07 Desk Item - Subdivision on Property Zoned R-1:20t wN
Y.N
cos s~SOy
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MEETING DATE: 1105/04
ITEM NO. 7
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
January 5, 2004
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEYI, -
SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A DECISION OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO DENY APPLICATIONS TO
REMOVE THE EXISTING RESERVOIR AND FACILITIES AND TO APPROVE
A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:20. NO
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A
RESULT OF THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
IS RECOMMENDED ARCHITECTURE & SITE APPLICATION: S-01-77.
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M-01-013. NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ND-
01-11. PROPERTY LOCATION: RESERVOIR ROAD. PROPERTY OWNER /
APPLICANT / APPELLANT: SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
Modification of Proposed Resolution
A minor typographical error that appeared in paragraph F.2 on the second page of the proposed
resolution has been corrected. Also, three items of community benefit (improved fire sanitary sewer,
and storm drainage infrastructure, and traffic controls), which are listed in the Conditions of Approval
for the Architecture and Site application (Condition 12) were added to paragraph F.4 at page two of the
proposed resolution.
Response to Comments from Reservoir Road Nei hg born
The following are concerns raised by the neighbors (attached) and responses from staff (in italics):
1. Trucks involved in excavation shall be covered.
All trucks transporting aggregate are required to be covered per State Law and staff is reluctant to
support a condition which is already required by State Law.
2. All trees shall be large box size.
PREPARED BY: ORRY P. KORB, TOWN ATTORNEY oPK:LNiB/wp
[N:%MGRWdminWorkFil clrptsaeservoirRd.Desk.TCR.wpdj
Lyl
Reviewed by: own Manager Assistant Town Manager Clerk
Finance ---9ulcommunity Develooment
1-5);
Rev: 1/5/04 4:52 pm
Reformatted: 7/19/99 Fiie4 301-05
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESERVOIR ROAD
January 5, 2004
The applicant is currently required to submit a Landscape Plan showing the proposed trees to be
planted as mitigation prior to the acceptance of the subdivision improvements (Condition 3 of
Exhibit A). This plan will specify species, size, and location. Additionally, staff will require the
applicant to inform the neighbors that the Landscape Plan is available for review and comment.
Staff will consider the neighbors input prior to accepting the Landscape Plan.
3. Tree 490 shall be re-examined to see if it can be saved.
The health of this tree was evaluated by both the applicant's arborist and the Town's Consulting
Arborist and deemed to be hazardous and, therefore, a candidate for removal. However, the
applicant could be required to save this tree until the future Architecture and Site application for
this lot is filed, at which time the tree could be re-evaluated by the Town's Consulting Arborist.
4. Resolution makes no mention of restrictions placed on project at the December 15, 2003 Council
meeting.
Comments were made throughout the hearing by individual Council members. However, only 3
additional conditions were accepted by the Council as part of their adopted motion. Those
additional conditions are incorporated into ExhibitA (Condition 12) and Exhibit B (Conditions 13
and 14).
5. Concern about allowing staff to approve "minor adjustments" regarding grading quantity.
4, 000 cubic yards is the goal far this project with an acceptable tolerance for minor increases or
decreases during the review of the final grading plan. Staff will require the applicant to inform the
neighbors that the Grading Plan is available for review and comment. Staff will consider the
neighbors input prior to accepting the Grading Plan.
6. Consistency with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan.
Consistency with both the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan are required for the approval
of this project. Given the Council's motion to approve this project it is understood that this project
is consistent with both the General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan.
7. Condition 33 of Exhibit B, referencing the inclusion of West Valley Sanitary District's approval of
the line relocated out of the 10 Reservoir Road property.
Even with the option that the Council approved, a portion of the existing sanitary sewer through 10
Reservoir Road will be relocated onto San Jose Water's site, and thus the condition still applies.
8. Sense of the Council regarding tree removals and house pads as they relate to future Architecture and
Site applications.
Condition 12 of Exhibit A addresses the sense of the Council regarding future tree removals and
building envelope locations as they relate to future Architecture and Site applications.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: RESERVOIR ROAD
January 5, 2004
9. Condition 29 of Exhibit A, regarding the wording "a better estimate of the amount of imported fill
material shall be made".
