Item 3 - Staff Report.258 Union Ave
PREPARED BY: JOCELYN SHOOPMAN and JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Associate Planner Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: 03/27/2019 ITEM NO: 3
DATE: MARCH 22, 2019 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-18-033, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION U-18-010, SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-18-004, AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ND-19-001. PROJECT LOCATION: 258
UNION AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: CASHMERE BOUQUET 1031 LLC. APPLICANT: EW REAL ESTATE, LLC REQUESTING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH THREE ATTACHED MULTI-FAMILY CONDOMINIUMS, SIX DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY CONDOMINIUMS, AND ALTERNATING USE OF PARKING ON PROPERTY ZONED C-1. APN 527-44-012 AND 013. DEEMED COMPLETE: FEBRUARY 28, 2019 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: AUGUST 28, 2019
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval, subject to recommended conditions.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Neighborhood Commercial
Zoning Designation: Neighborhood Commercial, C-1
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Commercial Design Guidelines; Residential
Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 32,708 square feet
PAGE 2 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
PROJECT DATA (Continued):
Surrounding Area:
CEQA:
It has been determined that this project will not have a significant impact on the environment.
Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program to mitigate potential impacts to a less than significant level is recommended.
FINDINGS:
As required by CEQA for adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program.
As required by Sections 29.20.190 (a) and 29.10.150 (e) of the Town Code for granting a
Conditional Use Permit.
As required by Housing Element Policy HOU-8.1 for new housing developments of three
units or more.
That the proposed project complies with the Commercial Design Guidelines.
That the proposed project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.
As required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act if the Planning Commission denies
the Subdivision application.
CONSIDERATIONS:
As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture
and Site application.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the east side of Union Avenue, south of Los Gatos-Almaden
Road (Exhibit 2). The lot is approximately 32,708 square feet. A commercial building on the
property was demolished in 2001 and the site has since remained vacant. The former
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Multi-Family Residential City of San Jose
East Single-Family Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Office Office Professional O
West Shopping Center Neighborhood Commercial C-1
PAGE 3 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
BACKGROUND (Continued):
commercial building was last occupied by a restaurant. A previous proposal for eight single-
family detached condominiums on the site was considered by the Planning Commission and
Town Council at multiple meetings which took place between December 11, 2013 and June 16,
2015.
On February 25, 2015, the Planning Commission approved the proposal with modified
conditions of approval. The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by a member of
the public on March 23, 2015. On June 16, 2015, the Town Council granted the appeal of a
decision of the Planning Commission and remanded the project back to the Planning
Commission with direction. A modified proposal was not submitted by the previous applicant
for the Planning Commission’s consideration and the application expired.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject site is located on the east side of Union Avenue, south of Los Gatos-Almaden
Road (Exhibit 2). The abutting property to the north contains a townhouse development
that is in the City of San Jose. An office building abuts the site to the south and behind the
site to the east are single-family residences. Across the street to the west is the Downing
Center which includes retail, restaurant, office, bank, and personal service uses. The project
site and the shopping center are zoned C-1. The residences behind the site are zoned R-1:8
and the adjacent office building is zoned O. The properties on the other side of the office
building, further to the south, are duplexes that are zoned RD.
B. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to merge the two parcels, and construct a mixed-use commercial
building with three attached multi-family condominiums on the northern portion of the site,
and six detached single-family condominiums with a private driveway on the southern
portion of the site (Exhibit 13). While the property is not being subdivided into individual
lots, a Subdivision application is required for the creation of five or more condominium
units. The Conditional Use Permit (CUP) also includes a proposal for alternating use of
parking.
C. Zoning Compliance
An office use is a permitted use in the C-1 zone, though a new office building requires a
CUP. A residential use is permitted as a conditional use, when part of a mixed-use project.
The proposed project would comply with setbacks, height, and lot coverage for the C-1
PAGE 4 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
zone. The CUP application includes a request for alternating use of parking in order to meet
the on-site parking requirements.
DISCUSSION:
A. Conditional Use Permit
The proposed project includes a CUP application for three reasons. The proposed project
includes a new office building and multi-family residential (in a mixed-use project), which
are both allowed in the C-1 zone with an approved CUP. The project also includes a request
for shared parking between the 11 parking spaces required for the office building and three
guest parking spaces required for the attached multi-family residential units. In order to
grant approval for a CUP for the proposed project, the deciding body must make the
required findings:
1. The proposed use of the property is essential or desirable to the public convenience or
welfare;
2. The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the zone;
3. The proposed use would not be detrimental to public health, safety or general welfare;
and
4. The proposed use of the property is in harmony with the various elements or objectives
of the General Plan and the purposes of the Town Code.
5. The alternating use of parking spaces will not result in the effective provision of fewer
off-street parking spaces than required by Town Code.
In regard to the first finding, the proposed use would be considered desirable in that project
provides additional diversity to the Town’s housing stock, as discussed in the General Plan’s
Housing Element. As required by finding two, the proposed application would not impair
the integrity and character of the zone as the proposed project is a combination of
commercial and residential uses consistent with surrounding uses and meets the
development standards of the zone including setbacks, building height, and setbacks. In
regard to the third finding, the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health,
safety or general welfare. In regard to the fourth finding, the proposed use would be in
harmony with the General Plan and Town Code as discussed above and addressed in
Sections C of this report. In regard to the final finding, the alternating use of parking spaces
will not result in the effective provision of fewer off-street parking spaces than required by
Town Code as discussed in Section D of this report.
B. Design and Compatibility
The Town’s Architectural Consultant reviewed the proposed project to provide
recommendations regarding the architecture and neighborhood compatibility (Exhibit 9).
PAGE 5 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
The Consulting Architect made 10 recommendations for changes, which are summarized
below along with the applicant’s response to each recommendation in italics (Exhibit 10).
1. Relocate the entry to the first-floor office to a street-facing facade.
The applicant responded that the location of the entry to the commercial office is located
appropriately, facing the surface parking lot to the rear of the property.
2. Relocate the front entries to the attached multi-family residential units in the mixed-use
building to more convenient locations, if possible.
The applicant responded that the entries will be safer and more private when located on
a private lane, rather than along Union Avenue.
3. Provide modular pavers to the auto court driveway to provide a better pedestrian link
between the street and the residential unit entries.
The applicant added modular pavers to the entrance of the auto court driveway for the
detached single-family homes, in addition the applicant also added modular pavers to
the entrance of the surface parking lot for the mixed-use building.
4. Relocate the front entry to units 1 and 6 to a street-facing facade to be consistent with
Residential Design Guidelines 3.6.1 and utilize generous entry porches as were proposed
on the last development proposal for this site.
The applicant responded that the entries will be safer and more private when located on
a private lane, rather than along Union Avenue. The applicant also responded that the
street facing facades include a variety of materials (stucco, lap siding, board and batten
siding, and stone) as well as many plane changes and window enhancements.
5. Address the issue of the two-story walls facing the adjacent single-family homes to the
rear of the property.
A gable roof element was implemented to the side facing elevations of units 3 and 4 that
are adjacent to the detached single-family homes to the rear. The applicant responded
that the gable roof element would reduce the mass of a two-story façade. In addition,
the applicant modified the windows of the side facing elevations with transom windows
to reduce potential privacy concerns.
PAGE 6 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
6. Reconsider the use of glass paneled garage doors.
The applicant modified the glass paneled garage doors with solid garage doors.
7. Address the conditions where material changes are made in the same plane or at
outside corners on both portions of the development and address the issue of stone
used only on the front facades of the single-family detached homes. This may require
some simplification of the palette of siding materials and/or some additional facade
plane changes.
The applicant responded that all material changes occur at an inside corner or against a
portion of a furred-out wall. The proposed stucco elements are furred-out two inches
from the lap siding or board and batt siding to create a base element. Lastly, the
applicant responded that the use of stone or brick is only proposed on the front
elevations, as well as wrapping along the side elevations where appropriate, as it is
consistent with the style of architecture proposed for the project.
8. Request more information on the window types, materials, and details for both portions
of the project to allow staff sufficient information to determine if the proposal meets
the Residential Design Guidelines.
