Attachment 10 - Appeal of Planning Commission decisionFILING FEES
p A 1 0 Town of Los Gatos
Office of the Town Clerk
MAY U 8 2ll0 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030 $370.00 (?LAPPEAL) Residential
, $1,487.00 (PLAPPEAL), per
Commercial Multi-family or
Tentative Map Appeal
0~ff~1JOifBLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
TRANSCRIPTION•$500 (PLTRANS) I, th e unders igned , do he reby appeal a decision of th e Planning Commi ss ion as
follows: (P LEASE TYPE OR PR J T EAT L Y )
PROJECT I APPLICATION NO:
DATE OF PLA NN ING COMM ISS ION D EC ISI ON i-..{ ~ -/7
Arc."-:' Sth:.. S-lb-D"'> 1 S-.~~clt.J/)/111\.. M-JC.-002...
{'/ c;; .. h.Jt... f'x.d~,r,..h~ tJ IJ ~ 1(, -oo.)
/£lt,D -t£91</ Wu,c&::.hc T::,l.rc/ ADDRESS LOCAT ION:
Pursuant to the Town Code, the Town Council may o nly grant an appeal o f a Planning Commi ssion d ec is ion in mos t matters if the
Coun c il find s that o ne of three (3} rea sons exist for granting th e appeal by a vote of at least three (3} Co un cil members. T herefore,
please specify ho w one of tho se reasons exists in the appeal:
I. '-~~ e:: L1.....J..-/1 c I I ~~?' The Planning Co mmi ssion erred or abused its di screti o n because -----=~c.=..-=L-::...._ __ /7 __ / ll_n_--.:..n....:....::::·"-=--= ·~,..::::.. _____ _
___________________________________________________________________ ;OR
2. There is new info rm ation that was no t reasonabl y availab le at the time ofthe Plannin g Commi ssion decision , whi c h is
-------------------------(please attach th e ne w informatio n if possible): OR
3. The Plann ing Commi ss ion did not have di sc re ti o n to modify o r address the follow ing policy or iss ue that is vested in the Town
Coun cil : ______________________________________ _
I F MORE SPACE IS NEEDE I), PLEASE ATTACH ADDITIONAL SI-IEETS.
IMPORTANT :
I . Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of minutes. A $500.00 deposit is required at the time of filing.
2 . Appeal mu st be filed within ten (I 0) calendar day s of Planning Commission Decision accompanied by the required filing fee .
Dead lin e is 5:00 p .m. on the I O'h day followin g the d ecision . I fthe I O'h day is a Saturday, Sunday, or Town holiday, then it
may be filed on th e workday immediately fo llowing the I O'h day , usually a Monday.
3. The Town C lerk wil l set the hearing withi n 56 days o f the date o fthe Planning Commi ss io n Dec is io n (Town Ordin a nce No.
1967).
4 . An appea l regarding a C hange of Zone application o r a s ubdivi s ion map on ly mu st be filed within th e time limit specified in
the Zoning o r S ubdivi s ion Code, as applicable , which is different from other appeals.
5. Once fil ed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6. If th e reaso n fo r g ranting an appeal is th e receipt o f new info rmatio n, the appli cation wi ll us uall y be returned to the Planning
Commi ss io for reco ns ideration . ~
PRJ T AME' /<,~"-SIG ATURE' ~ '/?t__
DATE : <f-2... 1-1 7 AD DREss: 7 ~v rt...... M""lc.e4
PHO E : Yo~ ~ 9-.2.. 0 f rs-Su... -so~ CA f's-1 ~~
***OFFICIAL USE ONLY ***
D ATE OF PUBLIC H EAR ING:
Pending Planning Department Co nfirmation
DA TE TO SEND PU BLI CAT IO N:-------------
CON FIRMATIO LETTER SENT: Date :
TO APPLI CANT & APPELLANT BY:
DA TE OF PUBLI CAT IO N:
711'11 2lll6
ATTACHMENT 10
,.
1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because it
acknowledged that the project satisfied all written and technical requirements as
prescribed by the Town (general plan, zoning, etc), yet denied the project under the
premise that additional projects in the area would be coming forward in the future
and Town Council should set the direction on size and intensity for the area.
As part of the denial, several commissioners referenced items included in the
Community Expectations section of the Commercial Design Guidelines. When
analyzing the guideline that "Scale and character be appropriate to the setting, the
commissioners erred in the determination that the proposed project did not satisfy
this guideline. The Commissioners determination was based on a comparison to the
Palo Alto Medical. Upon learning that the Palo Alto Medical building is
approximately 15,000 square feet, the commissioners concluded that the proposed
project is out of scale for the neighborhood.
However, scale, character and intensity is dependent on the size of the parcel upon
which the building is sited. A 5,000 square foot building on a 10,000 square foot lot
is much more intense than a 5,000 square foot building on a 20,000 square foot lot.
As an acknowledgement to this relationship, the Town has established an
appropriate measurement for intensity that accounts for this relationship in its
zoning ordinance: lot coverage. The Town does not impose a nominal square
footage limit.
In reviewing scale and intensity utilizing the appropriate metric, the consistency of
the proposed project with the neighborhood character becomes apparent. The Palo
Alto Medical building's lot coverage is 27%, while the proposed project's is 26.5%
(the Palo Alto Medical building is sited on a smaller lot than the proposed project).
Furthermore, the commission erred in not considering the scale of the proposed
project relative to other adjacent properties. The lot coverage for the adjacent
University Oaks is approximately 20% and the neighboring Park Hillview
apartments is 4 7%. When analyzed with the appropriate metric, the project is
consistent with the scale and character of the setting. Consequently, the Planning
Commission erred in determining the project is inconsistent with this guideline.
In addition, the Commission stated that the project failed to satisfy the guideline
that the project maintain "a sense of place with views of surrounding hills
preserved." As part of the motion for continuance at the January 25th hearing,
Planning Commission requested that the applicant "consider architectural tweaks to
lesson the perception of the height or consider reducing the height of the building"
and to "consider moving the building back." All of these requested revisions were
made and appropriately demonstrated at the subsequent hearing. Furthermore, the
presentation demonstrated that existing views are substantially impacted by
existing perimeter trees that are being retained by the project, and that the
architectural changes to roof lines and building height were strategically located to
address all areas not encumbered by existing trees.
Jocelyn Puga
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Hello Jocelyn-
Doug Rich <doug@valleyoakpartners.com>
Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:32 PM
Jocelyn Puga
15860 to 15894 Winchester Blvd -Appeal schedule
Follow up
Completed
Would you mind working with Town Manager and Clerk regarding public hearing date for this appeal? I hereby
waive the right for an appeal within 56 days and would like to be scheduled on the August 15th hearing if
possible. Thank you.
Doug Rich
Valley Oak Partners, LLC
734 The Alameda 1 San Jose, CA 95126
T 408.282.0995 I F 408.282.9797 I c 925 .570 .4593
doug@valleyoakpartners.com 1 http ://www.valleyoakpartners .com
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank