14 Desk Item - 14595 Clearview Drive
DATE: TO: COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT August 16, 2004 MEETINGDATE: 8/16/04 ITEM NO. /1 DESK ITEM FROM: SUBJECT: REMARKS CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING
COMMISSION DECISION APPROVING A REQUEST TO EXPAND MEMBERSHIP, PROVIDE OUTSIDE SEATING FOR THE RESTAURANT AND SNACK SHOP AND TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING PRO SHOP, TO ADD ONTO AND CONSTRUCT
NEW EXPAND AND UPGRADE LANDSCAPING AND PARKING FACILITIES AND TO REMODEL AND ADD ONTO AN EXISTING CLUB HOUSE (LA RINCONADA COUNTRY CLUB) ONPROPERTIES ZONEDR-l
:20AND RCANDPREZONEDR-l: 12. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-04-026, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U-04-009 PROPERTY LOCATION: 14595 CLEARVIEW DRIVE PROPERTY OWNER: LA RINCONADA PROPERTY
APPLICANT: KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC. APPELLANT: CHRIS DELAOSSA Attathed is an email from a concerned neighbor regarding traffic on Wedgewood Avenue. Staffmet with the appellant
today to discuss the report and the following issues were raised: • Under the "appeal" section of the report to Council, Item 7 states that the appellant had questioned the weight limits
ofWedgewood Avenue. The appellant informed the Town that they were questioning the weight limits of Wimbledon Avenue. The Town Engineer concluded the same response for Wimbledon Avenue
and that Wimbledon Avenue is adequate to accept service vehicles. Continued on Page 2 PREPARED BY: BOON. DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Reviewed by:
.Town Manager =oL:Attorney __Clerk Finance _'/._ICommumtyDeve1opment Revised: 8/16/04 4:01 pm Refo=atted: 5/30/01
PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWNCOUNCa SUBJECT: APPEAL 14595 CLEARVIEW DRIVE August 16, 2004 • Item 8 of the "appeal" section of the Town Council report states that Clearview Drive is a neighborhood
collector from LaRinconada Drive to Wedgewood.Avenue. To clarify, Clearview Drive is a neighborhood collector from LaRinconada Drive to Wimbledon Avenue. • The appellant raised a concern
that traffic counters were installed on Wedgewood Avenue for the entire month of July and that only one week was analyzed, which he felt was the slowest week. The Town Engineer verified
that the traffic counters were set out on July 21 st and pickedup on August 2nd• The Townhas full days oftni.ffic counts from July 22nd through August 1st• The days ofJuly 26th through
August 1st were used for the traffic analysis since that period oftime had the higher traffic counts. • The appellant wants the neighbors to be involved in the design ofthe sidewalkimprovements
on Wedgewood Avenue. Staff can meet with the neighbors to review the proposed street improvements along the golf course side ofWedgewood Avenue. In addition, the Background and the Traffic
Analysis sections of the Town Council report has the following correction .concerning the location ofthe Wedgewood Avenue entrance: The Planning Commission.requested that the Club investigate
the feasibility of reopening the Wedgewood Avenue (west for their members and deliveries. Due to ast vandalism problems, the Club did not want to fully
open the east As a compromise, the Club suggested to the Commission that the �
� open for vendors and service trucks. On June 8, 1988, the Commission concurred and made this a condition ofapproval. The west (Wedgewood) had
an average daily volume of 49 trips (inbound and outbound) or 25 vehicles, which included 4.5 trucks per day. Attachments: 1 through 10 Previously Submitted 11. Email from Nora Rousso
(four pages) received August 16, 2004. BNL:SLB:mdc N:\DEV\CNCLRPTS\2004 and before\LRCC.dsk.wpd
.22S RECEIVED AUG 1 6 2004 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION August 15,2004 Hon. Steve Glickman Town of Los
Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 14595 Clearview Drive/Modification ofuse permit U-04-009 Dear Mayor Glickman: I write to express my support for the appeal of Chris De1aossain
this matter. Mr. Delaossa objects to the continued imposition of a condition in the use permit issued to the La Rinconada Country Club which limits all truck deliveries and vendor deliveries
to the Wedgewood Avenue entrance alone. The Planning Commission approved the application of the country club to expand its facilities, and approved the continuation of the above-mentioned
limitation regarding truck traffic. The Planning Commission erred when it approved the modification ofthe current use permit and thereby continued an error that was made years ago when
the country club property was annexed to the town. The "basis" of the restriction restriction limiting truck and vendor traffic to Wedgewood is false. Therefore, there is no legal justification
to continue the imposition ofthe current restriction regarding truck traffic. Moreover, all vehicular traffic to the country club should be limited to the members' entrance only. According
to a report from the Development Review Committee dated June 4, 2004: This condition was imposed in 1986 when the Club annexed to the Town. The basis for this requirement is that the
General Plan classifies Wedgewood Avenue as a Neighborhood Collector street and the street has been designed to handle this kind of traffic.... (Emphasis added). Attachment 11
Mr. Delaossa requested the condition be modified to limit truck and vendor traffic to Clearview Drive. The report noted that Clearview Drive residents had objected and continued: The
applicant has not requested this modification and the Town does not recommend that this condition be modified since it would be in conflict with the General Plan and would direct delivery
traffic onto a street designated as a residential street. The construction of the new staging area will reduce the traffic problems that may be associated with deliveries. (Emphasis
added). As you may know, the Development Review Committee was mistaken, and simply repeated an error presumably made when the use permit was first issued. The Planning Commission thereafter
adopted the DRC's "analysis" and thus repeated the error. First, while a portion of Wedgewood Avenue is classified as a "neighborhood collector," it is simply not true that the street
was "designed to handle this kind oftraffic." In fact, the part of Wedgewood that is a "neighborhood collector" is more ill-suited to "this kind of traffic" (i.e. trucks) than either
Clearview or La Rinconada because it is much narrower and has a number of blind curves. In fact, Wedgewood's size and curves malce it ill suited to any but the most minimal traffic.
The fact that Wedgewood is striped and has stop signs is irrelevant, because the Town and the County are empowered to install or remove traffic control devices such as road stripes,
stop signs and speed limit signs. See e.g. Town Code sections 15.60.010 and 15.60.020. Second, and perhaps more important, Town staff and the Planning Commission seem to have missed
the fact that La Rinconada and Clearview are also classified as "neighborhood collector streets" in the General Plan. (See Transportation 4.0, Appendix A of the General Plan). Therefore,
the conclusion that to limit all vehicle traffic, including truck deliveries to the golf course entrance alone wo-qld be "in conflict with the General Plan" was in error. The current
limitation in the use pel'J.1lit should never have been imposed. Wedgewood, La Rinconada and Clearview are all on the same footing according to the General Plan and thus any decision
regarding vehicle traffic associated with the golf course must be made on some basis other than those streets' designation in the General Plan. There are really only two logical criteria
for making the decision regarding traffic to the country club: the physical condition of the relevant streets, and their proximity to the golf course. On both counts, Wedgewood is the
least suited to traffic, be it truck or auto. As stated above, Wedgewood is considerably narrower than either La Rinconada or Clearview. Contrary to the statements of the Clearview residents
who testified at the hearing before the Planning Commission, Wedgewood Avenue is not an "arterial street." In fact, half of Wedgewood is not even a "neighborhood collector," it is simply
residential.
Clearview and La Rinconada also are better suited to accommodate all traffic because they are closer to the artery that sends vehicles to the relevant "neighborhood collectors," i.e.
Winchester Boulevard. The most logical route for all traffic to take is from Winchester to La Rinconada and then to Clearview. This route is the shortest, uses wider streets, and passes
by the fewest number of homes, thereby causing risk and inconvenience to the fewest residents. Since the previously stated justification for the current restriction in the use permit
is nonexistent, your obligation is clear. .You must eliminate the current restriction limited truck deliveries to Wedgewood Avenue only. Moreover, because Wedgewood Avenue is the least
suited to most traffic, you should instead limit all vehicular traffic to the Clearview entrance only.. You are authorized to take the above actions pursuant to Town Code section 29.20.295.
That section states in pertinent part that when an appeal from the Planning Commission is taken: [t]he Council shall consider the record and such additional evidence as may be offered
by anyone and may affirm, modify or reverse, in whole or in part, the determination appealed from, or make and substitute such other determination as is warranted, or may remand to the
Planning Commission for further review and determination. You must reverse or modify the Planning Commission's decision in this matter because Mr. Delaossa, the appellant, has met his
burden of proof. The record clearly indicates that there was "error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission." (Town Code section 29.20.295(b)(1). The record amply
demonstrates "error" on the Planning Commission's part. Because the Clearview neighbors are numerous and outspoken, I amconcemed that you may choose to placate them and leave the current
restriction in place by simply substituting another "justification" for the one proved to be a fallacy. For example, you and your colleagues may now choose to view this as a matter of
"balancing traffic impacts between neighborhoods." It may be tempting to limit truck deliveries to Wedgewood because there are relatively fewer trips by trucks than by members, and therefore
the traffic burden on Wedgewood is "lighter." Or, you may attempt to "balance" the interests of the Clearview neighbors versus the Wedgewood neighbors by leaving the current restriction
in place. This would be wrong. Since the basis for the current condition does not in fact exist, it would be disingenuous simply to search around for another "basis" simply to retain
the status quo. I realize that what Mr. Delaossa and the otherWedgewood Avenue neighbors seek is not what the Clearview neighbors want. However, there comes a time in every political
leader's life when he (or she) has to do what is right, not what is popular and not what is
expedient. You have a unique opportunity to correct a past wrong. Doing the right thing may not please everyone, but it is still the right thing to do. The Council's obligation is clear.
You must reverse or modify the decision ofthe Planning Commission and order that all vehicular traffic to and from the Rinconada Country Club use the members' entrance only, or, at a
minimum, you must eliminate the restriction limiting truck and vendor traffic to the Wedgewood entrance alone. Thank you. Very truly yours, NORA ROUSSO cc: Hon. Sandy Decker Hon. Diane
McNutt Hon. Joe Pyrzynski Hon. Mike Wasserman