Metal clad casement, single hung or fixed windows are proposed by the applicant.
9. Request more information on the site fencing to allow staff sufficient information to
determine if the proposal meets the Residential Design Guidelines.
The applicant is proposing a six-foot high wood fence between the mixed-use building
and the proposed detached single-family homes.
10. Explore ways to make the common open space on the site more usable.
The applicant modified the proposal to create a new entry from the surface parking lot
for the mixed-use building to the common open space along the rear of the property to
allow for a more user-friendly entrance.
C. Open Space
The Town Code requires that each ground floor unit provide a minimum of 200 square feet
of private open space in the form of a single enclosed patio or deck and a minimum of 120
square feet of private open space in the form of a balcony for each unit above the ground
PAGE 7 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
floor. In addition to the private open space requirements, 100 square feet of community
open space per unit is required for condominiums. A 2,033-square foot community open
space area is proposed in the rear of the site, in excess of the 900 square feet required by
the Town Code. The private yard sizes are as follows:
Unit Private Open
Space Required
Private Open
Space Provided
1 200 square feet 219 square feet
2 200 square feet 248 square feet
3 200 square feet 263 square feet
4 200 square feet 263 square feet
5 200 square feet 248 square feet
6 200 square feet 219 square feet
7A 120 square feet 124 square feet
7B 120 square feet 122 square feet
7C 120 square feet 122 square feet
D. Parking and Traffic
The proposed project includes a 2,511 square foot office building and nine residential units,
six of which are detached single-family condominiums. The parking requirements are
summarized in the table on the following page.
Use Unit Rate Spaces
Required
Spaces Provided
Office 2,511 sq. ft. 1/235 sq. ft. 11 spaces 11 spaces
Detached Single-
Family Residential
6 units 2 per unit 12 spaces 12 spaces
Attached Multi-
Family Residential
3 units 2 per unit plus up
to 1 guest parking
space per unit
9 spaces 7 spaces
Total 32 spaces 30 spaces
The proposed application for a CUP includes a request for authorization for alternating uses
of the parking spaces onsite per Town Code Section 29.10.150 (e). Specifically, the
applicant’s justification letter (Exhibit 5) describes how the use of parking for the office use
during business hours will not conflict with the use of guest parking in the evenings on
weekdays and all day on weekends.
PAGE 8 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
Pursuant to the Town’s Traffic Impact Policy, the traffic generation associated with the
former use of a site is factored in when determining the traffic impact of a proposed
development. A traffic impact analysis was not required because the former use (high
turnover restaurant and bar) generated more average daily trips than the proposed office
use and nine residential units.
Staff in the Parks and Public Works Department prepared a Project Information Sheet for
the project (Exhibit 12), with responses to a number of the common questions that are
asked about this proposal.
E. Below Market Price (BMP) Unit
Unit 7C, one of the three proposed attached multi-family residential units has been
designated as a BMP unit. The proposed unit is 990 square feet and includes two bedrooms
and two bathrooms. As required by the BMP Guidelines, the unit will be a low-income unit
(80 percent of the median area income). Conditions 4 and 5 pertain to the provision and
sale of the BMP unit (Exhibit 4).
F. Trees
The Town’s Consulting Arborist reviewed the proposed project and provided an arborist
report dated July 21, 2018 (Exhibit 7). The report identified 15 protected trees on the
project site and abutting properties. A total of six trees on the subject property are
proposed for removal, including trees 1, 3, and 4 that will be removed because they are
already dead. The applicant has provided a response letter (Exhibit 8) addressing the
concerns and questions in the Consulting Arborist’s report regarding ownership of trees on
abutting properties.
G. Housing Accountability Act
The applicant has invoked the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). The HAA
requires local governments to approve any “housing development project,” including
specified mixed-use projects, if they comply with “applicable, objective general plan and
zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that
the housing development project’s application is determined to be complete…” The
applicant’s “project is within the statutes definition of a housing development project.”
PAGE 9 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
Subdivision (3)(j)(1) and (2) of Section 65589.5 reads:
(j) When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective
general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect
at the time that the housing development project’s application is determined to be
complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to approve it upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its
decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings
supported by substantial evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(1) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon
the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the
condition that the project be developed at a lower density. As used in this
paragraph, a “specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct,
and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or
safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application
was deemed complete.
