. We’ve met with them at least I think six times, and they’ve given us a lot of great suggestions and things for us to consider, and we’ve been working very closely, so we’re very, very happy to have their support and be next to such great neighbors. I’ve got some closing comments. I’m going to put up this up; I think this will help. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I’ve summarized this. I took that packet. I have one thing for you, Commissioner Kane. Initial Study, just so you understand in our language for what we do, is the first environmental study for the project. If that Initial Study determines there are no environmental concerns, that’s it, that’s what you use to create the Mitigated Negative Declaration. If there are additional concerns that need to be further…like see the certain standards, then we go to what they call phase two. So when that Initial Study is presented to you like it is, that’s as far as we’re going to go environmentally, because we’ve met the concerns of CEQA. I don't know if that will help you or not. I drilled through this report; Maurice, the clients. I prepared this like I was a commissioner. If I were looking at this, why would I want to approve this project? So let me run through this. It’s not in your packet. Do you want to see a hard copy; we can give you one real quick. VICE CHAIR KANE: It’s impossible to read. Maybe others can, but… I hate to waste your time this way. KURT ANDERSON: That’s okay. VICE CHAIR KANE: Maybe we can stop the clock. If you’ve got copies of that, it would be very helpful. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KURT ANDERSON: We’re going to bring them to you right now. VICE CHAIR KANE: Madam Chair, if that’s okay. CHAIR BADAME: Yes, yes. KURT ANDERSON: Madam Chair, okay. I’ll run through these real quick. Reasons to approve this project. One, we are converting a nonconforming commercial use to a residential use. Just like the neighbors said, no more commercial, we want residential. Secondly, the proposed PD Residential zoning is in conformance with the General Plan. Jennifer said that in her report. Thirdly, the proposed PD Residential zoning is in conformance with the Zoning Plan. Jennifer said that in her report. The proposed PD zoning is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods, including the Newell subdivision and the La Montagne Court subdivision. Next, we are eliminating a safety issue at the corner of Newell and Winchester by relocating the driveway access. We talked about that earlier. Next, we are significantly reducing the amount of impervious coverage on the site, which reduces the LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 pollution into the groundwater in the bay. That’s huge. That’s all part of our greenhouse emissions issue. Next, we are bringing the site into conformance with the CT requirements of the State of California for groundwater treatment. By building the project we’re going to build, we’re going to eliminate all that runoff that’s going to now go into bioswales and treatments, as you saw in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We’re going to eliminate a big issue there. We’ll significantly increase the amount of landscaping on the site. More oxygen, less carbon dioxide. We are reducing the number of trips. This hasn’t really been discussed tonight. Because it now goes to residential use, the amount of trips generated from the site instead of a commercial use are significantly reduced. We’re eliminating an unattractive project and replacing it with four beautiful residences. Next, we’re diligent with the neighborhood and have designed a project that’s garnered overwhelming support from the neighboring residences, as (inaudible) in the previous presentation. The size and the design of the parcels is similar in nature to La Montagne Court, which is also zoned R-1:12. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The project is designed to today’s housing standards and not standards that would apply to the 50- year-old subdivision that was Newell. The houses will be (inaudible) rated. They’ll be constructed to the new building codes that will be adopted in 2017, which are going to be significant from an energy standpoint, et cetera. We are, at our expense, fixing a site that has got major problems, and that’s one of the reasons we need the size of the homes, so that we can afford to make those improvements to that site. There is a significant amount of cost with infrastructure, street, et cetera. We explored other options and this is the best result, and with the PD zoning we’re eliminating any cost to the Town. What we are requesting tonight is this: We’re asking the Commission to recommend to the Council the approval of PD Residential zoning for the four-lot residential subdivision. We’d like you to recommend approval of the size of the residences to vary from 3,000… May I continue? CHAIR BADAME: Yes, 30 seconds. KURT ANDERSON: Well, you can read my comments. I don’t need to go through (inaudible). I feel that this is a summation of the report, the issues, and what we’re trying LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to achieve. If you don’t have any further questions, we’re available for technical questions from Staff, but the big deal here is we’d like you to recommend to the Council that our Architecture and Site Application come back to the Commission for approval and not to the Development Review Committee. That way you all can have a chance to be involved in the final results. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, time is now up. Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You’ve seen the report of the Staff that we’ve received? KURT ANDERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And that of course recommends denial. KURT ANDERSON: Correct. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And on page 5 of that report they list some, but not all, of the exceptions that you would need to have this project approved. You haven’t responded to any of those. KURT ANDERSON: Commissioner O'Donnell, we’ve been working with the Staff for almost three years, and we’ve just gotten to the point where we need to have assurance and recognition from the Commission and Council that we can do a residential subdivision here. We’re going LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to spend a bunch of money with the design, engineering, work with Staff to get this approved, but we’re looking for the PD zoning approval. We’re not looking for Architecture and Site tonight, that’s not what this application is, so we’d like those considerations to come back. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This is fairly simple. It says what’s wrong with your application. You have not responded to one of things they’ve said. I think homes sound great there. On the other hand, when they say these are the problems, if you don’t respond, you kind of tie our hands, so could you tell me why you don’t respond? KURT ANDERSON: Let me see if I can make this clear, and I appreciate your position. I’ve been doing this for 40 years. I know your side of the dais; I’ve been there. It’s a significant cost for the site. Our clients have spent a significant amount of money with all the consultants. We were told from day one by Staff they weren’t going to support our application, and so we’ve gone through five planners, we’ve gone through a whole bunch of technical review, and things keep changing, and we still have not yet had a positive indication of support from the Town that we were going to be able to do this project. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 What we’re hoping to get from the Commission tonight is we’d love to see residential use. You’ve got some issues on there that you need to resolve. We’ll support you if you get those issues resolved. Or, send it to Council, recommend approval that we come back and work with Staff; that’s on my recommendations that we’ll work with them. We’re committed to have a beautiful project, or we wouldn't have spent three years, met with the neighbors, and done all these reiterations. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: As I said, as far as I’m concerned you tied our hands. You have not responded to these objections, but were we to recommend denial, then you’d get to the Council. Is that what you’d like? KURT ANDERSON: No, we’d actually like to have your support. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: To get our support, we are required that you comply with the various laws we have. You don’t comply with them. We just can’t say we like homes and let’s go for it. You’ve got a list here, but you haven’t bothered to do anything for it. I don’t understand that. KURT ANDERSON: Let me use an analogy; and I’ve used this in other cities that we work in. Think of planning, guidelines, setbacks, FARs, all the stuff that we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 do as if you were creating a dome, okay? We’re creating a dome. We have to design a project that fits in with that dome, but the dome here is loose, we don’t really know what it is, we don’t know if we have a dome. Maybe you say hey guys, we love your project, we’ll support it, but go back to Staff, get these things worked out, and then come back to the Commission. That was be the first indication from the Town that we have… Now we’re ready to go full tilt and get this resolved, because we now get the support of a residential project. We’ve got the support of the neighborhood. We have yet to have indication from the Town that you all support it. Tell us you’ll support it and we’ll get those things worked out, and we’ll come back here happy campers and get this resolved. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you for that answer. Did that help you? All right, Commissioner Burch. COMMISSIONER BURCH: To follow up with what Commissioner O'Donnell is saying, and then to take what you’re saying, I don’t believe it’s moving parts. Very clearly in our Residential Guidelines there’s a limit to the FAR, there’s a limit to square footage, there’s a limit to height, there is a limit in cut and fill in the hillsides. Those don’t change, and those are what this body has been appointed to adhere to, so if you’re saying well LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 say yes, it’s homes and we’ll fix them, then are you saying if I go all right, I do think homes are what need to go there—and actually your neighbors are the ones that just convinced me of that—but does that mean you’re now going to fall in line with the FAR, fall in line with the setbacks, fall in line with the height requirements, fall in line with the sidewalk requirements, and fall in line with the cut and fill, or are you still going to say great, you let me do homes, but I’m still going to ask for all these exceptions? KURT ANDERSON: I can’t answer that question specifically to that. I can say that our clients are committed to work with the Town to make a project work at that site if we have a positive indication that the Commission will support a residential project there. Am I not answering the question well? COMMISSIONER BURCH: Actually, I’m going to wait. I want to ask Staff more later. CHAIR BADAME: We cannot give any guarantees; I can say that. Any other Commissioners have questions for the Applicant? Commissioner Hanssen. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have a couple questions. Have you read our guidelines, for example, to approve a Planned Development? It says here that the Planned LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Development is supposed to provide for alternative uses and developments that are more consistent with the site characteristics, not to change the site into another site so that you can build whatever you want there. Clearly it’s zoned for residential, I think we all agree on that, but how do you think this complies with our Planned Development? I mean a Planned Development isn’t a way to get around all of our other guidelines. KURT ANDERSON: In my opinion, with all due respect, a PD gives you a vehicle to do things differently than that are required by your normal standard setbacks because of the unusual either configuration, location, or surrounding uses. It gives you some flexibility as a deciding body to make changes basically because of the unusual project. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: There must be another proposal out there that could meet our design guidelines; there are certainly a lot available. It’s very clear what our guidelines are. My other question for you was were you involved with the CDAC feedback? KURT ANDERSON: (Inaudible). COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Because that was in our packet and they very clearly said yes, residential, but LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 they said development should meet unmet needs, don’t have too much cut and fill, you don’t need to exceed the guidelines that are spelled out, and you need to fit in with neighborhood. The neighborhood is very clearly defined in our Residential Design Guidelines as two, two, and five, the immediate neighborhood, not Montagne Court or whatever around that, and these are things that are spelled out in our guidelines, so I just ask why you think that this PD is justified? KURT ANDERSON: I’m going to say this: I think by your questions and the position you’re taking that—and I’m making a supposition on my part, this is strictly me, I’m not speaking for the team—generally speaking you all are in favor of supporting the residential project here. And this is me, I’m not holding you, I’m not putting you on the line here, so I think what we should really do is we as the Applicant should request a continuance to allow us to address all of the concerns that have been the exceptions, to come up with something that makes everybody on Staff happy and the Town happy, and come back to you and present it to the Commission at that point in time, so we can eliminate these exceptions and get something worked out that we’re all happy with. Then we can move this thing LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 forward and I think probably that way we can come up and go we’ve got it; we’ve got neighborhood, we’ve got all this stuff worked out with Staff, we’re ready to move forward. I think that probably makes the most sense for everybody involved. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, I think the question was answered. Commissioner Hudes followed by Vice Chair Kane. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Just to be specific about that, on page six of the Staff Report there are six bullet points that describe how the project would require exceptions, meaning that it would not be compliant. Are you familiar with that Staff Report? KURT ANDERSON: Yes, correct. I’m looking at it now; it’s page 13. COMMISSIONER HUDES: So are you saying that you would be willing to look at all of those six exceptions? KURT ANDERSON: That’s correct. COMMISSIONER HUDES: Including the one with 125’ minimum, the first one? Oh, I’m on page six. KURT ANDERSON: I’m sorry, where are we at? COMMISSIONER HUDES: There are six bullet points there. I think they’re repeated several times. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 KURT ANDERSON: We’re willing to look at every single one of those items and address them and come to you, a resolution. Page number six. Six items. CHAIR BADAME: All right, Commissioner Burch. COMMISSIONER BURCH: Based on what the Applicant is saying, would I be out of place to make a motion to continue? VICE CHAIR KANE: Close the public testimony. COMMISSIONER BURCH: Oh, sorry, jumping ahead of myself. CHAIR BADAME: No problem. If there are not any further questions I will close the public portion of the hearing. No further questions. You may sit down. Thank you very much. KURT ANDERSON: Thank you. CHAIR BADAME: All right, so I will look to Commissioners, and I’m going to look to Commissioner Burch to make her motion. COMMISSIONER BURCH: I’m going to move to continue Application PD-14-002 and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-002 to a date certain, which we will get to, specifically so that the Applicant can address the items listed on page six of the Staff Report to eliminate LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the need to ask for the exceptions. I would look to Staff though for the date. CHAIR BADAME: Do we have a date? JOEL PAULSON: The earliest it could be would the November 9th meeting. I’m not sure that’s going to give the Applicant enough time to address that, so probably the better option is December 7th, and if we’re still not done then, then we’ll just continue it from there. CHAIR BADAME: I can look to the audience and with a nod of the head about November 9th? Okay, December 7th sounds like a good idea. All right. Do you want to add that date to your motion? COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes, I would add that to my motion. CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: I won’t be supporting the motion. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There’s no second. CHAIR BADAME: There is no second. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’ll second. CHAIR BADAME: All right, Commissioner O'Donnell seconds the motion, so I will look to Commissioners now for discussion, and Vice Chair Kane. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 VICE CHAIR KANE: I won’t be supporting the motion for this reason: What I rail against is specificity. Those six points, as we progress in the development of this motion, I’m got about 14 of them, and what I would say with all due respect and all sincerity is you don’t want to make people happy. You want to comply with the standards, the guidelines, the things we’ve been given to uphold, and there is a whole Staff Report in here about reservations and concerns. I don’t want to limit it to six points, because that becomes a target. I would say comply with the Hillside Standards and Guidelines. I would say comply with the Residential Design Guidelines. Often I say listen to your neighbors; your neighbors love you, that’s okay. But the third point is to really pay attention to Staff. If we’ve been working on this since 2013, it’s not a mystery. They’ve clearly told you what we need to have to comply with our Standards and Guidelines, so I can’t support it, because I don’t like specificity; I don’t like being happy, I’d rather just comply. COMMISSIONER BURCH: I will strike the comment about referring just to page six, and what I will instead say is that I am asking that you comply with all of… Staff LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 made a number of recommendations and comments in this; that you just stick to that. CHAIR BADAME: Does the seconder accept that? COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes, but let me say something so that we are clear. The fact that we’ve said we’re going to send this back, because you’ve indicated a willingness to try to work this out, doesn’t mean we’re pre-approving the project. But I appreciate the offer they’ve made, and I think the motion deals within that, so I would keep my second. CHAIR BADAME: Any further discussion? Vice Chair Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE: If it’s inappropriate, I’ll stop, but I would encourage you to take heed to what you’re hearing and feeling up here so that we don’t waste your time. Give it a good second shot and see what we can do with that property. Something will be there. Likely not this is what I’m hearing from my colleagues, so give it a good shot. Work with Staff; they’re very good. CHAIR BADAME: All right, I will call the question, unless there is further discussion. Seeing none, all in favor? Passes unanimously. Mr. Paulson, are there appeal right of the actions of the Commission on this item? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 JOEL PAULSON: There are not. CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.