Attachment 04LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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:
Tom O'Donnell, Chair
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Kendra Burch
Melanie Hanssen
Kathryn Janoff
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
ATTACHMENT 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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 O'DONNELL: Which moves us to the public
hearings. There is only one public hearing this evening,
and that is 105 Newell Avenue, and I’d ask for a Staff
Report.
JENNIFER ARMER: Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair,
Commissioners. The project in front of you this evening is
the proposal to build four new homes on a site currently
occupied by the Elks Lodge on the corner of Newell Avenue
and Winchester Boulevard.
The project site is a sloped corner lot of
approximately 1.4 acres. It has residential on two sides.
The proposed Planned Development zone would include several
exceptions to the underlying R-1:12 zoning regulations and
the applicable Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines. These exceptions include exceeding the maximum
allowable floor area for Lots 1 and 4, exceeding the
maximum cut and fill depths, and exceeding the maximum
straight continuous length of retaining wall.
The project first came before you approximately
one year ago. The application was continued with direction
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
that the Applicant complete the Staff review process. The
Applicant has reduced the size of all four of the proposed
houses and has provided additional technical detail
requested by Staff, however, Staff concerns still remain in
the area of neighborhood compatibility, the depth of cuts
and fills, and the retaining wall design. Based on these
concerns Staff recommends that the Commission forward a
recommendation for denial to the Town Council.
This concludes the Staff presentation, but I’d be
happy to answer any questions.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Are there questions?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your report.
We probably went over this at the last hearing, but I just
wanted to maybe repeat it for my understanding. This
property isn’t technically in the hillsides, but because it
has a sloped lot could you comment on to what extent the
Hillside Standards apply? Part of the background of my
question is not just because of the slope of the lot, but
also because our Hillside Guidelines have some guidance for
Applicants on how they should architect into a hill.
JENNIFER ARMER: Because the average slope of the
parcel is greater than a 10% slope the Constraints Analysis
and Site Selection section of the Hillside Development
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
Standards and Guidelines applies, excluding standards for
visibility. The Site Planning section, including grading,
drainage, driveways and parking, and geologic safety apply,
and site elements for retaining walls.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: I just want to clarify for
Commissioner Hanssen that the architecture is not subject
to the Hillside Design Guidelines, and that the
architecture is subject to our Residential Design
Guidelines.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: In summary, kind of quickly,
I know that in the last meeting we did ask for some more
research and studies to be done, and Staff had requested
it. Could you quickly give us a little bit of what
information was provided to you from the Applicant between
then and now?
JENNIFER ARMER: Staff did ask for a number of
different details. There were some details of the house
designs, height, the length of eave overhangs and such that
did not meet the standards. I believe those were
unintentional omissions or elements that were
nonconforming, but because no further changes to the plans
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
have been made, those were part of what came forward. So
those types of elements were resolved.
There also was additional information that was
provided about the grading and drainage, site work details
clarification. They did bring down the height of the
retaining walls so that none of them are greater than the
5’ maximum.
There were a number of elements that were
resolved. They did reduce the size of all four houses by a
bit, but they have also come back with additional
justification. They provided a new calculation for the
sizes of the houses to try to balance the sizes between the
four lots, rather than having a large difference between
them.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: The last point was another
question I was going to make. Have we ever reviewed the
slope on a PD in the way that the Applicant has requested?
JENNIFER ARMER: I’m not aware of that ever
having been done before, no.
JOEL PAULSON: It is not.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Are there any other
questions? Yes, Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Question about two concerns
that are in your Staff Report. One is that the FAR is
exceeded, and also that the minimum cut is exceeded. In
your opinion, or if you’ve got actual calculations, if they
were able to reduce the FAR to be within Town guidelines,
would that also eliminate the concerns about the minimum
cuts?
JENNIFER ARMER: No, I don’t believe so. The cut
and fill depths have more to do with how the houses are set
on the site and how much yard is expected by the design, so
there are a number of things like that. I think also part
of the exceptions for cut and fill actually have to do with
providing the roadway slope that is required by the Fire
Department. There are different parts of the site that
exceed the cut and fill by different amounts, and that is
described with some numbers in the Staff Report calling out
the differences between those elements.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, just for the
record, since we’ve already heard this once, I believe when
we heard it we all said that we had visited the site, and
so I’m going to assume that my memory serves me correctly.
Thank you.
We have no other questions? All right, if we
don’t, then I will call the Applicant. I have two cards for
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
the Applicant. The Applicant will have ten minutes, then
anybody else can speak, and then you’ll have five minutes
to summarize. Since I have two cards, are you Maurice?
MAURICE CARMARGO: Maurice Carmargo, the
architect on the project.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, thank you.
Please, go ahead.
MAURICE CARMARGO: It’s been almost a year since
we’ve been here, so definitely been working hard with that,
and I want to thank Jennifer for her efforts all these
years, and thank you, Commissioners, for sending us back
last September to work on this, and we’ve made, I hope…
I’ll explain the ones that are the exceptions that we are
right now left with.
I’m going to go back a little bit and just
quickly remind us of where we started with the CDAC meeting
where we presented a condominium development as well as a
five-lot subdivision to start with.
Working with Staff beyond the CDAC we looked at
different ways we could develop the four lots on the
property that were closest to being zoning size lots and
footprints for the homes of the size. We looked at a flag
lot, which there was really none in the immediate
neighborhood to compare with, it’s not compatible in that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
way; and looked at putting a conventional cul de sac on the
property, which essentially gave us two of the lots being
footprints for building a house, very unconventional, and
the lot sizes became less than 10,000 square feet.
So we went and brought in the concept of doing a
PD with the street in the middle of the property and giving
us the four parcels with a fire turnaround type of
driveway, which in itself, having a private street on this
development brought us into having to be a Planned
Development. It’s 26’ in width. It gave us three street
parking spaces. The lots are all now around 12,000 square
feet, and the footprints that we looked at at this point
would fit the site to be compatible with the neighborhood
as well as the home (inaudible).
This is what we’re working with that we’re all
familiar with, and this is where we’re proposing to get to,
and I’ll explain about the grading and what we had to deal
with on the property to get to this point, so where we’re
at and where we want to go.
The property itself, what we’ve been dealing with
primarily is when the subdivision was built and Newell was
put in, it created a large bank along Newell. Then
apparently in the sixties it was donated to the Elks to
enable them to build their project in the remaining lot in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
the subdivision at the time. Their only access, and the
access that they built, was at the very far corner that
we’re familiar with there. I believe when we expanded
Winchester in its width the Town—this is within the Town
property—put up the 12’ wall that we’re all familiar with,
and to get the grades up above where the parking area is.
And like Jennifer mentioned, it’s a 14.4% slope lot from
this corner and it slopes all the way to the access corner.
And again, we’re surrounded by the back yards of the R-1:12
homes adjacent to it on two sides.
The Staff mentioned already some of what we’ve
been working on with Staff for the last few months. We’re
contending, and I’ll explain further, that we are within
the floor area ratio the way we calculate it, and I’ll
explain why we calculated it the way we did.
