Loading...
Attachment 10FILING FEES S351-12Q.LP-LAPPEAL) Residential 01408-00 (PLAPPEAL), per r— 'tiMrat!rcia' mufti-farfilt% or Tentative Map Appeal PIZ ADDR LSS 1,0( A I ION Town of Los Gatos Office of the Town Clerk 110 E. Main St., Las Gatos CA 95030 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION ho rig follows: (PLEASE TYPF-. OR PRINT NEATLY) f (if PLANNMN'G COMMISSION DPCIS101%, fwd S> '-5 — / 15 -fie__ r5 Pursuant to the I voll ( knic the , I o%vn ( I <uUncl in&% My grant co Ant an appeal of a Planning, mnos�� Council find., thal.'ne ofihwv 0 1 'ka son' fxi�t for tuatuiliv the appeitt Ily a tole afar PiCmM - , 4';,A OW !! trk Ic -.nron, in,,lic app<,,j: x S! 71yr�' t 1. The PIA116119 ('0111millic" 1�ed ar,hused int discretion bec-ausc r There iN ne,* ncq M"Ornabl, lable die �klf r1le plarrmiu�" V devistion in most matter, if the 31 Gil TOWN OF LOS GATOS d"`' kb PAIRTMENT (picaSie Winch the my mformtin :1 r""ime) v OR • The Planning C"I'mil,sion did not have di lotion to modify ur address the following Policy or imuc ibar n, tcsled in joe 1,tn IF SCORE SPACE IS NEEDED, PLEASE AffACH ADDITJONAIINHEIFIrs. iNiPORTA-NY: I Appellant is restiOlififfilt for fees for tr2ulaCt-iPliblif of minutes. A eposit is required at the time of filing. 2, cs"�1�00 �NPPOQI must he filed uilhm ten 0 0) calendar days L'i'Planning Cnulnus.%illn Decision accon4milied kv therequired fAimit f,, Deadline is 5:Cki p.m. on the i 0° day r6lowing the deClsion I I the !<s"` day is a Saturday, suadlay, or Towu holiday ben 'I may be filed on the workday, immediatcN following the ID's dap, "c nd]y a Monday, TIw Tran Clark will s_ the hearing wilimil 54 dot* of the da'e of the Pfam,,;ne Decision Town Ordirancr 4, An appeal regarding a Change of Zone implicatitni or a.jobdj%-saion map only mu', he Iiied within the time limit specified in L41C Zoning or suhth% isioa Cod" ns applicabk- which is dirfrrvla flow (niter appLais 5. Once filed the 31717le3l will be lwud by the To" Council. 6 If the reason for ir-arnmi; an aprreal is the r"Veifn of rxcn mftvmanon, the zpphCvc"1 ZI! Isc relarrecl 10 die Planning 7. PRIM' NAMI- : L- Ze J DAIL , C? J1 CC— SIGNAIURk.: ADDRESS: OFFICIAL USE ONLY Pending Planning D"artmenj Confirrinithm DATi l0'1Ff%'f)PUBII('AIW)N- 00NFIRMAlI0NlEj-it:ez,L.�-,: Date: 10APPLICANI 4 APPFLLANFB)t-: DATE 0FPE-BII(ATJ0N- k L ATTACHMENT 1 0 Continued from Page 1 of Appeal In many ways, the three categories: error, new information and policy are interrelated. items listed under one category may also apply under other category. Planning Commission Error or Abuse of Discretion; • The Commission approved a use that is inconsistent with the underlying General Plan Designation, Zoning district and with the pattern of residential development within the vicinity of the project, therefore the Planning Commission made an error by not requiring an amendment to the GP Land Use Map and the Zoning Map. • The Commission decision was based on incorrect assumptions regarding the reasoning behind Council's action to uphold the appeal and Council's intent to remand to the Commission for reconsideration. • The Commission based its decision on inadequate information • As approved, the underlying General Plan designation and Zoning designation no longer reflect the Town's intended long term use for the site. • The Planning Commissions' findings for the approval of the CUP are inadequate. • The Planning Commission made an additional error by approving major changes to the project without additional Commission or Town Council review or public input. This compromises the transparency of the Town's approval process. • While the Commission's intent was to decrease impacts to the adjacent neighbors, the changes will result in major changes to the site plan and architecture that may not achieve the intended goal, and /or may create different impacts. • Since, it is unlikely the applicant will submit revised plans within the io day appeal period, it is necessary to appeal the Commission's decision to keep the process open and transparent. Consistency of General Plan designation, zoning district and proposed use: • Maintaining the current GP designation and Zoning district is inconsistent with the intent of the General Plan to reflect the Town's long term land use goals. Even if the existing General Plan designation and Zoning district are consistent with each other they are not consistent with the land use approved by the Commission. While the proposed land use may be consistent with numerous General Plan goals and policies maintaining the underlying General Plan designation and zoning are inconsistent with numerous goals and policies of the General Plan as well. • A residential use is not included in the General Plan description for Neighborhood Commercial. • Neither the intent of the C -1 zoning or the list of permitted uses in the C -1 zone are consistent With including a 100% residential project. • The Table of Conditional Uses lists residential condos as a potentially allowed use in the C -1 if a CUP is approved. Residential in the C -1 is an allowed use, however, it is not a use permitted by right. In addition the Town has interpreted residential condo to mean a unit in a multiple- unit structure so it is not