15975 Union Ave - Staff Report Exh.17-182/17/16
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Subject: Project Proponents’ Responses to Planning Commission and Neighbors Concerns
Regarding Development of 15975 Union Ave
Madam Chair and Other Commissioners:
Thank you for the opportunity to improve and clarify our proposed plan of development for the
subject property.
Responsive to the Commission’s comments, we have improved the project layout by moving
the fire truck turn around to Lot 2. This improves the availability of parking for Lot 3, which now
has use of its driveway. We have added an extra parking space for Lot 2 by increasing its
driveway dimensions, recognizing the parking restriction that will apply to part of the Lot 2
driveway. There are now three parking places on the property to be shared among the
homeowners for use by their guests.
We have also worked with the Town Staff to provide graphics regarding building placement and
cross sections, topography, drainage, and traffic that we believe will more clearly present the
proposed development.
Our specific responses to the topics identified during the previous Commission meeting are:
1. Request for taller fence and screening at adjacent property line: This has been addressed
by indicating an 8-foot fence on property line and adding Laurel trees along property in
planter strip. (See Revised Landscape Plan – Drawing Number L1
2. Fence to be on property and maintained by new owners long term: The surveyor will place
stakes ensuring that the new fence is on project property and the Maintenance/CCR
Agreement will assign maintenance responsibility to the new owners.
3. Provide and verify other project examples with shared driveways with no parking: We
have 4 examples of similar single-family projects we have developed in other jurisdictions
listed below:
a. 264 Sequoia Avenue Redwood City
b. 145 Hawthorne Avenue Palo Alto
c. 842, 846, & 858 West Taylor Road San Jose
d. 731 & 735 Bay Road Menlo Park
e. 441 & 449 S. Sunnyvale Road Sunnyvale
We have shown documentation of these examples to Town Staff and will have those
documents available for Commissioner to view, per suggestion from Staff.
4. Concerns about no parking on shared driveway to provide fire access: This can be defined
by adding no parking signs, red curb striping (if needed) along driveway on each side and
also defined in a Maintenance Agreement exhibit to be recorded on Title. The Fire
Department Standard for a shared driveway is a width of 20 feet. This is to accommodate
two fire trucks passing each other. If a car is Illegally parked on the shared driveway a fire
truck or engine can pass the car without issue.
5. Concerns regarding no parking in Lot 3 to provide fire access: The new plan has changed
the fire turn around to be placed at Lot 2. Lot 3 driveway will be available for owner parking
only. Lots 1 and 2 now each have an extra parking space designated for their owner use
only. Three additional spots are included in the project property, assigned for guest parking.
There are also 3 spots directly in front of project on Union Avenue with others on Blossom
Hill Road.
6. Concerns regarding the self-enforcement to keep shared driveway and fire turn around
free and clear: This can be clearly required in the Maintenance Agreement / CCR’s and this
will be a recorded document against title of each lot. Additionally each owner will be clearly
informed on the parking restrictions before they enter into sales contract to purchase
property.
7. Concern there is no sidewalk on shared driveway: The Driveway is twenty feet wide.
There is plenty of room for cars to pass safely (even a fire truck) and still allow enough room
for pedestrian to be safe. This is equivalent to walking in a parking lot. (See the new Traffic
exhibit)
8. Would like surface parking for each lot: As explained above both Lots 1 and 2 have a
dedicated extra parking space (beyond their three-car garages) and Lot 3 will have use of
their entire driveway. This does not count the use of the three shared “Guest” parking
spaces.
9. Can a flag lot not be implemented?: The project is not viable with only two lots. We see
no advantage to a flag lot concept in a three-lot project.
10. How will drainage be improved after this project is implemented?: The drainage
improvement plan and additional exhibits created show that none of the storm water that
may currently be surface draining from this property to the neighbors will occur in the
future. It will all be detained on site or routed to the Union Avenue storm drain facilities.
Our improvements cut off (as shown on plan) any storm water that may be coming onto
project property from Blossom Hill Road or other sources. The plan prevents this water
from subsequently impacting our neighbors. (See exhibits and explanation by Town
Engineer and our Engineer)
11. How will Garbage trucks access the property: We have contacted the garbage company
and they will pick up all three lots at curb side on Union Ave near the entrance to the
project’s shared drive way.
12. Concerns regarding CCR’s for this project: The shared Maintenance Agreement document
and/ or CCR’s can appropriately address and define all responsibilities for all owners. As
discussed above there are many projects existing that deal with these issues. Bio-retention
systems can have their own section with clear maintenance instructions and “how to and
not to” advice.
The Town Staff has informed us that they will address the issues regarding traffic and bike
lanes. We have provided a schematic diagram incorporating Staff suggestions that we believe
provides clarification.
We want the Commission to understand that the proposed plan includes the dedication of
7,514 square feet of land (17 % of the parcel) to the Town, valued at $309,000. The Town is also
requiring approximately $225,000 of improvements on this dedicated land and the existing
street frontage. Additionally, we must install approximately $350,000 of retaining walls to
support the elevations required by the Town’s perimeter improvements. This is a total
contribution of $884,000 to the Town and the neighborhood. This magnitude of improvements
costs cannot be supported without a three-lot, luxury-home development plan. We have met
with the neighbors and the Town Staff on multiple occasions and have made all refinements
that are practical to respond to concerns raised, We respectfully request that the Commission
approve the plan as now proposed.
Sincerely,
D & C Development/Union Joint Venture Partnership
Attachments:
1. Section and Site plan overlays (2 pages)
2. Existing Drainage
3. Proposed Drainage
4. Drainage Cross Section
5. Traffic Plan
6. Planting Plan
OFREVISIONSDATE:SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555
NOTE:
•The Contractor shall verify all dimensions,
elevations and conditions, prior to starting
any field work.
•Any deviation called by field conditions,
or any conditions different from those
indicated on the plans shall be brought
to the Architect's attention prior to
installation.S H E E TA NEW SUBDIVISION:
UNION ESTATES
15975 UNION AVENUE LOS GATOS, CAAS SHOWNA4.4-3711/19/1531'-2"100'SITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGESITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGESITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGEFILL FOR ROAD,PARKING, & SIDEWALKPLPLBLOSSOM HILL RD.100 LASUEN CT.ACCESSDRIVEWAY15' DEDICATION91'64'-6"27'-6"19'-6"114'-6"FILL FOR ROAD,PARKING, & SIDEWALKSITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGESITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGESITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGEPLPLBLOSSOM HILL RD.POOL104 LASUEN CT.ACCESSDRIVEWAYOUTLINE OF HOUSE FROMORIGINAL LOCATION. NEWHOUSE 3' LOWER & 4'-4" FARTHERAWAY FROM NORTHERN NEIGHBOR15' DEDICATION62'-5"27'-5"82'-3"20'106'SITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGESITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGESITE RETAININGWALLS W/DRAINAGEFILL FOR ROAD,PARKING, & SIDEWALKPLPLBLOSSOM HILL RD.ACCESSDRIVEWAY108 LASUEN CT.15' DEDICATIONPLLOT 1LOT 2LOT 3SITE SECTIONSSCALE: 1" = 10'
OFREVISIONSDATE:SCALE:51 UNIVERSITY AVE. "L" • LOS GATOS, CA. • 95030 • (408) 395-2555
NOTE:
•The Contractor shall verify all dimensions,
elevations and conditions, prior to starting
any field work.
•Any deviation called by field conditions,
or any conditions different from those
indicated on the plans shall be brought
to the Architect's attention prior to
installation.S H E E TA NEW SUBDIVISION:
UNION ESTATES
15975 UNION AVENUE LOS GATOS, CAAS SHOWNA4.5-3811/19/15R 36'ORIGINAL LOCATIONNEW LOCATION 2' TO THE RIGHT& 4'-4" TOWARD BLOSSOM HILL RD.N89°48'11"E247.80'S00°17'30"E 156.93'S 89°49'22" W277.80'N 00°17'30" W 117.02'24.14'N 25°18'30" E 26.58'N 47°06'58" ES 00°17'30" E 105.73'S 89°48'11" W231.67'S 00°17'30" E 141.87'
N 00°17'30" W 141.90'
56.58
'
141.93'92.80'80.00'80.00'71.67'80.00'80.00'39.7'44'45.9'SCALE: 1" = 10'SITE PLAN
Drawn By:Designed By:FCJEChecked By:ACAD FILE NO:DATE:LT354831 C52-18-161"=20'SCALE:STRIPING PLANPLANS FOR THEIMPROVEMENTS OF15975 UNION AVECALIFORNIASANTA CLARACOUNTY2PD-1SHEETOF21300-B FIRST STREETGILROY, CA 95020(408)848-3122WWW.HATCHMOTT.COMCONCEPTUAL
Erin M. Walters
From:
Sent:
Jan Murray <alwaysmurrayjl@yahoo.com >
Monday, February 01, 2016 8:31 AM
RECE~VED
FEB 0 1 2016
TOVVN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
To:
Sub jed:
Erin M . Walters M-i?-~\ . ::;..-tG-~-6 \\
re 15975 Union Ave ingress/egress traffic--and my voice message to you
Hello Erin,
I just left you a voice message about ingress/egress from 15975
Union. In hindsight, I was thinking that an e-mail might have been a
better choice.
Regarding the traffic concerns raised by the Planning commissioners, they
addressed the issue of exiting the driveway.
1. Left turn onto union, simultaneous with a driver from Blossom Hill
turning right. (As raised at the meeting.)
Also, entering the driveway presents challenges:
2 . From Blossom Hill, turning onto union and immediately stopping to make
a left turn into the driveway. Often vehicles follow quite closely and
are surprised when a vehicle stops to left into Lasuen. we (as
residents) have all learned to pump our brakes a bit as we pass the first
lot so that the car behind us recognizes that we are slowing for Lasuen
Ct . The cars then typically swerve around in the gap left near
Leeward. Entering 15975 union from Blossom Hill g1ves the drivers less
lead time to prepare. (This situation happens da1ly, but over the years
we've only seen a couple of fender benders as a result.)
3. If there is a right turn lane at 15975 union and traffic is backed
up to the BH light for a left turn, and a driver is coming from Blossom
Hill to turn left into 15975, if the stopped traffic in the center lane
allows the turn, there's still the chance that a driver could pull out
into the right lane near and accelerate into the car trying to cross the
traffic into 15975. Last summer we saw this periodically at Lasuen Ct .
due to the drivers using the unmarked parking lane mistakenly as access to
bypass traffic waiting at the light. clear striping will likely help
avoid this problem, but it would be useful for the traffic engineers to
think this through with the mind of an impatient driver who is possibly
using WAYZ to avoid highway 85 and unfamiliar with the
intersection. (This situation does not occur as often as #2, however it
seems to pose a higher risk to occupants if it were to occur .)
when considering some of the traffic issues that have come up at Lasuen
and how those issues might affect the 15975 driveway that is both closer
to the intersection and compounded with an adjacent right turn lane, it
occurred to me that perhaps it would be possible to explore the option of
using the shared driveway from Blossom Hill that already exists. Perhaps
those homeowners would be interested in sharing the maintenance and
expanding their neighborhood group for some negotiated
accommodation. Just a thought.
Jan
UHIBIT 1 8
1
From: Susanne Belshe [mailto:susannebelshe@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 11:51 AM
To: Erin M. Walters
RECE ~VIED
MAR 0 2 2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLAN NING D IVISION
Subject: Re: 15975 Union Avenue-Planning Commission Meeting March 9th at 7pm
Hi Erin,
As I mentioned before, my family and I live in an impacted home on 108 Lasuen Ct, Los
Gatos . I will not be at the meeting on March 9th, can you please include my comments
1. Last meeting I raised concerns about that the houses are too large in terms of height
which I don't feel were addressed due to the traffic issues. The homes tower over their
neighboring homes. I am specifically concerned about Lot 3 whose base elevation is the
highest and is adjacent to my home. The only reduction they have implemented has
been a result ofthe change ofthe floor base due to the city's requirement for a different
drainage solution. I don't understand why the first floor needs to be 1 0' 1" tall and the
second floor 9'4"! Ideally, I would like to see the entire home height reduced! The way
it stands right now, Page A4-3 dated November 19 show significant shadow from lot
2 over our backyard and house during the winter. The mass can be reduce in the
following ways
1. Ideally, lower the height of the first and second floor
2. Lower the height of the first floor only
3. Lower the height of the 2nd floor only
4 . at least lowering the height of the garage (it is 11' 2" tall!) This would at least
reduce the mass that is closest to Lasuen Ct homes (the garages). I realize that
this would cause the 2nd floor to be hi-level but they have so much unnecessary
vertical space add here to avoid adding the steps (11 '2" tall ceiling in the garage,
and duct space in both the floor and ceiling!)
5. And if none of the above , I understand that LOT 2 has been moved back 4 fe et ...
if LOT 3 could be moved back then the mass would be minimized
2. Secondly, I am concerned about the impact on traffic when the residents turn on left at
the light on Blossom Hill Road onto Union only to immediately stop in order to enter
their driveway. I would hate to be the car behind the resident that unexpectedly comes to
a halt immediately after the light turns green. If it is during the evening rush hour (when
Union is backed up at the light) it could cause a grid lock. The resident will be unable to
turn left because of queued cars and the people who followed the resident will block the
intersection and no one will be able to move even when Union's light turns green. (Does
this make sense? If not, I can draw a diagram!)