We did reduce the home, almost all in different
reductions, but we took out about 2,300 square feet in
total, not only in living floor area, but also reducing
bulk and height throughout the homes as we did it.
As mentioned, we stepped the walls further and
made sure that none of them exceeded the 5’. We’ve adjusted
the lot lines to comply with the R-1:12 zoning of lot
sizes. All the setbacks are now met. We had other things
that came up that were mentioned at the previous… We had
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
obstructions of the lines of sight coming into Newell,
because of that bank that we went through, the existing
bank that we have to go through. We lowered the walls and
we actually added another step to the walls to accomplish
that. We added a continuous sidewalk on the private road,
and now we have a continuous sidewalk all along to tie us
to Winchester. Even though the subdivision adjacent to us
has no sidewalks, we are providing sidewalks for maybe down
the road. We met all the maximum heights and all the fence
heights, so our concept was to try to comply as much as
possible with the R-1:12 standards, and that’s our goal all
the way through.
Right now we mentioned the reason for the PD
primarily is that we need a private road to make these
parcels work, and that puts us into the PD zoning request,
but along with that, and I’ll explain further in detail, we
have the cut and fill that was mentioned in excess of the
Hillside Standards, and this is supposed to be 50’. The
retaining walls that we have, we can break them to be at
50’. We’re proposing to leave them the way they are in that
they are curved walls, they are fully landscaped, and
they’re stepped walls, and I don’t think that was the
intent of the Hillside Standards to try to avoid walls that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
are more like the wall that we have along Winchester, tall
and continuous and straight through.
And the two items that we’re calling the
contention items that need to be discussed further with and
put before you is the FAR calculation, and I’ll explain
again how we’re looking at it, and then why we feel that
these homes are compatible with what’s going on, not in the
immediate homes right next to us, but in the neighborhood
as a whole.
So starting with the cut and fill, to explain the
cut and fill. This is primarily, I think, sort of the tail
that wags the dog, or vice-versa, but cutting through a
road in the middle of Newell, through that bank that was
formed by the original development of Newell, to the site,
is an area where we brought it as much as we could to allow
us to have the fire turnaround road access required by the
Fire Department. This whole entrance is an average excess
of cut of 4’ over the maximum allowable, and cut maximum
allowable in the hillsides is 4’, fill is 3’, and so this
is an area that this is what it took to build it
physically.
The rest of it is how we are moving as fast as
possible into the driveways of the first two homes, and to
create this space for this home, it made this area, the cut
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
area… Now, this cut area is only in excess of 2’ over the
allowable, by the allowable Hillside Standard of 4’ cut,
and again, these two pockets also became a 1’ differential
to have all the driveways. This one has the driveway all
the way to the back, so created the need for that.
And then we have fill areas. This one is an
average of 1’ over the allowable, which is…
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Your ten minutes are up.
If you want to go ahead and summarize within another minute
maybe.
MAURICE CARMARGO: Yeah. If you want to hear
more, I have the explanations…
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There will be questions,
I’m sure.
MAURICE CARMARGO: Very good.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But if you want to sum
up for a moment.
MAURICE CARMARGO: I’ll leave it that the fill is
in the area that we used the lot to mitigate and raise the
pad for the initial home and close off the existing
driveway on the corner of Winchester and Newell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right.
MAURICE CARMARGO: Yeah, that will be it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There are a number of
questions. I’ll start with Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: You’ve been working on this for
quite a while, and it’s been a while since our last
meeting, but typically we look for letters from the
community to know that you did some outreach and that they
support the project. We don’t have any. Can you elaborate
on why?
MAURICE CARMARGO: Letters from the neighbors and
community?
CHAIR BADAME: Yes, just to show that you made
some community outreach, that they’re aware of the project,
and that they agree with the project, or that they have
issues with the project.
MAURICE CARMARGO: Yes, I think there are a few
of the community neighbors here that we have been meeting
all along, and they’ve been made aware.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, thank you for that. I’ll
have another question later.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. Commissioner
Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I have three questions, is
that okay?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Go ahead.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
COMMISSIONER BURCH: The first one as far as the
private street. Can you explain to me who is going to
handle the maintenance of the street and sidewalk once
these homes are sold?
MAURICE CARMARGO: There will be an agreement
scenario where they will co-own the street between the four
neighbors, and that’s a reason that I’ll need to explain to
you how we calculated the floor area ratio for the homes as
well, what I’m proposing.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay.
MAURICE CARMARGO: They will share the private
street.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay. I’ll get back to Staff
on that later.
MAURICE CARMARGO: And that will be a legal lease
scenario, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay. Has the Fire
Department reviewed this private street with the
turnarounds, and approved it?
MAURICE CARMARGO: Yes. Yes, it was designed
originally by them and approved through working with the
fire chief since the previous Planning Commission meeting.
So we resolved it with them first and primary, and we have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
what I would call an approved Fire Department, meeting
their requirements.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: My last question was in your
presentation here you said that you do not exceed the floor
area ratio, but I assume that’s based on your calculations
on how you would like to…
MAURICE CARMARGO: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I might say, I think
you’ve explained in writing your calculations, so I don’t
think the question is our understanding your explanation. I
think there are more fundamental issues, so I’m just saying
that. Personally, I don’t think I have to go over again
what you did. It’s a question of are we going to adopt
that. So, Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: Exhibit 4, the CDAC comments, of
which they provided 38 comments providing you with
direction on your application, and outside of reducing the
lots from five to four, I’m having trouble reconciling how
you incorporated their direction.
I’ll start with the Town’s housing needs. We need
to make a finding that it addresses the Town’s housing
needs. So how does this meet our unmet needs?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
MAURICE CARMARGO: Well, in a previous Planning
Commission hearing we actually developed two of the homes
with secondary units and we presented those to you. We got
from the hearing and from the Commission that that wasn’t
really that big of a requirement or something that you were
looking for, so we did not follow through with trying to
keep two units within the design of these two extra units,
or secondary units, within these homes that we’re
presenting today. We just focused primarily on reducing it,
and to try to meet the FAR.
CHAIR BADAME: I’m sorry, reducing the number of
units, or reducing the FAR?
MAURICE CARMARGO: Keeping it within the FAR, but
trying to incorporate a secondary unit, like an in-law unit
within the design, as we proposed at the last Planning
Commission meeting and basically presented two options of
two other floor plans to add two additional units to
address what we thought was a means to add housing to the
Town.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes, Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’d like to follow up on
Commissioner Badame’s comments. Before we even consider the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
issue of a Planned Development we need to consider whether
or not this complies with our Housing Element, which is
part of our General Plan as well as our Residential Design
Guidelines. I’m going to go back to where Commissioner
Badame was going with the comments, and I’m going to read
some of them.
“Development should meet unmet needs. Additional
detached single-family market rate housing units are not an
unmet need in the Town of Los Gatos. Senior housing and
units for singles and younger adults with fewer bedrooms
and reduced total square footage are needed due to
demographics. Single-story senior units are desirable.
Below market price units are desirable.”
When we left the last hearing I thought that the
direction that we gave was you were going to look at other
complete designs, so can you tell me how this proposal
meets our Housing Element?
MAURICE CARMARGO: Well, if we go back to the
CDAC, what came out of that meeting too is we originally
went in to propose 11 condo units on that with underground
parking, and by the neighborhood it was totally… I think
they were going to lynch the architect when we presented it
originally as a kind of crack comment, but yeah, it was put
forth and there was at some point talk with one of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
Council people as being something that they would consider,
and we thought because the site was a little bit isolated
from the neighborhood and facing the club and Courtside,
and facing Winchester, and being able to put the cars
underneath would be feasible for that housing, but I think
the gist of what we got was single-family homes was
certainly supported by the neighborhood, and the more
likely solution from the Planning Commission and Council
from that CDAC meeting.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Let me repeat some of this
stuff. I don’t think we’re talking about the original
proposals you submitted to the CDAC, we’re talking about
the proposal you submitted to us, and where you are today.
Again, “Senior housing and units for single, younger adults
with fewer bedrooms and reduced total square footage are
needed due to demographics. Single-story units are
desirable.” Did you consider any of those? Because aside
from the issue of single-family homes, there are many, many
shades of difference between the houses that you proposed,
which are well above the size of the neighborhood, and
where things could be with additional single-family homes
that met the needs of seniors and our millennials.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
MAURICE CARMARGO: No, we did not. We stayed with
the four single-family residences on the R-1:12 zone that
we worked to try to comply as much as possible with.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay. I have an additional
question about the Residential Design Guidelines. I assume
you’ve read our Residential Design Guidelines, is that
correct?
MAURICE CARMARGO: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: One of the big aspects of
our Residential Design Guidelines is neighborhood
compatibility, and I know you did address that in your
letter, but the facts are that right now, given the
neighborhood, the way that we define it in our Residential
Design Guidelines and the way our Staff is presenting it,
the smallest house that you have is going to be close to
1,000 square feet more than any house in the neighborhood,
and so I’d like to understand why this is compatible with
the neighborhood.
MAURICE CARMARGO: Now, most of these homes were
built in the sixties, adjacent to the property. Very few
have yet been remodeled, and we pointed out here on this
chart homes that are more on the scale of our homes that
are in the neighborhood, but there are homes in the
neighborhood that are 3,200 square feet, 3,100 square feet,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
4,500, 3,000, et cetera. We’re building four homes all at
once, and they’re new, and we are taking them to the floor
area ratio allowed, a little below. The closest comparable
project that is in the neighborhood that was built a few
years back is the La Montagne subdivision, which is one lot
away from our proposal. It was all subdivided at once. We
have the same situation; it’s both also surrounded by the
same size homes. All these homes were built, and they are
in the range. A lot of them are larger than our homes, and
they’re in the same range as our homes in that regard, all
built at once.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m going to repeat the
question. Our Staff does not define the neighborhood as
including La Montagne, and additionally the CDAC indicated
that large, single-family, detached homes were not a
desirable thing for a Planned Development, so again, how
does this fit in the neighborhood? Our Staff and all our
standards say that La Montagne is not in the neighborhood.
You can say this stuff.
And then relative to the claim that you made
about houses that have yet to be developed, those would
have to comply with the neighborhood compatibility as well
in addition to the FAR, so why is building houses much
larger than their surrounding neighborhood compatible?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
MAURICE CARMARGO: So it’s a question of what is
the surrounding neighborhood. I attending a Council meeting
where the Council spoke a lot about this, and pointed out
the sheet that was being used as a surrounding neighborhood
being not only the immediate houses, but it’s intended to
say yes, the immediate houses surrounding have more effect
on what any one develops, or any one lot, or in our case
four lots, develops and how it affects the homes right
immediately next to this.
But a neighborhood is a neighborhood of
surrounding houses, and again, I’m pointing out that there
are other homes of that scale, there is a same situation
that was built where they build new homes all at once.
That’s a very good comparable scenario as to what we’re
dealing with and doing what we’re doing to develop this in
this day and age, to develop a four-parcel subdivision in
this remaining parcel adjacent to this subdivision that was
built in the sixties.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me make a
suggestion. When we establish that the Staff said
something, or the CDAC said something, and we get a
response which is basically I’m going to ignore that, which
is what we’re getting, I would suggest we not argue the
point. I think you’ve made the point.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m done.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, because we could
spend a lot of time on things that I don’t think we have a
problem with, in other words, we don’t agree with that. So
are there other questions or other…
I’m not trying to discourage people saying what
about this, but I would prefer perhaps if we said you did
not comply with this, how do you think you did? Because
it’s fairly obvious on your questions, and it’s fairly
obvious from his answers, they didn’t comply with it. They
came up with a different theory why they should do
something, which is what the Staff does not agree with, and
what the CDAC did not tell them. So we understand, I think,
that they’re trying to tell us that it’s a new and
different argument they have. So, with that being said, I
hope whatever I said will be helpful. I’m not trying to cut
down on the questions.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I heard the answer I
needed.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, thank you.
Are there other questions? If there are not, the Applicant
has exhausted his time. We have two cards, but I think
they’re both for the Applicant, so that will exhaust the
Applicant’s time. We’ll now have comments from others, not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
the Applicant, and then we’ll come back and you’ll have
five more minutes. Thank you.
I have received five or six cards here, and I’ll
just take them randomly. The first card I have is for
William Burns.
WILLIAM BURNS: Good evening. Pardon my slowness;
I’m having a problem with the knee through an injury, but
as you get a little bit older, you might understand that.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I understand it.
WILLIAM BURNS: That’s why I stated it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I forgot to also say not
only do we need your name, but if you wouldn’t mind giving
us, just for the record, orally, your address.
WILLIAM BURNS: William Burns, appearing on
behalf of William Burns and Ann Burns at 140 Newell Avenue
in Los Gatos.
We’ve been living there since 1971, and we’ve had
to put up with the ugly Elks Club for that whole period of
time, but now we have people coming along representing a
very good response to what was there, and it’s something
that I think all of us can live with.
It’s interesting we’ve had this business about
compatibility. I wonder why the Town doesn’t go out and ask
the people. It’s a very small town, it’s very easy; just go
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
through the neighborhood in about 15 minutes and find out
is this going to work? I don’t think you’ve had any
complaints, have you, from anybody?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, we’ll find out.
WILLIAM BURNS: None of these guys are going to
complain.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You know that, and I
don’t.
WILLIAM BURNS: Well, if they do, we’ll throw
rocks at them. It’s just my style.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I hope not.
WILLIAM BURNS: Well, you haven’t seen me in
court recently, I guess.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Is that a blessing?
WILLIAM BURNS: It’s always a nice time. Anyway,
we had a meeting last night on this. We’ve had meetings in
the past. This originally, I think, I don't know, it’s
probably been about a year-and-a-half ago this all got
going and we had a lot of the people involved, and lo and
behold today the wonderful town put slurry all down our
road so that it’s impossible to drive on it. A few people I
noticed did drive on it. They did that starting at 3:00
o'clock today, and you’re supposed to have four to six
hours before you can drive on it, so a lot of people are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
afraid to go out of their houses. There might have been a
lot more people if that hadn’t been done, and I’m wondering
why was it done today? Interesting. Is there anybody, say,
on the Planning Commission, that’s greatly opposed to this?
From what I can see and as far as the plans, I
think it’s a great plan, and it fits in very well, and I
think as far as compatibility, I think it’s going to be
great compatibility. We had La Montagne built there a few
years ago, and for some strange reason they didn’t go
through a lot of the things that they were supposed to do.
They built houses taller than they should have and cut off
the view of all the people going up Newell Avenue who now
have no… (Timer) Geez, is that quick.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Three more seconds.
WILLIAM BURNS: I usually talk a lot longer than
that. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Not here, you don’t.
WILLIAM BURNS: Well, anyway, I’m free to talk to
anybody that wants to. I think this is a great plan, and I
can’t see that they’ve done anything wrong. You can ask a
lot of these small questions, but if there’s a big
question, why don’t you ask a big question? I don’t see
any. Anyway, thank you very much for your time.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We’ll see if there are
any questions for you. Are there any questions?
WILLIAM BURNS: Anytime.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There are not. Thank you
very much.
WILLIAM BURNS: That’s surprising.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The next card I have is
Liat Perlman.
LIAT PERLMAN: Hi, for the record I’m Liat
Perlman. I live at 183 Newell Avenue, my parents’ estate,
as I ready it for rental. My parents and I moved into this
house in 1979. The Elks Club has been a problem since then.
When I look at my house, something I’d like to
address, a question that came up earlier regarding the cut
and fill. Last year at this Planning Commission meeting I
invited you guys to come and visit my property and possibly
measure the cut and fill on my parents’ property. Nobody,
in a whole year, took me up on that offer.
So in order to put any kind of development on
this property, because of the way the rest of the
development was built at that time, there are only limited
ways to get a street in there to serve the four pieces of
property.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
You asked a question regarding how does the
neighborhood feel about the development? I have never in my
life seen a neighborhood so behind a development in Los
Gatos in the last 40 years. Last Council meeting there was
lots of people here saying approve it as is.
I’ve had to wait for an entire year. Let me share
with you what are some of the things that have happened
this year. We’ve had bottles thrown over the fence. We’ve
had vagrants taking up residence on the property. We’ve had
most recently a fire on the property, a power outage on the
property, et cetera.
We’re looking for neighbors. You’re talking about
a neighborhood? Newell Avenue is the neighborhood, not the
six houses so determined by the Staff. I have always
associated myself with the entire neighborhood. So you’re
picking six houses based on some random thought of what a
planning committee has decided. It’s obvious the entire
street was developed at the same time. If you look at the
entire street, this fits, end of story. We shouldn’t be
sitting here three to four years after this property was
purchased. This should have been homes ages ago. You’re not
doing your job.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you. Are there any
questions? There are no questions? I have the next card,
which is for Khalil Fattahi.
KHALIL FATTAHI: Good evening, I’m Khalil
Fattahi. I’m a neighbor with the Elks Lodge at the corner.
My address is 123 Newell Court, and for 21 years I’m their
neighbor, and this Elks building there is just a thorn,
it’s just a nuisance. It’s been a nightmare, and you guys
do not get it, because you’re not living next to it. I get
eggs at night over my deck in the back, in the windows; and
we have homeless now who go there; we have drug dealers; we
have Harley Davidson gangs go there, trade drugs and stuff
there, and you guys don’t get it. You want to say we are
all by the rules. Let me tell you one thing.
About eight or nine years ago there was a sign
for sale on a lot, one acre, on Los Gatos Boulevard. And
there was a realtor’s number on it. It was laid down on the
floor. I called. They said the price is so much; the seller
is on the east coast. But I came to the Town Planning
Commission and I found out what I can do with that
property. I wanted to build a medical office on that
property so just it is by the tavern. And then they said
there’s no way, you have to have first floor retail. I did
not buy that, and it was at half price, because the seller
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
was on the east coast and he didn’t know what the heck they
had. Two months later a colleague of mine, a podiatrist,
tells me, “You know, Khalil, we just bought this property
with another doctor.” I said, “But the first floor has to
be retail.” He said, “You know, at the same time the mayor
of Los Gatos was my patient. I brought that up, said,
“We’ll take care of it.” They bought it, they built a
medical office, and there is no retail on the first floor.
I don’t want to name the doctor, so go by the rules, but
pay attention to what the neighbors are saying.
Last year, I remember all your faces. All of the
neighborhood, 20 people, were here. There is not a single
person opposed to having some four homes there. And they
are doing their best. This land has a special slope. There
is only so much they can do, and they are doing everything
they can do. And now all of a sudden Los Gatos is shut down
to single families that have three or four children, and
you want just for single people to just move in in that
lot.
Just why don’t you say you have other plans for
that? You want to have another parking, and then again
we’re going to have drug dealers back there. We want
neighbors. We just had a fire ten days ago from the winds.
Two wires from the high power went, and there was so much
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
dried stuff there, and Toby, my other neighbor who could
not come, his house was first going up, and his wife just
saw the smoke, 911 didn’t work, and ran to the fire
station. They came, and they saved many homes.
We want four homes there. We’re fed up. It has
taken too long.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Your time is up, but I
think we’ve got your message.
KHALIL FATTAHI: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There is a question?
Commissioner Badame has a question.
CHAIR BADAME: So I understand the Fire
Department was responsive. With the homeless, the vagrancy,
and the vandalism that’s going on, have you contacted the
Los Gatos-Monte Sereno Police Department for
responsiveness?
KHALIL FATTAHI: Yes. They come, and then that
one goes, another one comes.
CHAIR BADAME: I’m sorry: another one comes
meaning?
KHALIL FATTAHI: Another pickup truck comes
there. The homeless guy has a little car. He goes there,
and then his friends come overnight, and then we kick them
out again, and then they come again.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.
KHALIL FATTAHI: This has become a known place
for those who want a shelter for late night activity.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you. I have, I
think, just one more card; let me check. The last card I
have is Dale Miller.
DALE MILLER: I’m Dale Miller, 150 Newell Court.
I abut Lot 1 in that house in this proposed plan.
I’m absolutely for this development, as I’ve
been, and there’s not one neighbor I’ve talked to—and when
I say neighbor, I walk the neighborhood with my dog on a
regular basis; that’s Newell Avenue, any of the courts—
that’s not for this development. We all want houses. It’s
been a disaster, as you’ve heard, for the Elks Club all
these years.
I moved in in 1998, and the first 15 years until
the Elks were forced out, or sold, or whatever they did,
was a disaster. They were terrible neighbors. They never
took care of their property, they were always a fire
hazard, there were always weeds, nothing ever happened.
So this proposal will eliminate a neighborhood
eyesore, not only for Lark Avenue, but Winchester entering
into Los Gatos. At one of the previous meetings I went to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
we talked about when Netflix was going on, how are you
going to make Los Gatos beautiful? Well, take the stupid
building down.
This original building, my neighbor was Jack
Aiello who passed away a couple of years ago, he was the
superintendent for Jules Duke, who really did this initial
subdivision of houses we’re talking about. These lots were
originally zoned R-1 and it was given to the Elks Club, and
there was supposedly a waiver given to them to make this a
fraternal organization, but it was still kept R-1. We want
those lots as houses, R-1, which are quarter acre, which is
what the neighborhood is today.
To give you an idea of my house on Lot 1, I have
the same problem they have with their house. My house is
2,150 square feet, and I have hillside and slope and all
kinds of problems. I tried to figure out how I could build
my house and expand it, and I kept running into issues with
setbacks. That’s as big a house as my lot can take, so my
only choice was to go two-story; I decided not to do that.
We did some remodeling inside, but the house was a sixties
house. You would not believe my master bathroom, it’s
basically the size of a small sailboat cabin; it’s very
small.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
So what I expect when I finally sell my house is
they’re going to scrape my house; they’re going to do what
these guys are proposing. The 3,800 square foot house that
was planned behind my house will be what will be put up, I
would guess, as long as you guys approve it. There will be
a full cellar, it will be a 2,130 square foot two-story, or
whatever you guys allow.
So it’s time to get on with this project. It’s
been going on for three-and-a-half years. You guys need to
come to an agreement, compromise whatever you have to
compromise, and let’s get these houses built. This is
crazy. This is taking longer than the Netflix, which is
many, many times more complex than this project. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Any questions? Thank you
very much. I have another speaker, Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue.
I don’t think there’s any question that this lot
is going to be developed with single-family houses, it’s
just a question of how many, how big, and what the
configuration of the lots are going to be.
When I think of a PD, I think a PD is something
that you use so that you can be more flexible in how you
set our your site that is more responsive to the
constraints and the topography of the site, and apparently
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
there is quite a bit of slope to it. So when I look at this
I’m asking myself shouldn’t the PD be used to provide a
better site plan and lot division for this particular site
that works for the site with the topography? Shouldn’t the
PD be used to allow you to vary the lot sizes to be able to
do that, and to vary the house sizes so that they all fit
the site rather than just maximizing the number of unit?
It seems like this could be developed as a
standard subdivision with a public street, but only three
houses looking at the way they proposed that particular
thing. So I guess my question is if the reason that the PD
is being used here is because they can’t get four lots with
a public street, but they can get four lots with a private
street, because the private street doesn’t have the same
criteria that a public street does, is that really the
purpose of a PD?
Like I said, anything that’s developed here will
be single-family. I’m not sure if might be better use if it
were multi-family townhouses, maybe not as many as they
wanted, but nonetheless, it’s R-1; they’re proposing an R-1
use. I would ask you to consider whether the PD is being
used appropriately.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Are there questions?
Thank you very much. With that, we conclude all of the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
other speakers, and I now will go back to the Applicant.
The Applicant has five minutes.
KURT ANDERSON: Mr. Chair, can we have a short
break of the hearing? We want to confer a little bit more
and we get back to you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We’ll take a five-minute
recess.
KURT ANDERSON: That would be great. Thank you so
much.
(INTERMISSION)
MAURICE CARMARGO: …about the street being shared
by all four properties. So the way we propose the FAR to be
calculated, based on the overall calculation used for the
average slope reduction was using the slope reduction for
the entire parcel, and then we divided that to the size of
each of the lots. What that gave us is the four homes being
between 3,200 and the 3,800, so they’re all about the same
size and they’ll all be sharing the same cause, and so
we’re creating four homes that are about the same size,
taking care of the road the same way.
The difference between the two methods is 150’.
We’re proposing all four homes to be less than either
method of calculating it as the square footage of all the
four homes, it’s just that each on of those homes now are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
going to be the same size, the same scale buyer that are
sharing the same road, and that’s our basis for that floor
area ratio, the way we calculate it.
We really have worked exhaustively on this, and
as you heard the neighbors, keeping them abreast of what
we’re doing all along the way. We would like to really hear
from you one way or the other. I hope you’ve read enough
and seen enough of what we’ve done, the 2,300 square feet
of reduction and everything else, to get us to yes. Four
homes is what we’ve been working on since CDAC, but not
ignoring the CDAC, their recommendations, but listening a
lot to the neighbors and what everybody wanted on those
lots.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Are there questions?
Have you completed your remarks?
MAURICE CARMARGO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, then I will
close the public comments for this meeting, and I will now
ask the Commission to give their thoughts, and ultimately a
motion. Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: I have a question for Staff, but
it’s a follow up to Ms. Quintana’s comments, and that would
be if this were a two- or three-lot subdivision, can you
confirm that that would not require the Planned Development
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
Overlay Zone, and that it could be accommodated by a public
roadway, as opposed to putting a private road through there
to accommodate four units?
JENNIFER ARMER: If it was two lots I think you
could get the required frontage in terms of lot dimensions,
but if it was more than two lots then you’d need to do a
flag lot configuration or something like that, which is
discouraged by the code.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Armer.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Other questions or
comments? I will say something for people to think about.
On its face this project does not meet a number of the
things that typically we’re told it should meet. Now, we
tonight make a recommendation; we don’t make a decision.
Ultimately the Town Council will make the decision.
I’ve been listening to everybody’s concerns, and
I guess we kind of have to figure out… The concerns are
with the building, the Elks Club, and I’m totally
empathetic with that, and the thought is if homes go in
you’re going to have better neighbors and it’s going to be
better, and I don’t disagree with that either.
The question we have is lawyers say, “hard facts
make bad law,” and in this case we have some hard facts,
and the biggest fact I’ve heard of is people would like
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
homes there, and they’re focused on homes, they’re focused
on how much better their life will be if that Elks Club
problem goes away.
So we have to decide tonight, I think, to what
extent we can do something we don’t normally do and
recommend to the Council that they consider that. We may
say well it just doesn’t meet enough things, and the
Council will consider that. But I guess I’m troubled
because this is a very difficult lot, and I hear somebody
say even if you put in two lots—which I think is probably
not a practical, economic way to do it—it doesn’t work.
