Attachment 2TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DESK ITEM
` Meeting Date: February 26, 2014
PREPARED BY: Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner
savila a,losgatosca.gov
APPLICATION NO.: Subdivision Application M -13 -003
Environmental Impact Report EIR -13 -002
LOCATION: 100 Prospect Avenue (west of Reservoir Road and east of College
Avenue at the northerly terminus of Prospect Avenue)
APPLICANTIPROPERTY
OWNERS: Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary
CONTACT PERSON:
APPLICATION
SUMMARY:
EXHIBITS:
UNUMNJIM3
Additional Correspondence
Sister Mary Pat Le Roy
Requesting approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for subdivision of
a 10.3 acre parcel into 17 lots on property zoned R -1:20. APN 529-
44 -005.
DEEMED COMPLETE: February 7, 2014
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: 30 days from Planning
Commission adoption of minutes from the meeting where a
recommendation is forwarded to the Town Council.
1 -9. Previously received under separate cover
10. Rita Minnis email (one page), received February 20, 2014
11. Susan Kankel email (two pages), received February 21, 2014
12. Comments from Arthur & Dorthea Bonner (two pages),
received February 24, 2014
13. Eden & Rex Manseau email (one page), received February
26, 2014
14. John M. Sobrato email (one page), received February 26,
2014
15. Carol Sandman email (one page), received February 26, 2014
16. James Freitas email (one page), received February 26, 2014
17. Comment from Lee Quintana (2 pages), received February
26, 2014
The attached exhibits are letters of support that were received following delivery of the Planning
Commission packets. Although the author of Exhibit 11 is in support of the proposal, comments
ATTACHMENT 2
Planning Commission Desk Item Report - Page 2
100 Prospect Avenue /M -13 -003. EIR -13 -002
February 26, 2014
on the EIR and a request for provision of community benefit were raised due to the potential
impacts that may be generated by the development. The proposed residential use of the property
will result in a reduction in average daily traffic trips from what is currently generated by the
convent and conference center. Community benefit is required when a project will result in an
increase of five or more trips.
Conditional Use Permit
As mentioned in the staff report, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the property includes the
10.3 acre property that is proposed to be subdivided, and the 1.5 acre Villa Holy Names property
located at 82 Prospect Avenue. The existing CUP covers both properties and will need to be
modified to apply only to the Villa Holy names parcel. Staff recommends that the following
condition be added to the conditions of approval (Exhibit 6 to the Planning Commission report):
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. The Conditional Use Permit for the convent and conference
facility shall be amended to apply only to the continued operation of the Villa Holy Names
property at 82 Prospect Avenue, prior to recordation of a final map.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Avila, AICP
Senior Planner
SLB:SA:ct
N:IDEVNC REP0RTSQ014\PMSPM1100dsk.do
Approved by: v
San y L. Bai] , CP
Director of Community Development
Suzanne Avila
From:
Rita Arita @milpitasmaterials.com>
Sent:
Thursday, February 20, 2014 5:06 PM
To:
Suzanne Avila
Cc:
KOndreyco @snjmuson.org
Subject:
Concerning Sisters of the Holy Names
My name and Address: Rita Minnis; 108 Prospect Court, Los Gatos, CA 95030.
Concernig the Sisters of the Holy Names:
I live adjacent to the Sister's Property and I fully support their plan. There comes a time in our life when our properties
have to support us and it is that time for the Sisters. A large percentage of the Sisters have reached an age where they
need money to support the few years they have left among us. They are a blessing and I love them. They have truly
enhanced all lives in the neighborhood and it's time we rally around them.
1, myself, will miss them. Many times I have reached for help and they have always been there for me. Their concern for
our neighborhood has been so great that they are leaving us with a plan, a good plan. We have enjoyed their beautiful
property, their parties, their company and now it's time to give back with our support!!
Rita Minnis
PO Box 360003
Milpitas, CA 95036
408 - 838 -6506
EXHIBIT 10
ofAttachment 2
This Page
intentionally
Left Blank
Planning
From: Susan Kankel <susankankel @comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2014 3:41 PM
To: Planning
Subject: 100 Prospect Avenue Subdivision Application
February 21, 2014
Planning Commissioners,
First, reactions to the EIR:
The use of College Avenue by bicyclists, pedestrians, and runners is underestimated in the report, especially
on the weekends.
Since a good half or more of these users are not locals, the construction might be unknown to them, thus the
construction vehicles and routes would also be unknown.
Specific lanes and cautions must be put into place for this portion of the public throughout the demolition,
removal, and constructions processes.
a The statement that the new students from the new constructions will not impact the schools is absurd. The
public schools are already overloaded at this time, and this situation promises to increase when the two ill -
conceived projects where Honda and Ford used to be are fully occupied. If an average of two students per house
join our district, this is over one additional class and two additional teachers that will be needed.
There is minimal or no impact in most other areas of consideration covered, therefore the EIR concludes that
no Community Benefits are needed.
88 Prospect Road is the only home mentioned that will be greatly impacted. I would assert that all homes
surrounding the property, and there are many, will be severely impacted.
Second, the most important points for this project:
Hopefully the Commission can remember the sale of the San Jose Water Company property (an unused
reservoir) on Reservoir Road in the early 2000's.
Ultimately, the reservoir and half the property's trees were removed and four homes were built on the property.
The average size of each property of these four is approximately the same as those proposed at the Convent.
For the reservoir project, the developers, Lynn and Jim O'Brien had to give us a community benefit -
specifically, Reservoir Road was resurfaced.
Now, if we multiply this Reservoir project, which generated a community benefit, times 4 plus, that is what the
Convent project is going to be - with 4 plus times the negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood and
roads.
Yet this EIR states that no Community Benefit is required. Surely, the community deserves a large Community
Benefit, provided by the developers, to be sure.
EXHIBIT 11
ofAttachment 2
I have no professional knowledge of geology or air quality or threatened habitats or water tables or earthquakes
- others do.
I do have knowledge of what it is like to live immediately adjacent to a demolition and construction project for
four houses which lasted for over two years.
Because this project is over four times as large as the Reservoir project, it seems imperative that the
Community Benefit be four times as valuable, PLUS the town must do four times as much to protect the
neighbors and the roads during the entire process. It is imperative that the Town's engineers and traffic
departments develop a safe and feasible set of parameters for all construction vehicles and equipment used on
the entire project, not just the demolition.
The number of truckloads for the demolition are given in the EIR along with the time involved. Not mentioned
were the delivery of all the machinery necessary for the demolition; these are huge machines which will be on
our two streets, yet they were not mentioned in the discussion of one -way streets and flagmen and routes to
Highway 17. Also, the demolition vehicles were cited, not the hundreds of machines and delivery trucks which
will be involved in the simultaneous construction of seventeen large homes.
I have attended the Convent meetings and the town meetings from the beginning of this project, and definitely
approve, as I have said publicly and in writing.
I appreciate, no, applaud the Sisters' approach and diligence and ideals.
I am a firm supporter of their proposal; I would like to think that the Town will be a firm supporter of the
neighborhood during the project.
Susan Kankel
99 Reservoir Road
RECEIVED,
From: postmaster@verizon.net FEB 2 4 2014
Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
To: ajbonnerl@verizon.net TOWN OF LOS GATOS
Content -type: text/plain; charset =us -ascii PLANNING DIVISION
Content - language: en -US
This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
Message -id: < B95D4FCF- 265D- 4A2F- A1CD- 5F372311BEAF @verizon.net>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:23:18 -0800
From: Art Bonner <ajbonnerl @verizon.net>
To: "savila @losgatos.gov" < savila @losgatos.gov>
Subject: Convent application
Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
Recipient address: savila @losgatos.gov
Reason: Illegal host/domain name found
Reporting -MTA: dns;vmsl73005.mailsrvcs.net (tcp- daemon)
Arrival -date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19 :23:12 -0600 (CST)
Original- recipient: rfc822;savila @losgatos.gov
Final- recipient: rfc822;savila @losgatos.gov
Action: failed
Status: 5.4.4 (Illegal host/domain name found)
Return -path: <ajbonnerl @ verizon.net>
Received: from tcp- daemon.vms173005.mailsrvcs.net by vmsl 73005.mailsrvcs. net
(Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2 -7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009))
id < ON1900BIET75PI00 @vms173005.mailsrvcs.net >; Wed,
19 Feb 2014 19:23:29 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [192.168.0.2] ([unknown] [108.42.94.201])
by vms173005. mails rvcs.net
(Sun Java(tm) System Messaging Server 7u2 -7.02 32bit (built Apr 16 2009))
with ESMTPA id < ON1900J49T6NLY70 @vms173005.mailsrvcs.net> for
savila @losgatos.gov; Wed, 19 Feb 2014 19:23:12 -0600 (CST)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2014 17:23:18 -0800
From: Art Bonner <ajbonnerl @ verizon.net>
Subject: Convent application
To: "savila @losgatos.gov" <savila @losgatos.gov>
Message -id; <B95D4FCF- 265D- 4A2F -A1 CD- 6F37231 1BEAF @verizomnet>
MIME - version: 1.0 (1.0)
X- Mailer: Pad Mail (98206)
Content -type: text/plain; charset =us -ascii
EXHIBIT 12
a residential addition to our neighborhood.
41-DO tXMBIT 12
- II ofAftachnie nt 2
Regards,
The Bonner
Arthur& Dorothea
k vt
klx�
Suzanne Avila
From: Eden Manseau <edenmanseau @comcast.net>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 6 :46 AM
To: Suzanne Avila
Cc: Rex Manseau
Subject: Sisters of the Holy Names' Subdivision - SUPPORT
Chairwoman Smith and Planning Commissioners:
On behalf of our entire family, I am writing to express our strong support for the Sisters of the Holy
Names' subdivision plans for their property on Prospect. Over the years we have been neighbors with
the Sisters both on College Avenue and now on the hill on Kimble Road very close to their property.