(2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse
impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the
housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition
that it be developed at a lower density.
The HAA does not define the term “objective standard.” The following are definitions of the
term found within two dictionaries:
1. Law Dictionary: A standard that is based on factual measurements, in the absence of a
biased judgement or analysis.
2. Business Dictionary: Benchmark, criteria, or model based on verifiable measurements or
bias free (neutral) analysis and judgment.
Objective standards are quantifiable or numerical standards, against which anyone
evaluating a project against the objective standards would arrive at the same conclusion.
Examples of objective standards include building height, setbacks, and open space
requirements. The HAA requires the Planning Commission to consider the project under
the HAA and requires the Planning Commission to make a very specific set of findings if a
project is to be denied. In order to deny a project, the Planning Commission must cite
specific written objective standards and/or policies and cannot deny the project for
subjective reasons such as, neighborhood character, or aesthetics. As explained in
Honchariw v. County of Stanislaus (2011)200 Cal.App.4th 1066, 1074-7, the HAA was
intended to “take away an agency’s ability to use what might be called a ‘subjective’
development ‘policy’.”
PAGE 10 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
DISCUSSION (Continued):
H. Environmental Review
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit 1) have been prepared for the
project by the Town’s Environmental Consultant, EMC Planning Group Inc. (available online
at www.losgatosca.gov/258Union). The 20-day public review period began on
January 18, 2019 and ended on February 7, 2019. The project will not result in a significant
effect on the environment because mitigation measures have been added for Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation,
mitigating potential impacts to a less-than-significant level. The Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program is provided as Exhibit 11.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The applicant has conducted neighborhood outreach and has provided a summary which is
included as Exhibit 6. Other public comments are included as Exhibit 14.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant is proposing to merge the two parcels, construct a mixed-use commercial
building with three attached multi-family condominiums on the northern portion of the site,
and six detached single-family condominiums with a private driveway on the southern
portion of the site. The CUP also includes a proposal for alternating use of parking.
B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application, Conditional Use Permit application, and Subdivision application subject to the
recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 4). If the Planning Commission finds merit
with the proposed project, it should:
1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program (Exhibit 1 and 11);
2. Make the findings required granting a Conditional Use Permit (Exhibit 3);
3. Make the findings required by Housing Element Policy HOU-8.1 for new housing
developments of three units or more (Exhibit 3);
4. Make the finding that the project complies with the Commercial Design Guidelines
(Exhibit 3);
PAGE 11 OF 11 SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE/S-18-033, U-18-010, M-18-004, AND ND-19-001 MARCH 22, 2019
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2019\Union 258 PC 3-27-19.docx 3/22/2019 8:59 AM
CONCLUSION (Continued):
5. Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines
(Exhibit 3); and
6. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 3); and
7. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-18-033, Conditional Use Permit U-18-010,
and Subdivision Application M-18-004 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 4 and the
development plans in Exhibit 13.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, if the Commission has concerns with the proposed project, it can:
1. Approve the applications with additional and/or modified conditions of approval;
2. Continue the applications with direction to a date certain; or
3. Deny the applications.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. Mitigated Negative Declaration
Received with this Staff Report:
2. Location Map (one page)
3. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
4. Recommended Conditions of Approval (24 pages)
5. Project Description/Letter of Justification, received October 3, 2018 (four pages)
6. Applicant’s Summary of Outreach to Neighbors (one page)
7. Consulting Arborist’s Report (37 pages), dated July 21, 2018
8. Applicant’s response to Consulting Arborist’s Report (four pages), received February 21,
2019
9. Consulting Architect’s Report (eight pages), received August 3, 2018
10. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report (three pages), received February 21,
2019
11. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (nine pages)
12. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Public Works Department (two pages)
13. Development Plans, received February 28, 2019 (53 sheets)
14. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m. Friday, March 22, 2019
Distribution:
EW Real Estate LLC, 2470 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite D, Campbell, CA 95008
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank