Addendumtow„ of MEETING DATE: 06 /16/15
ITEM NO. 1 (Q
ADDENDUM
X08 sp "t 6 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: June 15, 2015
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN MANA(�
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT U -13 -012, SUBDNISION APPLICATION M-
13 -004, AND ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATIONS S -13 -020
THROUGH S -13 -027. PROPERTY LOCATION: 258 UNION AVENUE.
APPLICANT: CHRIS KUMMERER. PROPERTY OWNER/APPELLANT:
VALLEY ONE INVESTMENT, LLC.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT EIGHT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS ON PROPERTY ZONED C -1. APN 527-
44 -012 AND 527 -44 -013.
REMARKS:
Attachment 17 contains additional information submitted by the appellant. Attachment 18
contains additional correspondence. Attachment 19 contains an Assessor's Parcel map for the
subject properties (527 -44 -012 and -013) per a Council Member's request.
Attachments (previously received with June 2, 2015 staff report):
December 10, 2014 Planning Commission Staff Report (including Exhibits 1 — 16)
2. December 10, 2014 Planning Commission Desk Item
3. January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report
4. January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Desk Item (including Exhibits 17 -19)
5. February 25, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report (including Exhibits 20 and 21)
6. February 25, 2015 Planning Commission Desk Item (including Exhibits 22 -23 )
7. March 17, 2014 Town Council Verbatim Minutes (57 transcribed pages)
8. January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (80 transcribed pages)
9. February 25, 2015 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes (76 transcribed pages)
10. Appeal from Lee Quintana, received March 9, 2015 (seven pages)
11. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and approve the applications with Exhibit A (20 pages)
PREPARED BY: LAUREL R. PREVETTI )4411Z Ui4u64-
Assistant Town Manager/Director of Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager N/A Town Attorney N/A Finance
WDEWC REPORTS\20MUnion258appeal_Addmdum.dmx Reformatted: 5/30/02
Revised: 6 /15/15 1:46 PM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE /U -13 -012, M -13 -004, S -13 -020 THROUGH S -13 -027
June 15, 2015
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the applications to the Planning Commission
(four pages)
13. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and deny the applications (five pages)
14. Letter from applicant, received May 26, 2015 (12 pages)
Attachments (previously received with June 16, 2015 staff report):
15. Correspondence (five pages)
16. Additional information from the appellant (nine pages)
Attachments received with this Addendum:
17. Additional information from the appellant received June 15, 2015 (six pages)
18. Public Comment received 11:01 a.m. June 12, 2015 through 11:00 a.m. June 15, 2015 (two
pages)
19. Assessor's Parcel Map
Distribution
Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Shawn Wang, Valley One Investment, LLC, 12280 Saratoga - Sunnyvale Road, Suite 107,
Saratoga, CA 95070
Chris Kummerer, CKA Architects, 2089 Avy Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025
LRP:JSP:ah
N: \DEV \TC REPORTS\ 2015 \Union258_appml_Addmdum.docx
To: Major Jensen and Town Council
From: Lee Quintana
REC E/VEp
Re: Appeal of 258 Union Avenue
CUP U -13 -12
JUN %�70js
Subdivision Application M -13 -004
TOE OF
Architecture and Site Application S -13 -20
�NNVM/G ps
Date June 15, 2015
0-0s
/
lQ'to
I
Dear Mayor and Council
The following are some added comments on 258 Union Avenue as well as additional attachments.
CUP
camorma iano use law hierarchy
• My understanding is the hierarchy of land use law in California starts at the top with State law, then
local General Plans, to Zoning Ordinance and to other local regulations.
• Residential use on the Union Avenue site is not consistent with its Commercial General Plan Land Map
Designation. Given that the project should not move forward without a change to a residential Land Use
Map designation.
• If the site's GP land use designation were residential but its zoning were commercial, the project would
have a choose between moving forward with a zone change to match the GP designation or choosing
to go the CUP route. However, If it choose to go with a CUP it would still be required to meet all the
required findings necessary for granting a CUP. (See Findings, below)
The Union Avenue turns this hierarchy upside down /on its head
The 258 Union Avenue turns this hierarchy on its head. The Applicant's reasoning is that since a
residential condominium is listed in the Table of Conditional Uses it is an allowed and legal use, which
in turns makes the residential use consistent with the Town's Zoning Map, which in turn makes the use
consistent with the Town's Land Use Designation.
By this reasoning a discretionary use is into a use permitted by right
CUP is a discretionary approval
• The State's Planner's Training Series states that consideration of a CUP is a discretionary act.
• Sec. 29.20.185 Table of Conditional Uses states "An X indicates that an activity is allowed in a zone if a
conditional use permit is issued. " (emphasis added)
• Sec. 29.20.190(a) Findings and decision states "The deciding body, on the basis of the evidence
submitted at the hearing, may grant a conditional use permit when specifically authorized by this
chapter if it finds that:... There are five finding that must be made to grant a CUP. Conditions (2) and (4)
The following looks at Findings Sec. 29.20.190(2) and (4). (See Findings below)
Findings:
Required Findings-
• The Required Findings for granting a Conditional Use Permit are presented Exhibit 5 (December 11,
2013) and Exhibit 3 (December 10, 2014), staff reports, Exibits 5 and Exhibit 3, respectively
• The findings provided by staff in Exhibit 5 and Exhibit3 two are the same for both the CUP the findings
and the findings required to deny a Subdivision Application.
On December 11, 2013 the Planning Commission was not able to make the findings for granting the
CUP. They also were able to make the findings necessary to deny the Subdivision Application.
On February 25, 2015 the Planning Commission voted to approve the project with two changes.
- Units 6,7,and 8 become one story.
ATTACHMENT t 7
- Rear setback for all rear units return Ito 20'
The Planners Training Series "The Conditional Use Permit' (p.8) states:
"Written "findings of fact" are required in order to support the decision of the hearing body to
approve or deny a conditional use permit.... "Findings are the legal footprints left by local
decision- makings to show how the decision - making process progressed from the initial facts to
the decision"
"Findings are important. They bridge the analytical gap between the raw evidence and ultimate
decision" z
Required findings:
CUP
• 258 Union Avenue does not meet all the required CUP findings (2) to grant a CUP, either for the project
denied by Commission in December, 2013 or the one approved on February 25, 2015.
• Commission in December, 2013 did not make finding (4) of Sec. 29.190, However it did make finding
(2) at that time
• Sec. 29.2.190(2), the second finding necessary to grant a CUP requires that:
"The proposed uses will not Impair the Integrity of the character of the zone."
• Based on the definitions of "impair ", "integrity" and "character" in the following footnote, the proposed
100% residential project in a C -1 zone, e.g. one that does not incorporate a commercial component or
allows for one in the future, not only impairs the integrity and character of the commercial zone, it
destroys its commercial character entirely. 3
Subdivision Findings
What changed between 2013 and 2015 regarding the subdivision application that allowed the Planning
Commission to no longer be able to make findings necessary to deny the subdivision?
The PC did not agree with staff findings when the project was denied in December 01 but used those
same staff finding to subsequently approve in February 2015 theprojert
• Finding used to approve the project on February 25, 2015 (Exhibit 3) were the exact same Findings
included in the December 2013 (Exhibit 5)
• No additional facts or analysis were provided.
• The Planning Commission did not "bridge the analytical gap" between the evidence and facts behind
their changed decision.
1 The original plans show a front setback of 25' which was subsequently changed to a 15' front setback.
This change did not move the units parallel to Union closer to the front of the parcel. Units i -4 stayed in
essentially the same place. This change reflected a correction to the original plans which sincorrectly
showed the front setback from the curb and was latter corrected to show the setback from the property
line.
2 See footnote 3
im air (verb): to make weaker or worse, to damage or make worse, to damage or weaken something so
that it is less effective.
Integrity (noun): the state of being complete or whole, the quality or state of being complete or undivided,
an unimpaired condition.
How is the still unknown final project is now consistent with same findings that were rejected when the
project was first denied? 4
commons of Approval
• There are no Conditions of Approval for this project that different from those for a typical A &S approval.
• The conditions are not explicit enough for a CUP 5 There are no explicit conditions that would prevent
an application in the future to modify the project using an A &S application.
Policy:
New Policy Direction•
Union is the only 100% residential project with a CUP on a site that has both a commercial General Plan
designation (Neighborhood Commercial) and a Commercial Zoning (C -1). The approval of 258 Union
Avenue project could, therefore be seen as establishing a new policy direction.
This is the first example of approving a use with a CUP where the use is not consistent with the site's
General Plan Land Use Designation
Requested Town Council Action:
• If Commercial use is Town's long range land use goal for this site:
Uphold appeal and deny the project based on new information, procedure and /or policy.
• If the Town's long range land use goal for the site is Residential than:
Uphold the appeal and deny the project based on new Information, procedure and /or policy
issues. Request the applicant return with a project that includes appropriate General Plan and
Zoning amendments and appropriately balances density and intensity development patterns in
the area.
• If not the above then Remand:
Remand the application back to Planning Commission based on new information, procedure and/
or policy with specific directions.
Require the Planning Commission to review the staff report and video of prior Town Council
hearing on the matter.
In all above alternatives direct the Commission to consider density, the type of, and the intensity of the
proposed project design to achieve an appropriate balance between density and intensity.
Note that during the December 11, 2013 Planning Commission hearing Commissioner Bourgeois
indicated that the problem may not be with the density but with the type of structure and the intensity of
the development.
Thank you for your consideration
Lee Quintana
Additional Attachments:
Zoning Comparison
Intensity vs Density (continued)
Maximum Density Potential
4 The Planner's Training Series The Conditional Use Permit
5 See footnote 2
ZONING COMPARISON
258 Union Is not consistent with C -1 abutting residential Standards for ¢ront setback or parking
258 Union is not consistent with RM, RD and/or R -1:8 Standards for front setback or south side setback.
C -1 Abutting
258 Union
RM 5 -12 (MF)
RD (2- family)
R -1:8
Residential
Standard Sub -div.
Standard Sub -div.
Standard Sub -div.
0
32,706 sq.ft.
8,000 sq.ft. min.
8,000 sq.ft. min.
8,000 sq.ft. min
•
0
221'
60'
60'
60'
•
0
148'
N/A
100/125
90/125
•
25 min.
15'
25' min.
25' min.
25' min
•
20'
20'
20' min.
20' min
20'min
'
20' min. + 1' for
20' north side
8' min.
8' min
8'min
each ft of
3' south side
building height
above 20'
50% max/
30%
40%
40%
40%
35' max.
+/- 27'
30' max.
30' max.
30' max.
Max FAR apply
.60 (.5109)
Max. FAR apply
Max. FAR apply
Max. FAR apply
1 space/
20 spaces;
2 /unit
2 /unit
2 /unit
235 sq. ft.
2 /unit + 4 guest
258 Union Is not consistent with C -1 abutting residential Standards for ¢ront setback or parking
258 Union is not consistent with RM, RD and/or R -1:8 Standards for front setback or south side setback.
intensity vs. Density cont'd
intensity vs. Density
Density measures the of
units /acre
Intensity measures the
amount of development on
a site or area.
Easy Measurements of
Intensity include:
• FAR (Floor area ratio) N
• Building site coverage K
• Impervious surfaces N
• Building height (maximum)
Front parcel setback
Side to side distance
between buildings
Back to back distance
between buildings
intensity is not vast a
numbers game
Intensity & Density is
affected by what is included
and what is excluded from
the measurement
Qualitative factors, which
may not be measurable,
including mass, scale, site
layout and building design
can affect the perception c
intensity and /or density
RM, RD, and R 1:8 Residential zone and Proposed Project
Standard Subdivision
Maximum FAR
542 units /acre'
3 lots
Specific Density
Determined at A &S
Maximum FAR
5 -x?_ units /acre
7 Units (3 lots) (2
units /lot+
No CUP required No CUP required
Standard Subdivision
Maximum FARNH
0,5 units /acre
6 units (3 lots) (3
SF units + 3
secondary units
No CUP required
June 13, 2015
Re: 258 Union Avenue
RECEIVED
JUN 15 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Mayor Jensen, Councilwoman Spector, Councilman Leonardis,
Councilman Rennie, Councilwoman Sayoc:
From the beginning of this proposed 8 -unit project the neighbors have
requested fewer homes and less height. You agreed with us as far as
density in the March 2014 hearing, and instructed Valley One to reduce
the number of units. However, a few weeks later when Valley One met
with the neighbors to show us their new plans, they had merely moved
units a few feet, and changed some second floor windows, yet retained
the eight units. At that meeting, Valley One was asked if they would
reduce the number of units and the response was no, and if we didn't
agree to the eight homes, they could always put in another O'Shay's.