See #S above.
10. Condition 3 in Exhibit A regarding does not include working with the neighbors.
See #2 above.
11. Condition 24 of Exhibit A does not specify "the most rural curb and gutter system.'.'
The following clarification could be added to Condition 24 ofExhibitA: Rolled curb and gutter shall
be provided rather than vertical curb wherever feasible No sidewalk shall be provided.
12. Condition 49 of Exhibit A allows staff to make changes.
See #S above.
13. Condition 2 and 52 of Exhibit A do not include working with the neighbors.
Staff will work with the applicant to inform and involve the neighbors to obtain input prior to
specific construction milestones.
Attachments
1. Amended resolution
2. 1/4/04 e-mail from Susan Kankel
3. 1/3/04 e-mail from Dennis McEvoy/Kim Worsencroft & Art Bonner
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION GRANTING AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION
DECISION TO DENY APPLICATIONS TO REMOVE THE EXISTING RESERVOIR AND
FACILITIES AND TO APPROVE A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION ON PROPERTY ZONED R-1:20.
NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A RESULT OF
THIS PROJECT AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RECOMMENDED
ARCHITECTURE & SITE APPLICATION: S-0 1-77
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: M-0 1-013
NEGATIVE DECLARATION: ND-01-11
PROPERTY LOCATION: RESERVOIR ROAD
PROPERTY OWNER / APPLICANT / APPELLANT: SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY
WHEREAS:
A. This matter came before Council for public hearing on December 15, 2003, on an appeal by
San Jose Water Company (appellant) from a decision of the Planning Commission and was regularly noticed
in conformance with State and Town law.
B. Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the appellant and all interested
persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Council considered all testimony and materials
submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material
contained in the Council Agenda Reports dated August 14, 2003, August 15, 2003, November 26, 2003,
December 10, 2003, Desk Items dated August 18, 2003 and December 1, 2003, and Addendum dated
December 12, 2003, along with subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application.
C. The applicant is seeking Architecture and Site approval to remove an existing pre-1941
gunite-lined reservoir and the related facilities. The applicant is also seeking to subdivide the 2.6 acre
property into four lots
D. On August 18, 2003, the Town Council considered an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision and the matter was continued to the November 17, 2003 meeting. The matter was again continued
to December 1, 2003, to allow the applicant and Town staff to complete the analysis of issues raised by the
ATTACHMENT 1
Council at the August 18, 2003 meeting. At the neighbors request, Council continued the hearing to
December 15, 2003, to allow time to review and respond to the December 1, 2003 staff report.
E. The appellants allege that the Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion and that
the decision was not based on evidence in the record.
F. Council finds as follows:
1. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.300, this application raised issues of the sanitary sewer
alternative alignments, soil import volume, traffic impacts to the neighborhood and business community and,
consequently, required interpretation of policies over which the Planning Commission did not have the
discretion to modify or address, but which are vested with Council for modification or decision.
2. Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.150, the considerations for approval of Architectural
and Site applications have been made.
3. Pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.090300) and 29.10.09030(e), the considerations for
demolition of the existing historical reservoir have been made.
4. Pursuant to the Town's In-Fill Policy, the proposed reclamation of the abandoned reservoir
and a four lot subdivision demonstrates a strong community benefit in that it removes an existing surplus
reservoir facility that is an eyesore and potential health and safety hazard and will restore the site to more
natural soil contour, shall provide improved fire, sanitary sewer and storm drainage infrastructure, shall
provide traffic controls, and shall contribute to the further development of the surrounding neighborhood
by allowing a residential development that is consistent with all existing Town planning rules and policies.