Thank you,
Susanne Belshe
1 08 Lasuen Ct
Los Gatos
408-356-6708
From : ggimlan@comcast.net [mailto:ggimlan@comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 12:26 AM
To: Erin M. Walters
Cc: Gimlan, Joni; Jan Murray; susannebelshe@gmail.com
Subject: Re: 15975 Union Avenue-Planning Commission Meeting March 9th at 7pm
RECEIVED
MAR 0 3 2016
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Jv{,-l ?-oo !
8 -~~~-CJI\
Subject: Fw: Fwd : 15975 Union Avenue-Planning Commission Meeting March 9th at
7pm ·
Hi Erin,
We are getting mixed messages about changed plans.
This seems very confusing .
There is much that has not been addressed, particularly on the traffic flow impact on our
property just North of Lot 1 .
Are we going to have garbage trucks beeping loudly to back up behind our house AND
in front of our house 6AM every Friday?
We did not sign up for that.
Are the folk on lots 2 and 3 going to be noisily rolling their trash cans every Thursday
night to behind our house?
Will the heavy garbage trucks undermine our existing retaining walls?
What about in and out truck traffic by delivery trucks into that private driveway for all 3
homes?
It appears that the whole nature of our back yard is going to be changed from one
where we backed up onto a quite single family home to one where we have a major
highway in our back yard prone to all sorts of deterioration of our previous enjoyment of
our property including with respect to noise, heavy traffic impact on our retaining walls,
air pollution (we will get the vehicle offgas i.e. diesel from all of lots 1, 2 and 3}. Will the
driveway be allowed to be a hangout for teenagers blasting their radios? Garage
bands? None of this has been addressed in the rush for profits.
Also as Susan Belche rightly points out, there will be no way for the new neighbors (or
delivery trucks to them) to safely enter their driveway if coming home via Blossom Hill
Road . They will invariably end up making U turns through our court (Lasuen Ct) and in
particular right in front of our house. Noise and traffic are going to increase for us both in
the back and in the front of our house. A double whammy.
Signed, concerned
--The Gimlans
From: Jan Murray [mailto:alwaysmurrayjl@yahoo.com]
Sent: Friday, March 04, 2016 12:12 AM
To: Erin M. Walters
Subject: 15975 Union Avenue proposal comments
Erin , hello,
Per the 15975 proposal as it stands,
To Erin Walters, the DRC and the Planning Commission,
RECEIVED
MAR 0 4 2016
TOWN OF LO S GATOS
PLANNING DIVI SION
M-\~-~\
{'It -\t7 -ooq -o\ \
During 2015, the majority of discussion and developer revisions have been on critical engineering design factors
that the developer had not incorporated in the original proposals. According t o my understanding from the town
documentation, the developers revisions appear to have corrected problems including runoff water
management, emergency vehicle access, safe parking, and resident driveway acc ess. Those critical basics took
multiple iterations with the DRC to resolve . Some of the concerns regarding neighborhood , community, and
environmental impact that were raised earlier in the process are yet to be addressed. The Belshes and Gimlans
have enumerated several of these remaining concerns including
-noise management,
-traffic safety, and
-relatively excessive mass and height of the proposed houses.
In addition to their comments, we ask that you please recommend that the developer reduce the height and mass of
the proposed homes for both energy conservation and for the impact on the neighbors. Ce iling heights proposed
remain over 10 feet in most rooms and are in excess of 9 ft 4" in the remainder. This excessive ceiling height trend
represents up to 20% waste in energy used for heating, cooling and lighting. As for impact to the neighbors, house
3 as proposed not only looms over the Lasuen neighbors, it also looms over the future lot 2 house eclipsing sunlight
from that home, and increasing house 2's energy consumption as well. The ex cessive tall nature of these proposed
suburban homes is a lose-lose proposition for existing and future residents.
-In regard to traffic safety, we ask that Union Avenue in Los Gatos be permanently planned and stri ped as a 2 lane
road with only limited,additional designated tum lanes and adequate space for bi kes, on street parking as well as safe
pedestrian pathways. When the Union and Blossom Hill intersection is enlarged, there is a good possibility of an
increased traffic flow in the area. We also ask that the town of Los Gatos act as our agents in working with San
Jose to improve the lane striping and clarity and to limit the speed for the safety of all traveling along Union Avenue to
and from Highway 85.
Thank you for your consideration of these matters,
Jan Murray and Peter Costigan