So I don't know what the solution is, and that’s
not our job. It’s not our job to figure out what the
solution is, but I am pausing and I’m hopeful that people
will talk a little bit tonight about what do we do with
tough facts and our interpretation, I think a good
interpretation, of the requirements we have? Is there
anything we can do with those requirements? For example,
we’ve never seen what is being asked for on the way the
slope is being taken care of here, average it out is what
they’re suggesting. The question was asked I think of Staff
have we ever done that before, and I believe the answer was
no, so this would be a first decision. Now, we’re not
making that decision, we’re making a recommendation.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
So I only throw that out. I don’t think the
people appreciate what we have to deal with, and I don’t
blame them; that’s not their problem. But we have to deal
with it and we will have to face this issue on other
properties. So that being said, that doesn’t mean we can’t
think about this hard and possibly come up with something
else, or not. So I’m just throwing that out, because I
personally feel like we owe it to people to understand
where we’re coming from and how we’re getting to wherever
we’re going. So that having been said, I’ll ask
Commissioner Burch to start.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I agree, I would like to see
it move on tonight; it has been a long time. If we’re
specifically, and I believe you were, talking about the
three exceptions listed on page 2 of our Staff Report, I’m
going to skip the first one and I’m going to come back to
the floor area.
As far as the cut and fill goes, I’m walking
distance from this property. I’m by no means a civil
engineer, but I’m not sure that we can meet the
requirements required by the Fire Department for slope
access to this lot without exceeding the cut and fill. So
I’m less concerned about that, having been familiar with
that lot and also what the code requirements are.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
I’m also not as concerned about the retaining
walls, because they do step back, so when you do look at it
at a plan view level, while it is continuous, it’s actually
continuous step backs.
So those particular two I wouldn’t have a problem
with. What I’m going to have a problem with—and much like
what you said, and it’s nobody’s responsibility to
understand all the rules and regulations we have to adhere
to and where it follows down the line on other
applications—is Item 1, and redoing what we’ve been told by
the Hillside Guidelines for how we calculate the floor area
ratio on a property exceeding the 10% slope.
So my only, and if I understand—and Ms. Armer,
please correct me if I’m wrong—there are actually only two
homes that are exceeding that. If you look at the chart
that Ms. Armer put together on page 3, it appears to only
be Lot 1 and Lot 4 that are exceeding the maximum floor
area ratio that is required by our hillside, so I feel like
we’re not that far off actually from not having that. I
would not personally want to change how we look the floor
area ratio on a hillside when I actually feel like the
numbers are very achievable just by looking at square
footages here, so that’s where I am on looking at these
three points.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Do I understand you to
say then that you think something could be done with that
one condition, which is now presently being met?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I believe that the square
footage of those homes could be brought down into
compliance, and therefore we wouldn’t be asking… We could
find reasons on the other two. That would be brought into
compliance that—I can only speak for myself—I would be
comfortable with the PD as it stands.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Normally I would think
we would like to know what that means to reduce the size.
You could do a calculation.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: No, I don’t need to, it’s
right here on page 3.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Ms. Armer has put together a
great chart here that says the requirements. For example,
Lot 1, if we are going by the Hillside Guidelines, is that
the maximum floor area ratio for Lot 1, the home, is 3,336.
They have proposed 3,592. I’m saying bring it to the 3,336,
and the same on Lot 4, and then I would not have much of an
issue, but I don’t know that I want to start messing with
how we calculate the floor area ratio with the slopes,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
because I can—pun intended—see that being a slippery slope
that we would get into.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. Other comments?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I asked a lot of questions
earlier, but I did want to say that I do absolutely 100%
feel sympathetic to the issue with the Elks Lodge, and I do
believe that residential should be going into the property.
So then it comes down to the details, and ideally we would
have a proposal that fit more with our code, and that way
we could easily approve it. So we have these complex
issues, which one is just the compliance with code and our
plans, and then there’s also the request for the PD.
In terms of the request for the PD, the stated
purpose of the PD is to provide for alternative uses in
developments that are more consistent with the site
characteristics to create optimum quantity and use of open
space and encourage good design. There are probably some
arguments that could be made that if there were less units
it might have less need for a PD, but I didn’t hear
anything that would eliminate the need for the PD
altogether if residential is going to be put in here at any
quantity more than two units, which may not be economically
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
feasible. So that being the case, it seems like it would be
necessary to do the PD.
As far as Commissioner Burch’s comments, I agree
with her about the cut and fill and the retaining wall.
As far as the floor area ratio, I think that
although there is a maximum floor area ratio it’s clear in
our Residential Design Guidelines and our code that the FAR
is not a goal, is a maximum, and so we frequently see
development proposals where they go to the maximum FAR, and
then it comes down to an issue of neighborhood
compatibility.
I don’t think it would be completely unreasonable
for this to be more compatible in terms of the size of the
neighborhood. There could still be four units, but the
maximum square footage doesn’t need to be more than 2,500.
That would get the additional requirement of doing
something and having smaller unit sizes and being more in
the range of meeting some of the needs of some of our young
professionals, but it would still be a perfectly decent
size house. So for me, I would like to see this go forward
with much smaller unit sizes more in line with the
neighborhood.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Other comments? Vice
Chair Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
VICE CHAIR KANE: I think a picture is worth a
thousand words. Commissioner Hanssen has referred to the
intent of the Planned Development Overlay Zone, and she did
it back in September of last year; I watched the whole tape
today and feel like I’m getting déjà vu all over again.
The PD is supposed to provide alternative uses,
as has been said, more consistent with site characteristics
so to create optimum quality, use of open space, encourage…
I’m going to stop right there. Use of open space. Look at
the two projects. Back in September of last year there were
comments made about where do the children play, and do they
play even without those sidewalks, which we now have?
But what we have here is four large units crammed
in, and our town asks that we not do that. Our town has the
codes, it has the Residential Design Guidelines, and the
Hillside Standards, all to protect and preserve while also
recognizing the rights of developers to develop; they just
have to do it within code.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say
hypothetically that had that happened three years ago the
Elks Lodge wouldn’t be there, so I don’t think we blocked
them. We’re trying to, as you said, live by the codes and
ordinances that we took an oath to uphold, and we have a
project that doesn’t do that. So it’s hard for us to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
support it, even though the Elks Lodge is a great burden on
all the neighbors. It didn’t have to be that way.
Well, maybe we can find a way to get something
done, but what I’m faced with is Staff saying, “The project
does not comply with Town Code, the applicable sections of
the Hillside Design Guidelines, the Residential Design
Guidelines, or the General Plan, and the size of the homes
are not compatible with the surrounding area.” These are
key principles that we use to protect and preserve the
Town. We can‘t just give them away, and had we found a way
to comply with these, there would have been something up
there three years ago, and maybe a whole bunch more open
space.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me say something. I
think what Commissioner Burch said is persuasive to me, and
that is a lot softer, I think. Really, if I understand it
correctly—and Commissioner Burch can correct me—you could
support a motion that would reduce the size of two lots as
suggested, which we have discussed, the two numbered lots.
You could support a motion such as that, notwithstanding
the other problems.
I feel the same way. This property has been
looking for a use now for quite a while, and there’s a
reason for that; it’s a very difficult piece of property. I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
believe that this project, if modified really slightly,
could satisfy the developer and could satisfy the
neighbors. Now, it has to go before the Council and the
Council could say exactly as the Vice Chair just said;
everything he said was correct, and therefore I’m perhaps
being more lenient, as is perhaps Commissioner Burch, but I
think we have a focus now.
