Desk ItemtpW N OF
�� 6AZpe'
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REMARKS:
MEETING DATE: 06/16/15
ITEM NO. 16
DESK ITEM
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
June 16, 2015
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
LES WHITE, INTERIM TOWN
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.
Attachment 20 contains a letter from the applicant received this morning.
Attachments (previously received with June 2 2015 staff report):
1. 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 A mo
Assistant Town Manager/ irector of Community Development
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager N/A Town Attorney N/A Finance
N: \DEV\TC REP0RTS \2015 \Union258_appea1_Desk ltem.docx Reformatted: 5/30/02 Revised: 6/16/15 11:32 AM
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 258 UNION AVENUE /U -13 -012, M -13 -004, S -13 -020 THROUGH S -13 -027
June 16, 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 (previously received with June 15, 2015 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 (one page)
Attachment received with this Desk Item:
20. Letter from applicant (two pages)
LRP:JSP:ah
N1DEV\TC REPORTS\ 2015 \Union258_appm1_Addwdum.docx
Date: June 16, 2015
To: Los Gatos Town Council
From: Shawn Wang — Property Owner and Chris Kummerer- CKA Architects
Re: 258 Union Avenue
Los Gatos Town Council,
We would like to thank the Town Council for accommodating our project at 258 Union
Avenue on tonight's agenda. We are hopeful that the Council can find a way to hear the
project even though it is scheduled near the end of a long agenda.
Since the last hearing on June 2 "d, Ms. Quintana has taken time to add seven pages of
objections to her initial letter with 53 assertions. The additional objections assert that the
Planning Commission made errors in judgment, proposes rezoning to RI -8, objects to the
Use Permit format and takes issue with intensity of the proposal. Additionally, Mr.
Yeager (a concerned neighbor) has written a letter with historical information regarding a
previously failed proposal to annex neighboring San Jose land and rezone it along with
258 Union Avenue.
The Planning Commission is a thoughtful body made up of well meaning people willing
to volunteer large amounts of time and effort. This is evident in the preparation,
investigation and considered questioning that they have engaged in over the last two and
a half years on the 258 Union Avenue project. Ms. Quintana's assertion that the Planning
Commission didn't fully understand the nature of the remand and didn't sufficiently
prepare for the hearing are clearly laid false by the historical record of those hearings.
The records show that the Commission engaged in wide ranging discussions over three
hearings including the nature of the new information of the redesigned project, the Use
Permit application, the zoning of the property, density, intensity, solar access etc...
Ms. Quintana makes comparisons of land use intensity by using only the metric of Floor
Area Ratio. She admits that intensity includes setbacks, heights, impervious surfaces
etc... but fails to take them into account. The Planning Commission has determined that
the overall intensity is appropriate when accounting for open space locations, setbacks,
low roof slopes, deference to neighbors, architectural style, yard size etc.... Furthermore,
the intensity of the project is affected by the inclusion of the Below Market Rate (BMR)
unit which is not included in the Town's calculations for density. When discounting the
BMR the FAR is reduced to approximately 40 %. The removal of second stories from
units #6, #7 and #8 (removed as a part of Planning Commission Approval) results in a
further reduction to approximately 35% FAR.
Ms. Quintana objects to the application for a Use Permit for Residential Use in the C -1
zone. The residential use is clearly stated in the Zoning Ordinance and the applicability
to this project has been affirmed many times by Staff, the City Attorney and Planning
Commission.
The information brought forward by Mr. Yeager demonstrates that the Town failed to get
ATTACHMENT 2 0
behind a 1999 proposal for annexing the adjacent San Jose properties and rezoning them
and the 258 Union property to RI-8. The letter states a desire for `upscale single family
residences' on these properties. Ms. Quintana has asserted that the property should be
rezoned to various different designations including the most recent assertion that R1 -8 is
appropriate. Mr. Yeager and Ms. Quintana champion this rezoning change even though
the Town clearly has failed to get behind it in the past. The 258 Union Project that the
Planning Commission has approved uses the available ordinances (without variances or
rezoning) to design a suitable residential project that is the highest and best use of the
long - vacant land.
Sincerely,
Chris Kummerer and Shawn Wang