This has been their response time and time again. We all know that
another O'Shay's will never be allowed, but the condescending response
is not professional. We also asked Valley One if they had any projects
that were in process or completed that we could see, and were told that
this is their first multi -unit project.
It wasn't until after the March 2014 Council meeting that Valley One
finally agreed that their lot is higher than the lots on Howes and
Hershner Courts. Until then, they told us it was higher because the
previous owner had hauled in extra dirt.
The neighbors have concerns about safety, especially for children,
should 8 units be allowed, because the proposed plans have only one
small area of sidewalk that leads to two very small "picnic areas ", and
the driveways are narrow. This means children will have to play and
ride their bikes on the sidewalk along Union Avenue, which is a high
traffic area.
Even though I am not directly affected by the Union Avenue project, I
am directly affected by the San Jose townhouses on Union at Los Gatos-
ATTACHMENT 1 8
Almaden. I have zero privacy with four townhouses looking in to my
yard and home. I have lost value in my home because of the
townhouses. I know this because after my elderly long -time neighbors
passed in 2001, their children put the home up for sale in early 2002.
Homes at that time were selling in the low $700k's. The price was
initially set at $650k because the family wanted a fast sale. The house, a
well maintained home on an over sized lot was on the market for
several months. Even though the price was good, prospective buyers
said they wanted their privacy and didn't want to live next to imposing
townhouses. Escrow finally closed January 2003 for around $550k.
The new owner added a second story, and the only people who objected
to the addition were people living in the San Jose townhouses.
In 1999 neighbors petitioned the Town requesting that 258 Union
Avenue be re -zoned to allow only residential homes. You should have a
copy of the petition. My signature is not included, because I was not
home at the time however, I did support the petition.
I have lived in my home for 46+ years and have always joined with my
neighbors in maintaining a safe, quiet, attractive, and comfortable
neighborhood. Constructing eight homes on the 258 Union Avenue lot
will not be an asset. Looking at them from Union Avenue will be a
continuation of the San Jose townhouses in another style. They will
have a negative impact on the existing homes on Howes and Hershner
Courts with those people losing their privacy, right to private
enjoyment, and value. I fully support four single- family, one -story
homes, perhaps with a shared U -shape driveway or two shared
driveways, or a small private cul -de -sac, so that no one would need to
back their car onto Union Avenue. Homes should have larger back yards
allowing more of a buffer zone between them and the current residents
to ensure privacy for all, and creating a safer environment for the
children. In addition, this plan of one -story homes would allow solar
access for everyone.
Sincerely,
Maureen R. Heberling
291 Hershner Court
Los Gatos, CA 95032
n
C4
i
,OOI = "1
lyl
�
w
I- aMn'12l l -06I I
1 50 EIY
Sk
01
16x01 1
y a ' 3
N A
V
- - - - -- N NA
x01 a w
o
—
...>
0
r :
0 0C 201
to m
0 49:00
2 — — z w
r Q
O2E — B -�_r w 01
n
61
f _ _
0 �I
W
NI
1. N
fI
Y�
mn
�5n
h
trig
9
OI m�L LB I Z
m Z
ala � lI se z
11
nRLBa^I 8
Sol_
�m
ti ATTACHMENT 1
I
Ig
\o
Ig �m Mlo
>m'I
m
al
p
OS'S9 T
05 "19 11 BE 69. 5E
I --- 59T63261
a
nl Ie nl
k A11 Is nl �d
W
0956 09
I 1 `�
61 N M�
lAT tl L 9 � i
'l3 ;sr S3MOH , - - - - --
m
ry
�•
_ a w
st RI
I 0 0
zi
'19
r.
F
09'59 i o9 T uE Of L7- -at bll - -.
0
I
IE' 01'b9 ' 111 � til m
uz yr
ao
13 2l3NHSU3H °$ -- X01 - -- A
a3NHS83H
,'1^
mci I Nlm I „Im ��_
la
p
OI
-aw �°S�n �i9Tz
4x
mR
vi�l8��lm' I '°
W
0l
y =
54'�OS'19 LL�49
111
— — -- b '08 N30VW1V— SOlV9 "
Y OI
ma
n
61
f _ _
0 �I
W
NI
1. N
fI
Y�
mn
�5n
h
trig
9
OI m�L LB I Z
m Z
ala � lI se z
11
nRLBa^I 8
Sol_
�m
ti ATTACHMENT 1