clear if the CUP table for residential condos should still apply • The CUP is a discretionary approval for uses that may be allowed if listed in the CUP table. That does not make it a use that is permitted by right, nor does the listing of the use in the Table require the Commission to approve the use, even if all the conditions for approval of a CUP can be met, which is not the case for 258 Union. • Nothing in the Code or General Plan states or indicates that the use of a CUP is intended to eliminate all commercial use and substitute a 100% non - commercial use in a C -1 zone. • In addition, there is nothing in the Code to regulate the density or other development standards and regulations for a solely residential project In a commercial zone. • Research of past projects would likely find that residential projects approved with a CUP in a commercial zone did not substitute a residential use for the commercial use but rather allowed a residential use along with a commercial use within the same development application. • The project does not meet the findings necessary to approve a CUP. (aslo be below Required Findings to Approve a CUP Cannot be Made.) • The proposed project does not adhere to the standards and regulations for the underlying C -1 designation. Instead, the proposed project cherry picks standards and regulations from various zoning districts. • While the applicant has stated that the project was designed to meet the requirements of the R -M zone, the R -M zoning setback standards were not consistently applied. If the project was designed with the R -M in mind why not change the GP and Zoning to match the project itself and actually use the R-M standards and regulations? • There is ample evidence in the record to support conclusion that the C -I zoning is no longer appropriate for this site. There is also ample evidence that residential is the preferred use going into the future. (also see New information below on the question of Spot Zoning) • Several Commission members indicated they could not support amending the GP or zoning, at least in part, because requiring the project to go through these additional processes would not result in different project and it would not be an example of good governance to require a change in process after 5 hearings. • This assumption is incorrect on several levels. o R -1, R -D and R -M setback standards and regulation, while generally similar to each other, differ from those of the C-1 zone. Therefore, if the GP designation and Zoning district were amended the project site plan would necessarily be different. o The different setback standards and regulations required by a residential zoning district would impose addition restraints to the site layout, but, alternatively, could provide additional opportunities. This is particularly the case with an R -M zoning which, along within setbacks that apply to the parcel as a whole, also regulates the position of, and the relationships between structures on the lot. o There may have been 5 hearings (4 and 1 continuance) but there were also at least 3 revisions of the original project. o In any case, the Commissions decision should not consider whether the final project would be different, whether changes imposed by the Commission would affect the developer's bottom line, or whether requiring a GP Zoning Map change would delay the project. Nor should the applicant's choice to submit the project using what they hoped would be the quickest path to approval, even if staff supports the applicant's choice be considered.' Transcript and Comprehensive information is Not Available: • The Planning Commission was not provided a transcript of the Town Council's March 17, 2014, hearing on the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, nor did staff provide the Commission with a comprehensive summary of Council's discussion and action. • Nor was the Commission provided with comprehensive information necessary to clearly understanding the project. (See " New Information" below) All Commissioners Not on the Same Page: e All members of the Commission did not base their decision on the same information. Clearly some members of the Commission watched the video March 17, 2015, Council Hearing while others did not, • Several members of the Commission appeared to misunderstand the basis of Council's decision to uphold the applicant's appeal and remand back to the Commission for reconsideration. Consequently their decision was based on incorrect assumptions, including the following: Incorrect: The assumption that Council upheld the applicant's appeal based on Commission error. • Fact: Council specifically determined that there was no Commission error. Incorrect: The assumption that Council had directed the applicant to submit the plans as revised to the Commission. • Fact: The Council remanded the project based on new information (new plans submitted by the applicant) without specific direction to the applicant. • Fact: Council's direction was for the Planning Commission to reconsider the revised project within the context of all existing General Plan, Town Policies, Ordinances, etc., that are currently available to regulate detached single family units developed within a single lot. The Commission did not follow Council Direction. • 1 interpreted Council's intent to broaden the Commission's scope of review beyond the Commission's primarily narrower focus on the definition and legality of detached condominiums and the applicability of a CUP for this project.l ♦ I interpret the Council's direction to the Commission to be: + First, identify all existing Town regulations and policies applicable to regulation of multi - family developments on a single lot • Second, reconsider the proposed project within framework of all the regulations identified in the first step. • Third, use the Commission discretion to deny, approve or modify the project based on the results of steps one and two. Required Findings for approval of a CUP cannot be made: • The Commission erred in finding the proposed residential use does not impair the integrity or character of the G7 zone. (required finding 2 of Sec. 29.20.190) • The Commission found the following: "The proposed uses will not impair the integrity and character of the zone. The project density will provide a transition between the townhouses to the North and the duplexes to the South, will fit in to the existing streetscape, and will improve the appearance of the site which has been vacant since 2001 "'. This finding does not address whether the project impairs the integrity of the underlying C -1 zone. Rather it address the compatibility of the proposed residential project with other residential uses and residential zones in the project's vicinity There is insufficient evidence in the record to support finding that a 100% residential use does not impair the integrity of the underlying C -1 Zone. Rather, precluding all further commercial use doesn't just impair the integrity of the C -1, it will totally destroy the integrity of the C -1 zone. New information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision SpotZoning. « The Planning Commission was only provided with a simplified explanation of "spot zoning" and how spot zoning may apply to this site, whether it retains its current C -1 zoning or is amended to a residential zone. Project information and comparisons: • Project data and information may have been available; however, it was not reasonably available, easily accessible or available in an easily understandable format. The following is a list of new information pertinent to understanding the proposed project that was not provided to the Commission in an easily accessible and easily understood format: • The Planning Commission did not have a list or summary of existing Town regulations and policies, etc., applicable to the regulation of detached single family units developed within a single parcel, as suggest by the Council. • The Planning Commission was not provided with a complete comparison of differences between the various revisions of the project. Since changes were not identified by a "cloud' it is very time consuming to determine this information • A list or summary of all existing applicable Town regulation compiled from the General Plan, Zoning Code, required findings, etc., that can be used to regulate detached single family residential within a single parcel. • A list of all pertinent text, goals and policies in the 2020 General Plan. • Text for the most applicable sections of the Zoning Code and General Plan • Figures comparing GP land use, zoning districts, existing land use, and existing development patterns in the area. • Table comparing zoning standards for R -1:8, R -D and R -M and C -1 districts • Table showing the maximum possible units possible under each residential zoning districts identified above when applied to 258 Union. • Table comparing condominium projects mentioned by staff and the applicant (forest Drive, Town Terrace, Hubble and Los Gatos Commons). F The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policies or issues that is vested in the Town Council, • The Commission approved this project using a CUP. This is the first project approved in Los Gatos for a 100% residential (condo) project on a site with a commercial General Plan land use designation and a commercial zoning. • The Commission has discretion to interpret existing policy. However, the Planning Commission's action in this case went beyond interpreting policy and moved into the realm of setting a new policy direction. Determining new policy or a new policy direction is vested with the Town Council. Comment: i have started to compile the new information. However, I am currently in Oregon and Washington due to a family medical emergency and will neither have all the information I need nor the time to complete the assembling of this information until I return to Los Gatos later this month. Also, without verbatim transcripts for the March 17, 2014, Council hearing or for the January 28, 2015, and February 25, 2015, Planning Commission hearings It is not possible for me to verify the accuracy of all of my statements or to be sure I have included all my concerns. I will submit supplemental information after returning home and make any corrections or add additional items to the appeal after receiving transcripts of the meetings. Thank you for the opportunity to file this appeal. Lee Quintana This Page Intentionally Left Blank