I think we have two possibilities. There are
always more, I suppose, but I see it as two possibilities
at the moment. We can say we’d really like to support this,
but it has too many things it doesn’t comply with and we’ll
let the Town Council figure out how they do that, or we can
say Commissioner Burch has a really good idea, and we could
really narrow it down and say we could support this to the
Council except for these two items, and those are not
dramatic reductions in size, so perhaps it’s something that
the developer could take, or the developer could argue to
the Council no it’s too much, or whatever.
But as far as our job, I’m leaning towards trying
to move this project along, but I totally understand if
people say that’s all well and good, but that’s not our
job. So I would invite a motion now, unless somebody wants
to make some more comments. Commissioner Badame.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
CHAIR BADAME: I would just like to make my
comments. No doubt about it, there’s been abuse of the
Planned Development Overlay Zone, and it’s a bone of
contention within the Town, and amongst us when we make our
decisions.
I can see the arguments pro and con that the
Commissioners have brought forward, but when we talk about
a picture is worth a thousand words, what that picture
doesn’t tell you is that due to the topography of where
this is in the intersection, it’s very massive. Because of
its location right there at that T intersection, it’s
pretty formidable looking with the size and mass and scale
of the four homes. Trying to reduce two of them, that might
make sense, but I can’t make a decision and feel
comfortable with it without seeing a redesign, and quite
frankly, I’m really struggling to see how this meets the
intent of the Planned Development Overlay Zone in regard to
the open space, as Vice Chair Kane has pointed out, and
also setting precedent for future applications.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right. Any other
comments? Please.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think we’ve heard really
compelling information from the Applicant, and compelling
testimony from the neighborhood. We have our rules, we have
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
our marching orders, and so we’re kind of between a rock
and a hard space and we’re really trying to get to a place
where everyone is happy with some expedience.
I do agree that we should relax those two
bullets, as Commissioner Burch has recommended, and I also
agree that the size of the houses are too large. While we
can bring down two, that still leaves two that are pretty
massive, and as Commissioner Badame mentioned, the aspect
of those houses, where they sit on the hillside, looks
pretty dense, so it really misses the neighborhood
compatibility mark for me in that regard. There’s just a
massive building, or it doesn’t read to me any differently
from office buildings or condominiums; it’s just really
dense.
If you were to bring the house size down, perhaps
more houses on the lot, I don't know what makes sense in
terms of numbers, but the simple square footage is just too
much, and when you look at that aspect from the corner, and
this is a prominent corner in the town, so we do want to
get it right, we do want it much, much improved over what’s
there, but I have a sense that it can be brought more
visually compatible as well as within the FAR.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me again throw this
out. I’m listening to this, trying to think what practical
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
kind of recommendation can we make, and what I’m again
hearing, I think what Commissioner Burch said is very
helpful, but I also think when you talk about the mass and
scale of these homes as located, it is pretty darn
significant, and it’s true you would have to reduce two of
those homes simply to satisfy one of the problems we’re
concerned with. But I think Commissioner Janoff is correct
that as you drive into town from Lark or wherever, they’re
going to be awfully big in your face
So we can also consider, because again, we’re not
making the decision, we could say we recommend the approval
of the project, subject however to one, a reduction in the
size of the units to get rid of the bulk and mass—it will
give the developer a chance to talk about those numbers
with the Council—and two, that to satisfy the other problem
identified you have to reduce in any event the size of the
two lots that we talked about.
Now, if you address the problem that Commissioner
Janoff talked about, it may be possible you can just
satisfy all of them in any event. So I’m just saying rather
than a flat out no or a flat out yes, because we don’t have
that ability here, I don’t think, for good reason, I would
encourage a motion to make a recommendation to the Council
that could help both the citizens, the developer, and the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 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
Council, because ultimately they’re going to have to deal
with the bulk and mass, I think.
I don’t want to send the developer back to the
drawing board. This has been going on far too long, but if
I were the developer and I were coming before the Council,
I might give some real thought to how I could do that and
perhaps discuss that with the Council.
I’m just expressing my feelings, I’m not making a
motion, but that’s my thought. Now I’m going to ask Vice
Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: I think a motion is imminent,
but as I listen I see the micro picture and the neighbors,
and I see the macro picture, which is the town and the
future. To imply that we’re supporting a project that does
not comply with the Town Code, the Hillside Standards, the
Residential Design Guidelines, the General Plan,
compatibility with the neighborhood, the variable is
economic feasibility, and I can’t do that. That’s the only
variable.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: All right, do we have a
motion? Anyone want to hazard a motion? Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I’m going to hazard one,
because I think I know where we’re going, and it will lead
to another discussion.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
51
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’m going to make a motion that we recommend
approval, however, I’m going to have some caveats to that
approval for Planned Development Application PD-14-002, and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-002 at 105 Newell
Avenue, requesting approval of a Planned Development to
rezone a property from R-1:12 to R-1:12:PD and allow
demolition of an existing building, a four-lot subdivision,
and construction of four single-family residences on
property zoned R-1:12, but will be R-1:12:PD. Do I need to
go through all these findings first?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would suggest that you
said caveat, and I think you mean conditions?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah. My conditions to my
putting out an approval rather than a denial would be the
following:
The overall square footage of the homes needs to
be reduced. They’re very large, and it’s a prominent
corner. At minimum I would say all units need to meet the
FAR as laid out by Staff per the Hillside Percentage Slope
Guidelines.
On top of that, I would like to see Lot 4,
because it’s on the corner, be a single-story property.
It’s already almost 27’ tall, and then with the slope you
wind up with an over 40’ height on that corner that I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
52
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
believe is part of what the discussion has been as far as
the impact. I know oftentimes we say you want them smaller,
how much? That’s why I’m putting the caveat of the FAR. I
can’t say a size to that, because I’m not going to redesign
it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You’re conditioning it,
right?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah, and so then I’m saying
I understand the cut and fill. Anything I think that’s
going to go in here is going to have a cut and fill issue.
I’m going to be really specific. I’m okay with the
retaining walls as shown on the 3-2-17 drawing set, because
the previous retaining wall did not have this step-back
feature, and now we do. So I want to be very specific to
the set of documents that we’re referencing for that
approval, because I don’t want to see it suddenly fall back
to what it was previously and my name is saying I approved
that.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, and then the other
things that you’ve sidestepped for the moment, the
requirements that we have to make to approve, and those are
the normal requirements which are set forth in the Staff
Report.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
53
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: Yeah, that the project is
consistent with… I’m not finding the other requirements. I
don't know that I have Exhibit 3 I think is the problem.
JOEL PAULSON: Commissioner Burch, I think you
can simply reference Exhibit 3 from the September 14, 2016
Staff Report, which contained all the findings.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: That’s what I’m doing.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Is there a second? I’ll
second it. Is there discussion? Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: A question. When the motion
says that at minimum the houses should be within the FAR,
that does leave open the opportunity for two of those homes
to increase in square footage, and I don’t think that would
be our intent.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And I don’t think she
meant that.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: No, I did not mean that.