5. The proposed reclamation of the abandoned reservoir and a four lot subdivision are consistent
with the Town's General Plan and Hillside Specific Plan ("HSP"), including, but not limited to, land use
goals and policies to recognize property rights and provide housing in a manner that will not adversely affect
the mountain environment (HSP 1.2 and 1.3), which are guaranteed here by allowing a residential
2
subdivision that is consistent with all existing land use rules and policies and that minimizes grading and
tree removal; land use implementation policies regarding traffic, energy, the preservation of privacy and
safety of area residents and residential densities (HSP 1.4); facilities and services goals and policies
regarding adequate services, especially water (HSP 2.2), which are to be constructed new ; circulation goals
and policies for the design of hillside roads and driveways to be in harmony with the topography and ecology
of the area (HSP 3.2, 3.3, and 3.4), all of which are to comply with Town and Fire Department standards,
while also minimizing grading and tree removal; open space goals and policies for the preservation -of trees
(HSP 4.3 and 4.4), in that the removal of trees shall be limited by the location of building pads in the least
effected area of each parcel; and safety goals and policies, specifically concerning adequate water for fire
protection and suppression (HSP 5.2, 5.3, and.5.4).
RESOLVED:
1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission on Architecture and Site Application
S-01-77, Negative Declaration ND-01-11, Subdivision Application -01-13 is granted.
2. Revised Conditions of Approval for the Subdivision Application and Architecture and Site
Application, are attached hereto as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, and are applied to these Applications. The
revised Conditions of Approval incorporate the following:
A. Attachment 44 of the report dated December 1, 2003 shall be used to guide the review of
future Architecture and Site applications with an emphasis on preserving as many trees as possible and
limiting the building envelopes and footprints of future homes.
B. The demolition of the reservoir and site remediation shall occur in two phases. Staff shall
require the work to be phased to provide strategic delays and breaks to minimize disruption to residents and
businesses. Staff will carefully identify windows of opportunity when work will create the least impact on
residents and businesses.
3
3. The decision constitutes a final administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 1094.6 as adopted by Section 1.10.085 of the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos. Any
application for judicial relief from this decision must be sought within the time limits and pursuant to the
procedures established by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, or such shorter time as required by state
or federal law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos,
California held on the day of , 2003 by the following vote.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED:
ATTEST
CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
N \..'~1GRWdminWorkFiles\cnclrptsVReservoirRd.RES.wpd
MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
4
Patsy Garcia - Reservoir Resolution for Jan 5 meeting page
From: skankel <susankankel@comcast.net>
To: <sglickman@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 114/2004 11:03:15 AM
Subject: Reservoir Resolution for Jan 5 meeting
Mr. Mayor and Town Council Members,
In addition to supporting the messages to you from Mr. Bonner and Mr. McEvoy
and Ms. Worsencroft, I would like to include some further concerns that
arose after the reading of Mr. Korb's report.
Mitigation #1 Aesthetics (Exhibit A) does not include working "directly with
immediate neighbors on an individual and collective basis...to determine the
location, type and size of landscape screening along the perimeter of the
property following the reclamation" as was stated in the November 24, 2003
letter from Mr. Pardini of SJW.
Item #24 Public Improvements (Exhibit A) does not specify "the most rural
curb and gutter system feasible, preferably rolled curb and exclude
sidewalks" as was stated in the same letter from Mr. Ppardini.
am concerned that Staff is in control of development of the town instead
of the representatives of the community (the Planning Commission and the
Town Council). This is the same staff which recommended approval of over
25,000 cubic yards of fill in the initial application. Item #2 and item #49
Provide staff with power to grant changes without public notice or input.
The neighborhood's two-and-a-half-year involvement in this project has
sought to limit fill to 4,000 cubic yards, reduce the number or trees to be
removed or relocated, and contain the size of building pads and envelopes,
yet all of those items agreed to at the December 15th meeting are not
detailed in Mr. Korb's report and seem to be subject to change by staff at
the request of the project's engineers and developers. More stringent
guidelines (to be found in the minutes of the Dec. 15 meeting) should be
included.
Item #2 Approval and Item # 52 Preconstruction Meeting should also include a
member of the neighborhood since we are directly affected by all plans.
I feel it is important to incorporate these items into the conditions of
approval.
Susan Kankel
99 Reservoir Road
CC: <MWasserman@aol.com>, <sdecker@losgatosca.gov>, <dmcnutt@losgatosca.gov>,
<jpirzynski@losgatosca.gov>
ATTACHMENT 2
Page 1 of 2
Patsy Garcia - RE: Reservoir Resolution for Jan 5 meeting
From: "Dennis McEvoy" <dennismcevoy@comcast.net>
To: "Art Bonner" <ajbonnerl@earthlink.net>, <sglickman@losgatosca.gov>, "MWasserman-
aol.com" <MWasserman@aol.com>, <sdecker@losgatosca.gov>,
<dmcnutt@losgatosca.gov>, <jpirzynski@losgatosca.gov>
Date: 1/3/2004 12:48 PM
Subject: RE: Reservoir Resolution for Jan 5 meeting
CC: <cochran5@earthlink.net>, <susankankel@comcast.net>, <dmcevoy@attbi.com>,
<kimworsencroft@attbi.com>, <clark.cochran@coventor.com>, <jim.soderberg@kp.org>;
"Kent Westerberg" <kent@atwoodlaw.com>, "Orry Korb" <attorney@town.los-gatos.ca.us>
Mr. Mayor and Town Council Members,
In addition to the concerns listed by Art Bonner, I would like to point out that the Town Council and the Planning
Department failed to include as conditions of approval the following additional conditions of approval that were
part of the original motion to approve this project made by Commissioner Drexel at the Planning Commission
meeting of June 25, 2003. These conditions are copied verbatim from the transcript of that meeting:
1. Trucks involved in excavation shall be covered-
2. All trees required for mitigation shall be large box size.
3. Tree 90, the Heritage Blue Oak scheduled for removal, shall be re-examined by the Town Arborist to see if it is
reasonable to save it.
We feel it is imperative that these additional items be included in the conditions of approval.
Dennis McEvoy & Kim Worsencroft
81 Reservoir Road
-----Original Message---
From: Art Bonner [mailto:ajbonnerl@earthlink.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2004 8:15 PM
To: sglickman@losgatosca.gov; MWasserman-aol.com; sdecker@losgatosca.gov;
dmcnutt@losgatosca.gov; jpirzynski@losgatosca.gov
Cc: cochran5@earthlink.net; susankankel@comcast.net; dmcevoy@attbi.com;
kimworsencroft@attbi.com; clark.cochran@coventor.com; jim.soderberg@kp.org; Kent Westerberg;
Orry Korb
Subject: Reservoir Resolution for Jan 5 meeting
On December 24 we received Ory Korb's resolution recommending the Council to confirm
their action of December 15th.
We question the resolution as proponed by Mr Korb for the following reasons:
1. Resolution makes no mention of the restrictions placed on the applicant by the Council at
the December 15 meeting.
2. While the document does mention that in-fill is limited to a maximum of 4,000 cubic -
yards, it goes on to state that the Staff can make minor adjustments. There is no
qualification as to what is meant by "minor."
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pgarcia\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.H" ATTACHMENT 3
Page 2 of 2
We do not feel comfortable with this clause. Instead any in-fill in excess of the maximum
should be approved by the planning commission. This way there will be public awareness
before any change is made, no matter how minor it be..
3. Item 5 on page 2 surprises me. There has been no mention--since day-one on the project--
of the Hillside Specific Plan. On the contrary, Mr Lortz has consistently maintained that
otherwise. Why is this introduced now?
4. Item 33 of Exhibit B: Utility Service. Here it states, "This shall include WVSD's approval
of the line relocated out of the 10 Reservoir Road property."
Is is not the agreed plan to reclaim the existing line on this property with only a short
"dogleg" on to the reservoir property. If so, this is not clear in this section and could be
interpreted as an Ok of the old plan which moved the sewer completely on to the reservoir
property.
5. There is insufficient ties to the "sense of the Council" on tree removal and house pads
discussed at the December 15ht meeting. How about an additional clause: the minutes of the
December 2003 Council meeting will be adhered to in the A and S process.
6. Item 29 of Exhibit A. Quote "...a better estimate of the amount of imported material shall
be made..." This sound like a blank check to increase the amount of fill.
These comments are as a result of a cursory look at the proposed resolution. The document
was delivered to late for anyone to adequately review its contents.
Art Bonner
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\pgarcia\Local%20Settings\Temp\GW}00002.HTM 1/5/2004