While we are saddened by their departure, we appreciate their responsible approach to the property,
plan and design of the subdivision. They also included us early in their planning, invited to learn about
their plans before filing with the town, held several neighborhood meetings and kept us up to date.
Unfortunately, neither my husband nor I will be able to attend the meeting in person tonight, but we ask
that you affirmatively support their 17 lot plan with no further changes.
Eden & Rex Manseau
208 Kimble Road
EXHIBIT 13
OfAttachment 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Suzanne Avila
From: John M. Sobrato <johnm @sobrato.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:33 PM
To: Suzanne Avila
Subject: Sisters of the Holy Names
Dear Ms. Avila:
As a resident and businessman in Los Gatos, I wanted to add my support to the application by the Sisters of the Holy
Names to subdivide their property in Los Gatos to return the property to residential use consistent with the
neighborhood, the Town of Los Gatos General Plan and Zoning Code. Their application appears to me and other Los
Gatos residents with whom I have spoken to be a very reasonable use of the site. I encourage the Town Planning
Commission and Council to approve their application without delay.
John M. Sobrato
245 Glen Ridge Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
EXHIBIT 14
of Attachment 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Suzanne Avila
From:
Carol Sandman <csandman @APIDESIGN.com>
Sent:
Wednesday, February 26, 2014 12:56 PM
To:
Suzanne Avila
Subject:
Sisters of the Holy Name Convent
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a resident of Los Gatos and while unable to attend tonight's meeting, I wanted to register my support of the Sisters of
the Holy Names plans for the convent property. Thank you for taking this into consideration.
Carol Sandman
227 Alexander Ave.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
408.3951598
CAROL SANDMAN, CID, LEED AP
Direct 650.623.1814 1 Main 650.254.1444
A P + I DESIGN, INC. 1 303 Bryant Street, Suite 350 1 Hountain View, CA 94041
www.apidesigmcom
P
_ wr :,,.I _.. __.:,ii.
E}(RWIT 15
ofAttachment 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Suzanne Avila
From: James Freitas <jfreitas9 @gmai1.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 20141:50 PM
To: Suzanne Avila
Subject: Support Sisters of the Holy Names
Dear Planning Cormnission
I live down the street from the Sisters of the Holy Names on Kimble Avenue. I support their development plan because it
converts the use to residential and has fewer lots than what is allowed by zoning. The Sisters have gone out of their way
to be a good neighbor and have kept all of us informed of their development plan. They even attended a recent casual
neighborhood get together. I support The Sisters plan and hope you approve the plan as proposed at your hearing on
Wednesday night. It would be nice for them to be able to move forward with their future long term care and housing
plans to meet their current needs as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
James Freitas
197 Kimble Avenue
EXHIBIT 16
®fAttachment 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Agenda Item 5, 100 Prospect Avenue
To: Planning Commission Chair Margaret Smith and Members of the Planning
Commission
RECEIVED
From: Lee Quintana
2 u 2014
Subject: Agenda Item #2, Subdivision Application M -13 -002,
100 Prospect Avenue TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Chair Smith and Members of the Planning Commission,
As I am not able to attend the hearing tonight on the Subdivision for 100 Prospect I ask
the Commission to consider my comments as follows:
Early Consultation:
• General Plan Policy LU -1.1: General Plan Policy LU -1.1 encourages developers to
engage in discussions 1 regarding the nature and scope of a project.
• Kudos: Kudos to The Sisters of the Holly Name, they have set a high bar for
implementing Policy LU -1.1. By reaching out to community early, during the
conceptual planning stage of the project, and considering community input they were
able to incorporate comments from the community prior before firming up the
subdivision rather than waiting until after the plans were fully formed when they would
be harder to change.
Subdivision Configuration:
• Proposed configuration: The proposed configurations for parcels lots 5 -8 and 14 -17
will create driveways relatively close to each other which will result in the driveways
being a dominant features of the proposed cul -su -sacs. This is especially true of lots
14 -17.
• Shared Driveways: Shared driveways serving two or more of these parcels would
allow for increased landscaping which would decrease the prominence of these
driveways.
• Questions of staff and Town Attorney:
• Is it possible for the Council to require shared driveways as a condition of approval of
the Subdivision Vesting Tentative Map?
• If shared driveways cannot be added as a condition of approval is it possible, is it
possible for Council to give direction to the applicant that shared driveway be included
in future A &S applications?
• Recommendation: If either or both of the above are possible please consider including
them as recommendations in your motion to Council.
EXHIBIT 17
OfAttachment 2
Agenda Item 5, 100 Prospect Avenue
Conditional Use Permit:
• Please Clarify how the CUP will be modified. What uses will remain, which will be
eliminated?
• When will the CUP be modified?
Thank you for considering my comments.
Lee Quintana