Thank you very much. It’s not the intention that Lots 2 and
3 now grow to meet the FAR; they would stay as they are.
The other two lots would reduce. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me ask a question on
the motion, too. The discussion I’ve heard is the houses in
general are too big, and you’ve also pointed out that one
particular house, because of the geographical setup, has
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
54
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
even more trouble. I think if we simply suggest to the
Council that we think the houses are too big.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: That’s why I wasn’t giving a
number.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: We don’t have to have a
number. Somebody will have to make the number, but you have
also pointed out a particular problem, and we know when we
said at a minimum I don’t think we meant at a minimum. The
houses are too large.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That’s between the
developer and the Council as to what number they would
assign to each house, so you’re not approving tonight any
specific number, at least under this motion as I understand
it, is that correct?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: My question still remains
in terms of being able to support the motion about
neighborhood compatibility. When I heard your motion,
Commissioner Burch, it’s more about taking steps towards
that, but I still feel that we don’t have to have a number
in our recommendation to Council, but for me to feel
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
55
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
comfortable recommending it to Council I’d want to see a
pretty substantial size reduction that would be more in
keeping with the neighborhood, not to just meet the
required numbers of our code, because as I said, FAR is not
a goal, and they’re pretty far off the neighborhood by
anyone’s definition. I mean La Montagne is not the
neighborhood.
So I would want to see, and I would hope that
Council would consider asking the Applicant to make, a more
significant size reduction, like the idea that you
suggested about a single-story unit for one of the units. I
don’t think that’s unreasonable to ask; they would still be
pretty sizable units. So without saying the number, I’d
just want to see it be more substantial to bring it in line
with neighborhood compatibility is what I’m looking for.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’ll ask the maker of
the motion on this, and I perhaps have understood the
motion the way I wanted to understand the motion, but I
really think most of us have said they’re too big. I’m
trying to stay away from numbers…
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: …because I don’t think
we have to go there, but if everybody feels for example we
really ought to get a number or percentages…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
56
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: No.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: …or be clearer about
that, I’m not fighting that, but I just don’t feel I have
enough facts tonight to tell the developer, for example,
everything has got to be 2,500 square feet. I don’t think
that’s necessary, and I certainly don’t feel comfortable
with that.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Can I ask a quick question
as far as…
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes, just one second.
Let me just finish my one sentence, which would be that
perhaps I’m just trying to pass it along to the Council,
but the reason I’m trying to pass it along to the Council
is it gives the developer time he doesn’t have tonight, if
he’s listening to us, to respond to these very serious
issues. Now, that having been said, Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I understand the reluctance
to provide specific numbers, but it seems to me in my
limited time on the Planning Commission that that has posed
additional problems or complexity when we pass it up to the
Town Council, and when we say reduce, and when the Town
Council says reduce, and we don’t give specific numbers or
some general idea, reducing it by 100 square feet is a
reduction, but it isn’t the size of reduction that we’re
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
57
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
really talking about, so even though we may be reluctant to
provide a specific number, I think a range of numbers would
be reasonable and better guidance. Perhaps it’s something
like the average house of the immediate neighborhood on
Newell, plus or minus a certain number of square feet. I
think in fairness to the developer, if there’s going to be
any sort of a rework, we should give a better framing of
what we mean by reduce.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don’t argue that, but
let me just say one thing. Ultimately the Council will
decide, and we can say exactly what you’ve said, and maybe
that’s what everybody wants to do, but in the final
analysis the Council will say whatever each house should
be. I perhaps have more confidence that the Council
wouldn’t say we’re going to get 100 feet, because they
didn’t tell us. The discussion tonight is it’s too big, and
clearly I think the Council… How do you phrase this? The
Council understands that 100 square feet is not going to
change it; it’s too big. But that’s fine. If somebody wants
to ask the maker of the motion to make an amendment to the
motion in some specific way, now would be the time to do
it. Yes, Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: What I was asking
Commissioner Burch was if she would be willing to consider
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
58
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
adding on something to the effect of to bring the houses
more in line with the neighborhood as defined in the Staff
Report.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah, that was exactly what
I was raising my hand for, saying what if I put in wording
that said that?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And as the seconder I
would accept that too. Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Staff or someone has provided
us with many, many houses and sizes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But that’s not what they
define as the neighborhood.
VICE CHAIR KANE: No, but the neighborhood is
part of this, so if we want to give advice to Council, the
houses on Newell, for example, would be a good comparison.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No, they give us the
comparison. They tell us what houses we’re comparing it to.
We don’t need a long list.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Right. I’m just building
towards the Residential Design Guidelines, which has
prohibitive language on the largest house in the
neighborhood, and this would be largest one, two, three,
four, so what’s what we want to come down to is the
neighborhood as the Commissioner said.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
59
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 O'DONNELL: The neighborhood as
defined.
VICE CHAIR KANE: As defined, yeah.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah, (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, that’s fine. Are
there other questions, comments, or requests for an
amendment? Commissioner Badame.
CHAIR BADAME: I’m still having trouble with the
motion. There are so many gray areas for me to feel
comfortable with. I mean I’d like to see the project
reduced and know what I’m dealing with. It’s kind of we’re
sending something on that we don’t really know what it’s
going to look like. You can reduce square footage, but you
can still have a design that still looks bulky and massive
in that intersection.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That’s fine, and I would
vote no if I were you. Okay, anybody else have… I mean
right, we’re not going to… That’s not the motion.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, cut to the chase.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That’s not the motion.
Are there other comments or questions? Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We have the alternative to
continue the matter to a certain date. This isn’t an up or
down vote, it’s only a recommendation, but alternatively
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
60
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 Commission seems to have the ability to take another
look at it if that were prudent and worthwhile. I think
that’s what Commissioner Badame is saying, let’s know what
we’re sending upstairs.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That’s two.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: (Inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’ll just call the
question and we’ll see where we are.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So all those in favor of
the motion, say aye. We have four votes in favor, so it
will pass.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Ask for the contraries.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Are there abstentions?
No. So there are two no votes, is that correct? Okay.
I’ll ask Mr. Paulson to comment. There’s no
appeal because it’s a recommendation, so now it will be set
before the Council, is that correct?
JOEL PAULSON: That is correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So I think we’re
finished with this matter, is that correct?
JOEL PAULSON: That’s correct. I’ll just for the
record state that the motion to forward the recommendation
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 8/9/2017
Item #2, 105 Newell Avenue
61
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 the Council with modifications was approved 4-2 with
Vice Chair Kane and Commissioner Badame opposed.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes, Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Just to confirm, obviously
even though we did that there was a lot of extremely good
input from anyone that didn’t even agree with the motion.
All of that will be in transcript given to Council, so
those that didn’t support the motion, all of their concerns
will be equally addressed in that meeting, correct?
JOEL PAULSON: The Council will receive verbatim
minutes of the hearing this evening.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Good.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, that being the
case, the matter is closed.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank