Attachment 5-7TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: March 9, 2016
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters, Associate Planner
ewal ters @ los gatosca. gov
APPLICATION NO: Subdivision Application M-15-001
ITEM NO: 4
DESK ITEM
Architecture and Site Applications S-15-009 through S-15-0 11
LOCATION : 15975 Union Avenue (located at the northwest corner of Union
Avenue and Blossom Hill Road)
APPLICANT/
CONTACT PERSON: Gary Kolhsaat
PROPERTY OWNER: Betchart Union Ave Joint Venture Partnership
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family
residence, subdivide one lot into three lots, construct three new
single-family residences, and remove large protected trees on
property zoned R-1: 10. APN 523-42-017.
EXHIBITS: 1-14. Previously received with January 27 , 2016 Staff Report
15. Previously received with January 27, 2016 Desk Item
16-19. Previously received with March 9, 2016 Staff Report
REMARKS:
Received with this Desk Item Report:
20. Comments received from 11 :01 a .m. on March 4 , 2016 to
II :00 a.m. on March 9 , 2016
The attached email was received after distribution of the staff report.
{~
Prepared by:
Erin Walters
Associate Planner
JP:EW:cg
N:\DE V\PC REPORTS\20 16\Uni on 159 75 -cont -DESK.3 -9-16 .d o cx
Ap roved by:
J9 el Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
/
ATTACHMENT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
RECEIVED
Comments on Union A venue Subdivision Item 4
MAR 09 2016
To the Planning Commi ss ion
From Lee Quintana
Agenda Item 4 2/9/2015 Planning Commission
Please consider the following:
TOWN OF LO S GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
(\A-\ '7-00 \
7-,s -~.?q -l hv~~\ 5-\? {)1\
The staff report for the March 9th Planning Commission meeting addresses various technical issues. However, it
does not adequately address the primary issue of whether a three lot subdivision, as proposed, is consistent with the
zoning code and/or the requirements of the state's Subdivision Map Act.
Conclusion: Based on the information and discussion below
1. The finding(s) required to deny the proposed can be made, therefore the proposed subdivision should be
denied.
1. Given the site is too small to include a street or alley for access, given access is only possible from Union
Avenue, given the location of the proposed access from Union Avenue a two lot subdivision with one flag lot
may be the only option for a subdivision unless the applicant applies for a variance or an amendment to the
zoning code.
The discussion below of the 1/27/05 Staff Report to the Planning Commission supports these conclusion.
Staff Report for the 1/27/15 Planning Commission Meeting .
D. Zoning Compliance (page 4)
1. "The proposed subdivision application complies with the minimum lot frontage , depth, and size
requirements . The proposed Architecture and Site Application comply with the height, structure coverage
limitations, setback requirements and required parking is being provided on site . The zoning permits three
lots and a single family residence on each lot"
COMMENTS : See comments under Analysis: A. Subdivision
ANALYSIS:
A. Subdivision (page 4)
1. :The applicant is proposing three lots that meet the minimum lot dimensions ... required by Town Code.
COMMENT: While this statement is correct there are other elements of the proposed subdivision that may not allow
for a three lot subdivision.
1. "Town Code Section 29 .1 0.087, Lot frontage , requires all lots to have frontage . Lot frontage is defined Town
Code Section 29.10.020 as the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other
than a site line of a comer lot. Lots 2 and 3 have frontage along Blossom Hill Road . This satisfies the lot
frontage definition because the opportunity for access from Blossom Hill Road exists. Access from Lot 2
and 3 is provided from Union because Union Avenue has a lower traffic volume than Blossom Hill Road ."
(page 4)
COMMENTS:
• See Sec. 29.10.20 in Notes below for complete definition of Lot, frontage
• Blossom Hill Road not longer meets the definition for lot, frontage as the required dedications and design for
required subdivision improvements including the revised drainage design no longer allows access off
Blossom Hill Road. This information was not available to CDAC.
• Union Avenue is, therefore, no longer the preferred access point. Union Ave . is the only frontage that meets
the code's definition for lot, frontage.
• The Zoning code provides three exceptions from the frontage requirements :
1 )Corridor Lots, (Sec. 29.10 .085 and GP Policy LU-4 .5),
1. Condominiums (the corridor strip is deducted to determine minimum lot size .
(Sec. 29 .10 .085)
1. corridorPianned developments. (Sec. 29.10.087)
EXHIBIT 2 0
• I was not able to find and reference in the Town Code or General Plan that would qualify the use of
easements for a shared driveway as an exception to required lot frontage.
• I believe, as currently proposed, the project would require either a variance or require a change to the
Zoning Code (see last item under Notes)
1. "The proposed subdivision lot sizes are comparable to other lot sizes in the surrounding subdivisions" (page
5).
COMMENT: This may be accurate, however this may not be an apples to apples comparison. It is not clear that this
would be the case if the shared driveway were not counted as part of the lot.
1 . "Neighbors asked if the project could be a two-lot, flag lot subdivision. While the applicant could request two
lots, instead of three, the proposed three-lot subdivision complies with applicable policies, regulations and
guidelines. Additionally, the General Plan discourages corridor lots (also know as flag lots) but allows the
subdivider to demonstrate a corrodor lot meets certain provisions (See General Plan Policy LU-4 .5)"
COMMENT: It is not possible to introduce a street {See Sec. 29 .10.06702 and Sec. 29.10.06703 in Notes. A flag lot
may be the only way to provide for a subdivision of this property.
1 . "The shared driveway would exit onto Union Avenue. At the August 13, 2014 CDAC meeting, site access off
of Union Avenue was preferred for the subject site {Exhibit 4). Access from Union Avenue is preferred over
Blossom ill Road because the traffic volumes on Union are lower then those on Blossom Hill Road ."
COMMENT: As stated under Comments for item 2 above, given the required subdivision improvements along
Blossom Hill Road would not allow access from
Blossom Hill Road.
1. "Staff also included an option for an eight foot tall fence , where it does not interfere with traffic visibility ." but
does not define how interference with traffic visibility is defined.
NOTES :
Sec. 29.1 0 .020. -Definitions:
Lot, frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other than the side
line of a comer lot. On a comer lot either property line on a street may be determined to be the frontage .
Lot, corridor means a lot with access to a street by means of a strip of land having less frontage or width than
required for the parcel by this chapter
Sec. 29.10.085. -Corridor lots.
The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more tan three hundred {300) feet long nor less than twenty {20) feet
wide. The area of a corridor may not be applied toward satisfying the minimum lot area requirement. A corridor may
not serve more than one (1) lot. Lot frontage for a corridor lot is an exception to the lot frontage requirement in all
zones.
GP Policy LU-4.5. -Discourage corridor lots.
Corridor lots shall only be allowed if the use of a corridor lot decreases the amount of public street required for a
subdivision, contributes to the surround neighborhood, and is in context with the existing scale and established
character of the neighborhood. The subdivider shall also demonstrate that the use of a corridor lot benefits
surrounding properties.
Sec. 29.10.06702.-Subdivision Design, standards-Streets.
The design of a subdivision shall comply with the following street and highway standards as determined by the
advisory agency:
1 . Highways and major streets ....
2. Collector streets ..... .
3 . Minor streets .....
4 . One way streets .. .
5. Turning circles ... .
Sec. 29.10 .06703.-Subdivision Design standards.-Design standards and Sec.24.50.020
Alleys shall have a right-of-way width of not less than thirty (30) feet and roadway width of not less than twenty-four
(24) feet.
Sec. 29.10.06705.-Off-Street parking on narrow streets and Sec. 24.50.030.
On streets in subdivisions where parking of automobiles is prohibited along either or both sides of the normal
roadway , parking bays may be required at convenient locations or intervals outside the normal traffic lanes.
Sec. 29.10.06717.-Culverts, storm drains and drainage structures.
Culverts, storm drains, and drainage structures shall be constructed in, under, or a long streets, alley and highways in
a subdivision ......
Sec. 29.10.06726. -Lot Standards -Design, area and width .
All lots created pursuant to tis chapter must conform to the rules of chapter 29 of this Code.
Sec. 29.10.085 -Corridor lots .
The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more tan three hundred (300) feet long nor less than twenty (20) feet
wide. The area of a corridor may not be applied toward satisfyingthe minimum lot area reqire ment. A corridor may
not serve more than one (1) lot. Lot frontage for a corridor lot is an exception to the Jot frontage requirement in all
zones.
Sec. 29.10.087.-Lot frontage .
All lots shall have frontage, except those lots created for a condominium development, or under a planned
development application. The minimum dimension of the frontage shall be as required by the zone in which the
property is located, or where there is no minimum, as determined by the planning director.
Sec. 29.40.075. -Floor area ratio .
a. The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to assist in determining whether the mass and scale of the
project is co mpatible with the surrounding neighborhood . The FAR is a nominal limit, not a goal, and shall
be used in conjunction with residential development standards adopted by resolution.
b. The FAR app lies to those lots developed or proposed to be developed with a single-or two-family dwelling in
a ll residential zone (except the RC and HR zones.
6647 3.5 . No lo ca l agency shall approve a te nta tive map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not requi red, unl ess the
leg islative body fi nds that the proposed s ubdi vision , together with the provisions for its des ign and improvement, is consistent
with the gene ra l plan required by Article 5 (comm encing with Section 65300) of C hapter 3 of Di visi on I, or any s pecifi c plan
adopted purs uant to Article 8 (commencing with Section 65450) of Chapter 3 of Divi sion I .
A proposed subdivis ion shall be con siste nt with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local agency has offi c ially adopted
s uch a plan and th e proposed s ubdi vision or land use is compatible with th e objecti ves, polici es, general land uses, a nd programs
s pecified in s uch a pl an.
66474 . A legis la ti ve body of a city or county sha ll den y approva l of a tentative map, or a p arcel map for which a tentative map
was not required, if it ma kes any of the foll owi ng findin gs:
(a) That the proposed ma p is not consistent with appli cabl e general and s pecific plans as specifi ed in Section 65451 .
(b) That the des ign or improvement of the proposed s ubdiv ision is n ot con sistent with appli cable general and s pecific pl ans.
i. That the site is not physically suitable fo r the type of d evelopment.
(d) That the site is not ph ys icall y suitable for the proposed den sity of deve lopment.
(e) That the design of the subdivis ion or th e proposed improvem e nt s are likely to cause s ub stant ia l environmental damage or
s ubstantially and avoid abl y injure fi sh or wildl ife or their habitat.
(f) That the des ign of th e subdiv ision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious publi c health problems.
(g) That the design of the s ubdivision or th e type of improvements will conflic t with easeme nts, acquired by the public at large,
for access through o r use of, property within the proposed subdivi sion . In this conn ection, the governing body may approve a
map if it find s that alternate easeme nts, for access or for use, will be provided , and that these wi ll be substantially equivalent to
ones previously acquired by th e public. Thi s sub section sh a ll appl y onl y to easements of r ecord or to easements established by
judgment of a co urt of competent jurisdi ction and no authority i s hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public
at large h as acquired easements for access through or use of pro perty within the propo sed s ubdi v ision.
Sec. 24.20.020.-Compliance with a pplicable o rdin a nces.
(a) Appli cation s fo r a ppro val o f te nt ative map , in clud in g the maps th e mse lves, shall no t be accepted fo r filing or be deemed to
have been fil ed unl ess s uch appl ications ful ly co mpl y with the p rov ision s of th is chapt er.
(b) If the design of a proposed subd ivision or th e intended use of th e land included in a proposed s ubd iv ision does not comply
with all rul es of the a pplicable zone , th e tentative s ubdivi sion m ap sha ll not be accepted for fi ling or be deemed to have been tiled
unless th e s ubdivid e r concurrently prosecutes proceedings unde r chapter 29 of this Cod e to c hange the zone or to obtain a
va ri ance from the provisions thereof, a nd th e ch ange or varia nce wo uld , if granted, a ll ow the subdivision or in tended use.
(c) The tim e period during whi ch acti on by the adv isory agency upon a tentative map is required does not begin until the map can
be and is accepte d for filing pursuant to the provisions of th is secti on.
To the Planning Commi ssion
From Lee Quintana
(
Agenda ftem 4 2/9/2015 Planning Commission
Please consider the following :
The staff report for the March 9th Planning Commission meeting addresses various
technical issues. However, it does not adequately address the primary issue of whether
a three lot subdivi son, as proposed. is consistent with the zoning code and/or the
requirements of the state's Subdivision Map Act.
Conclusion: Based on the information and discussion below
1. The f i nding(s) required to deny the proposed can be made, therefore the proposed
subdivision should be denied.
2. Given the site is too small to include a street or alley for access, given access is only
possible from Union Avenue, given the location of the proposed access from Union
Avenue a two lot subdivision with one flag lot may be the only option for a subdivision
unless the applicant applies for a variance or an amendment to the zoning code.
The di scussion below of the 1/27/05 Staff Report to the Planning Commission supports
these conclusion.
Staff Report for the 1/27/15 Planning Commission Meeting.
D. Zoning Compliance (page 4)
1. "The proposed subdivision application complies with the minimum lot frontage,
depth , and size requirements. The proposed Architecture and Site Application
comply with the height, structure coverage limitations, setback requirements and
required parking is being provided on site. The zoning permits three lots and a
single family residence on each lot"
COMMENTS : See comments under Analysis : A. Subdivision
ANALYSIS:
A. Subdivision (page 4)
2.:The applicant is proposing three lots that meet the minimum lot
dimensions ... required by Town Code.
COMMENT: While this statement is correct there are other elements of the proposed
subdivision that may not allow for a three lot subdivision.
3. "Town Code Section 29.10.087, Lot frontage , requires all lots to have frontage. Lot
frontage is defined Town Code Section 29.10.020 as the property line of a lot abutting
ATTACHMENT 6
2
on a street, which affords access to a lot other than a site line of a corner lot. Lots 2
and 3 have frontage along Blossom Hill Road . This satisfies the lot1rontage definition
because the opportunity for access from Blossom Hill Road exists. Access from Lot 2
and 3 is provided from Union because Union Avenue has a lower traffic volume than
Blossom Hill Road ." (page 4)
COMMENTS :
• See Sec. 29.10.20 in Notes below for complete defi nition of Lot, frontage
• Blossom Hill Road not longer meets the definition for lot, frontage as the required
dedications and design for required subdivision improvements including the
revised drainage design no longer allows access off Blossom Hill Road. This
information was not available to CDAC.
• Union Avenue is, therefore, no longer the preferred access point. Union Ave. is the
only frontage that meets the code's definition for lot, frontage.
·The Zoning code provides three exceptions from the frontage requirements :
1 )Coridor Lots, (Sec . 29.10.085 and GP Policy LU-4.5), (the co rridor st rip i s
d educted to d etermi ne lot size)
2) Condominiums (the corrid o r st ri p is deduct ed to deter mi ne min im um lot size.
(S ec. 29.1 0 .085)
3) Planned developments. (Sec. 29.10.087)
• I was not able to find aR&-.amueference in the Town Code or General Plan that
would qualify the use of easements for a shared driveway as an exception to
required lot frontage.
• I believe, as currently proposed, the project would require either a variance or
require a change to the Zoning Code (see last item under Notes)
4. "The p roposed subdivision lot sizes are comparable to other lot sizes in the
surrounding subdivisions" (page 5).
COMMENT: This may be accurate, however this may not be an apples to apples
comparison . It is not clear that this would be the case if the shared driveway were
not counted as part of the lot.
5 . "Neighbors asked if the project could be a two-lot, flag lot subdivision . While the
applicant could request two lots, instead of three, the proposed three-lot subdivision
complies with applicable policies, regulations and guidelines. Additionally, the
General Plan d i scourages corridor lots (also know as flag lots) but allows the
subd ivider to demonstrate a corrodor lot meets certain provisions (See General Plan
Policy LU-4.5)"
COMMENT: It is not possible to introduce a street or alley (See Sec. 29.10.06702
and Sec. 29.10.06703 in Notes.) A 11ag lot may be the only way to provide for a
subdivision of this property.
6. "The shared driveway would exit onto Union Avenue. At the August 13, 2014 CDAC
meeting , site access off of Union Avenue was preferred for the subject site (Exhibit 4).
3
Access from Union Avenue is preferred over Blossom ill Road because the traffic
volumes on Union are lower then those on Blossom Hill Road ."
COMMENT: As stated under Comments for item 2 above, gi'f'en the required
subdivision improvements along Blossom Hill Road would not a ll ow access from
Blossom Hill Road .
7. "Staff also included an option for an eight foot tall fence, where it does not interfere
w ith traffic visibility." But does not define how interference with traffic visibility is
defined . (See Conditions of approval # 84 and 85.)
NOTES :
Sec. 29.10.020. -Definitions:
Lot, frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street,--wflffi which
affords access to a lot other than the side line of a corner lot. On a corner lot either
property line on a street may be determined to be the frontage.
Lot, corridor means a lot with access to a street by means of a strip of land having
less frontage or width than required for the parcel by this chapter
Sec. 29.10.085. -Corridor lots.
The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more tan three hundred (300) feet long nor
less than twenty (20) feet wide. The area of a corridor may not be applied toward
satisfying the minimum lot area reqirement. A corridor may not serve more than one
(1) lot. Lot frontage for a corridor lot is an exception to the lot frontage requirement
in all zones.
GP Policy LU-4.5. -Discourage corridor lots.
Corridor lots shall only be allowed if the use of a corridor lot decreases the amount
of public street required for a subdivision, contributes to the surround neighborhood,
and is in context with the existing scale and established character of the
ne ighborood. The subdivider shall also demonstrate that the use of a corridor lot
benefits surrounding properties.
Sec. 29.10.06702. -Subdivision Design, standards -Streets.
The design of a subdivision shall comply with the following street and highway
standards as determined by the advisory agency:
(1) Highways and major streets ....
(2) Collector st reets ..... .
(3) Minor streets .....
(4) One way streets .. .
(5) Turning ci rcles ... .
4
Sec. 29.10.06703. -Subdivision Design standards. -Design standards and Sec.
24.50.020
Alleys shall have a right-of-way width of not less than thirty (30) feet and roadway
width of not less than twenty-four (24) feet.
Sec. 29.10.06705. -Off-Street parking on narrow streets and Sec. 24.50.030.
On streets in subdivisions where parking of automobiles is prohibited along either or
both sides of the normal roadway, parking bays may be required at convenient
locations or intervals outside the normal traffic lanes.
Sec. 29.10.06717. -Culverts, storm drains and drainage structures.
Culverts, storm drains, and drainage structures shall be constructed in, under. or
along streets, alley and highways in a subdivision ..... .
Sec. 29.10.06726. -Lot Standards -Design, area and width.
All lots created pursuant to tis chapter must conform to the rules of chapter 29 of this
Code.
Sec. 29.10.085 -Corridor lots.
The corridor to a corridor lot shall not be more than three hundred (300) feet long nor
less than twenty (20) feet wide. The area of a corridor may not be applied toward
satisfyingthe minimum lot area reqirement. A corridor may not serve more than one
(1) lot. Lot frontage for a corridor lot is an exception to the lot frontage requirement
in all zones .
Sec. 29.10.087. -Lot frontage.
All lots shall have frontage, except those lots created for a condominium
development, or under a planned development application. The minimum dimension
of the frontage shall be as required by the zone in which the property is located , or
where there is no minimum, as determined by the planning director.
Sec. 29.40.075. -Floor area ratio.
(a) The objective of the floor area ratio (FAR) is to assist in determining whether the
mass and scale of the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The
FAR is a nominal limit, not a goal, and shall be used in conjunction with residential
development standards adopted by resolution.
(b) The FAR applies to those lots developed or proposed to be developed with a single-
or two-family dwelling in all residential zone (except the RC and HR zones.
Sub di v ision Ma p Ac t 66473 .5. No local agency shall approve a tentative map, or a parcel map
for which a tentative map was not required, unless the legislative body finds that the proposed
subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improv ement, is consistent with the
general plan required by Article S (commencing with Section 65300) of Chapter 3 of Division 1,
or any specific plan adopted pursuant to Article 8 (commencing with S~ction 65450) of Chapter
3 of Division 1.
I . r
5
A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan only if the local
agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed subdivision or land use is compatible
with the objectiv es, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in such a plan.
Subdivision Map Act 66474 . A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a
tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the
following findings :
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
specified in Section 65451 .
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their
habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public
health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large , for access through or use of, property within the proposed
subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate
easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent
to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of
record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no
authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired
easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision .
Sec. 24.20.020. -Compliance with a pplicable ordinances.
(a) Applications for approval of tentative maps, including the maps th emselves, s hall
not be accepted for filin g or be deeme d to have been filed unless suc h applica ti o ns
fully compl y wi th th e provis io ns o f this c ha pter.
(b) If the design of a proposed subdi vis io n or the intended use of the land in cl uded in a
proposed subdi vision does no t compl y with all rul es of the applicable zone, the
te n ta ti ve s ubdi vision map shall not be accepted for filing or be dee med to ha ve been
filed unless the subdivider concurrently prosecutes proceedings und er c hapter 29 o f
thi s Code to c hange the zone or to o bta in a vari a nce from th e provisions th ereof, a nd
th e c han ge or varian ce would , if granted, a ll ow the su bdi visio n or inte nd ed use.
(c) The tim e period during which acti o n by the advi sory age ncy upon a te ntati ve map
is requ ired does not be gin until the map can be and is accepted for filing pursuant to
the provisions of thi s section.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
18
1 9
2 0
21
22
2 3
24
25
A P P E A R AN C E S :
Mary Badame, Chair Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners : D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Kendra Burch
Town Manager :
Community Dev elopment
Dire c tor :
Town Attorney:
Transcribed by :
Charles Erekson
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
Tom O'Donnell
Laurel Prev etti
Joel Paulson
Robert Schultz
Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337 -1558
ATTACHMENT 7
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R 0 C E E D I NG S:
CHAIR BADAME: We are moving on to Item 4, which
is 15975 Union Avenue, Subdivision Application M-15-001,
Architecture and Site Applications S-15-009 through S-15-
011. Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-
family residence, subdivide one lot into three lots,
construct three new single-family residences, and remove
large protected trees on property zoned R-1:10, APN 523-42-
017.
May I have a show of hand from Commissioners who
have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from
Commissioners?
Ms. Wal t e r s , I unde r s tand you 'll be providing t h e
Staff Report this evening.
ERIN WALTERS: Yes, good evening, Planning
Commissioners.
At the January 27 t h Planning Commission meeting
this item was continued. The Commission directed the
Applicant
included
privacy,
traffic.
to address concerns and questions. Topics
on-site parking, fire access, use of CC&Rs,
drainage, and off-site improvements, as well as
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Commission expressed concerns regarding a
propo sed fire truck turnaround at Lot 3 , and prohibited
parking at Lot 3 's driveway , and prohibited pa r king on the
shared driv eway due to fire a c cess.
The Applicant has addressed this concern b y
modifying the site plan to provide additional on-site
parking for each lot by moving the fire truck turnaround
from Lot 3 to the Lot 2 driveway. In order to accommodate
the turnaround at Lot 2 the house was shifted over by 2 '
and back by 4 '. This provides additional distance between
the proposed home and the home that is located at Lasuen
Co urt . The Applicant als o enlarged Drivewa y 2 to prov ide an
additional surface parking space at the d r iveway .
By moving the fire truck turnaround t o Lot 2, the
project now includes two shared parking spaces at the end
of the shared driv e wa y . The Applicant will include that
that wo u ld be a v ailable to all three homeowners as well as
their guests . The Applicant has also designated one of the
surface spac es at Lo t 1 as a shared parking space as well .
The revised plan prov ides fire truck turnar ound
and a total of 1 7 on-site parking spaces for the three
single-family homes .
Concerns were also raised abo ut e nforc e ment to
keep the shared driv e wa y and fire turnaround free and c l ear
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Unio n Av enue
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
2 4
25
for fire access . The shared driveway and Lot 2 driveway
apron, with the exception of that surface parking space,
would be required to be signed and striped and free for
fire access, and these requirements would be included in a
shared maintenance agreement. Additional on-site parking
will assist with keeping that space free and clear .
Concerns were also raised about the use of CC&Rs,
and the Applicant has requested to utilize a shared
maintenance agreement between the three property owners to
address and define responsibilities rather than the use
CC&Rs .
To address privacy, the Applicant has provided,
similar to the last meeting, an 8 ' fence along the northern
edge of the property line . The fence would be located
comp letely on the proposed project 's property and would be
maintained by those three property owners. In addition, 24-
inch box size trees would be placed along that edge to
provide additional privacy.
Additionally, Planning Commission asked Staff to
look at questions and concerns regarding traffic and off-
site improvements. The Applicant 's team and Staff met to
review the conceptual design.
The Applicant 's team created this revised plan
that shows striping and parking along Union Avenue as well
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
as Blossom Hill Road, and defines where the proposed bike
lanes are. The Staff Report includes responses to the
concerns by Planning Commission, and questions .
Staff also has received five comments from the
pub lic regarding tonight's item . The Desk Item tonight is
one public comment that was received this afternoon .
Both Engineering Staff for traffic and for any
questions about drainage are available tonight .
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Walters. Do you
hav e questions, Commissioner O'Donnell?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This afternoon, as you
remarked, we received late comments, one them from Lee
Qu i ntana; and I realize it was received ver y late, however,
it raises a number of issues. Have any of you had an
opportunity to read and consider those issues?
ERIN WALTERS: Staff has. Staff met today with
our Community Development Director as well as the Town
Attorney to review the concerns that were raised, and if
you have specific questions, we can dire c t them to the
Community Development Director.
COMMISSI ONER O'DONNELL: She raises a numbe r of
points , and I forget whether it 's four, but each of them
I 'd kind of like to hear somebody 's response to them . One
thing she says is t hat , "The site is too small to include a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2 016
Item #4, 15 975 Union Avenue
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
s treet or alley for access ," et cetera ; you 've got the
report there.
She also talks about street frontage , and there
is apparently no street frontage .
You 've got the anal ys is , you and Staff discussed
it , and so if somebody could take us through Ms . Quintana 's
concerns , I 'd appreciate it.
JOEL PAULSON : I 'll walk through some of this .
Given that it 's too smal l, in the last rep or t we
discussed a flag lot option is possible for two lots.
An alley for street access is not required; they
have street access off Union through an easement .
They do have lot frontage. Staf f 's interpretation
is they have frontage along Blossom Hill Road for two of
the lots, and they have frontage on Blossom Hill and Union
for the corner lot . The question that Ms . Quintana raises,
and I 'm sure she 'll expound on that when she comes up , is ...
She is here , she 's just hard to locate . The re she
is .
Staff 's interpretation i s you don 't have to take
access from your street frontage; you can take access from
somewhere else. Now, the Applicant is a vailable as well ,
they 'll be able to answer thi s . Techn ically, they could
propose to take access for two o f those lots off Blossom
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMM I SSION 3/9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hill through a shared driv eway, similar to what is done to
the east for four lots, so that is possible .
Staff 's interpretation that that'~ not required
in the shared access actually is a better option for access
to those lots . If the Commission disagrees with that, then
they can disagree with that and then ask the Applicant to
either address that, or make some other finding .
Relating to the next one, I think lot area is one
of the comments she made. I'm not sure if Erin has the
definition . Lot area includes easements . The only thing it
doesn 't include pursuant to Town Code is requirements for
dedication for public roadway. This property does have to
prov ide access and dedication along Blossom Hill and Union,
so that is taken into account . And the other is for
riparian habitat, which there is none of on this property.
So the way they 've calculated lots does meet Town Code.
She talks about corridor lots a lot. We didn 't
talk about that. That is a possibility . The Applicant has
chosen not to do that, and they explained additionally the
last time why they didn 't want to do that , but again , the
Commission could be compelled t o say no, we think that is a
better option, so that is definitely the choice .
The challenge with some of these things , and
hopefully we can maybe address some of those when Ms .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
7
1 Quintana comes up and clarifies a little bit of this; is
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
it 's quite lengthy and it 's a lot of just information .
Those are the two big ones from Staff 's standpoint;
otherwise Staff feels that it meets the technical
requirements of the Zoning Code for a subdivision.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me ask you one
question on the frontage. As you know, Blossom Hill is
considerably above the one lot, which is arguably going to
be three lots , and to have access to Blossom Hill you'd
have to make substantial grading changes to the lot, I
believe, having observed it. I take it that if we find that
you have frontage, that does not include the ability to ·
access the frontage, that is to say, the street that causes
the frontage?
JOEL PAULSON: That 's correct. Staff 's
interpretation, because I think if you read the technical
definition, which Ms. Quintana probably put in here, it
says which affords access to a lot. So it affords the
opportunity for access , but it doesn't say that it's
required to take access from that frontage.
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL : "Affords access u wou l d
normally mean that you could gain access, right?
JOEL PAULSON: Correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Even though this would
require · substantial grading changes, right?
JOEL PAULSON : That is correct.
COMM ISSIONER O'DONNELL: Is there any limit on
what kind of grading changes and you 'd still have frontage?
JOEL PAULS ON : There 's not , because the f rontage
would still just be along Blossom Hill Road, as it
currently is.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If you had a cliff, it
would have frontage?
JOEL PAULSON: The question would be whether it 's
technically feasible. Staff believes that it is technology
feasible, and so that's possible.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner Hanssen .
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN : I had a question about the
community input. My understanding from our last meeting was
the reason this was ref erred to us was because there were
concerns from the residents that were unresolvable. What I
wondered is taking a step back from the technical details
of this project, I don't know if you have the answer to
this, but when this was originally shared with the
residents on multiple occasions was the question ever asked
whether they generally supported the idea of the
subdivision in general? Not the details and the structure
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of it, because clearly a lot of work has gone into that,
but the big picture issue to me is whether or not there is
support for doing a subdivision of one lot into three in
this particular location. I just wondered if you could
address it, because it didn 't seem to me, based on the last
meeting and the testimony and the letters that have been
coming in, that there was a lot of support from the
residents, but I might have missed something that happened
before.
ERIN WALTERS: We hav e received public comments
from the three residents that live north of the project , as
well as some neighbors that live farther down on Union,
that do have concerns about the project as a whole as well
as the specific items that we've raised with regard to
privacy, height , or mass , and then also access.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Because I wondered if the
question originally got asked, do you generally support the
schematic of the proj ect versus the details if the comments
might have been different, but that 's a h ypothetical
question to ask.
ERIN WALTERS : We had never asked that question
directly. We just receive comments and question.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And even the latest
comments that came this week, they 're about the traffic and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they 're about the height of the project. There just seem to
be more and more questions that keep coming up so that I
just consider that a red flag, and so I think you answered
my question in terms of what has been communicated.
CHAIR BADAME : Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSI ON ER HUDES: A little more detail on the
neighbors ' reaction to this , and there 's a whole section
addressing the Commission 's concerns about privacy , but it
always talks about 100 Lasuen. When I walked the property
and when I read the letter from Ms. Susanne Belshe, it
seems that 108 has a significant privacy issue . That 's
where the corner of the Lot 3 residence is very close to
that and the poles are quite h igh over there. Has anything
been done since the last meeting to address the concerns of
that resident?
ERIN WALTERS: As described, they 've included an
8 ' fence as wel l as a large size tree planting, but t hat
house at that lot has not been moved at all, nor Lot 1 or
Lot 3 have been modi fied.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH : So clarify, if tonight,
whi c h ever way it g oes , but l et 's say there was approval for
a subdivision application. Are we approving a conceptual
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
11
1 p lan for traffic mitigation that ... What it has up there and
2 what I have here is that has not been reviewed by the Town
3 Traffic Engineer. This was just prepared by aerial photos,
4
and it's the contractor 's responsibility to verify all the
5
site conditions, which I assume is a traffic study. So if
6
we were approved this, we 're approving tha t conceptual
7
design?
8
ERIN WALTERS: I can have our Town Traffic
9
10
Engineer discuss that with you.
11
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Thank you. I would
12 appreciate that.
13 JESSY PU: Jessy Pu, Town Traffic Engineer.
14 That 's (inaudible ) not ye t reviewed by Town Traffic
15 Eng ineer . That 's the same copy I reviewed a f terward , so
16 yeah, I have reviewed that now.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
COMMISSIONER BURCH : And we somewhere have in
writing that you have blessed that plan as what we would
require for bike lanes and traffic mitigation on that
corner?
JESSY PU: Yes, conceptually. This is a
conceptual drawing . At the time of design all detail will
be looked at thoroughly and should be pretty much like
this, but we always put a stamp on it. This is conceptual,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 0 16
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
because we don 't want people to thin k this is a design
drawing for construction purposes.
COMMISSIONER BURCH : Okay . I 'll save the rest of
my discussio n until after we get through public testimony,
beca us e I 'm sure we need to get there.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Commissioner Burch.
Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: We have a letter from a
neighbor who is expressing concerns about something I
experienced when I was on the site. I crossed Union heading
east and went over to the housing development, and while I
was trying to get back a citizen traveling west on Blossom
Hill made a right -hand turn onto Union, and at that point
there 's a slope and you pick up spee d, and he p icked up
speed, and I n eeded to step back, because I had one foot in
the street.
I f Car 1 was at the light heading west on Blossom
Hill, and if Car 2 was right behind him and the light
changed or they just proceeded, Car 1 would take that
corner, go down that hill, hit his or her brakes and put on
the right-hand turn to get into the new development. My
con cern is what Car 2 is going to do.
I don't know what you can do about that, improve
our driver 's ed classes o r something , but that seems to me
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISS I ON 3/9/2016
I tem #4, 15975 Union Avenu e
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
1 3
1 4
1 5
16
1 7
18
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
24
2 5
to be a potentially, imminent, possible danger, s o I was
thinking what would I ask you : Is there signage? Is there
something we could do to alert a driv er to a potential
left-hand turn shortly after enjoying that d o wn slope?
Because the next street over, they say t hey have problems
with that. Well, this one is going to hav e a lot o f
p roblems , because it 's closer to the corne r , and the letter
we received from the neighbor is far more articulate than
I 'm being , but have you thought abo ut that? Is there
anything we can do about it?
JESSY PU : For turning right at the pork chop
island from westbound Blossom Hill Road, we could add a
y ield sign.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Let me make sur e . I 've just
come off Blossom Hill, I made the right -hand turn d o wn t he
hill , and I want to turn left into the new p roject. That 's
what I 'm talking about .
JESSY PU: I have been out t h e re . I hav e been
watching traffic, and people who turned right c o uld go
fast , and that 's because they think they have good
visibility once t h ey make that right turn . I t hink i t 's an
issue that we could add a yield sign f o r that right turn t o
give them an alert that they need to yield when they enter
Union Av enue .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 0 16
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
14
1 Now, howev er, if they want to turn left from
2 Union to Lasuen Court, they should have good visibility,
3 they should be able to see the intersection when they make
4 the left turn.
5
VICE CHAIR KANE: Should. It 's a short distance ,
6
and it concerns me . That 's all I c an say.
7
CHAIR BADAME : Any further questions?
8
Commissioner O'Donnell.
9
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL : Since the traffic is
10
11
coming behind you, when you said they have good visibility,
12 you mean in the rear view mirror?
13 JESSY PU : If there are two cars making the right
14 turn, and the first car wants to turn left onto Lasuen
15 Court, and there is another car following it closely, if
16 the first car makes a sudden brake, the car that's trailing
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
it , if he 's following too closely ... You ' re no t supposed to
follow too closel y , but if they do, we are talking about
hypothetically speaking, if the first car in front hits the
brake, going fast, hit brake suddenly, and the other car
trailing v ery c losely, it could be a pote ntial rear end,
but that 's not really what a driver should be doing .
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Once you make that right
turn and you 're g o ing down Union , about how many feet i s it
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/20 16
Item #4, 15 975 Uni o n Avenue
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
before you make a left turn to go into the proposed
subdivision?
JESSY PU : It 's about 17 0 -18 0 '.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL : I observed the same thing
the Vice Chair did today, because there are signs that say
please don 't walk across the street e ssentially , and
there 's a reas o n for that . Of course, I wal ked across the
street, but you have to be very careful. People come around
that bend and acce lerate , be cause it 's a down h il l slop e ,
and yet y ou 'd ha ve to make a left turn if you were going
into the three-lot subdivision i n pretty short order. So
the next guy that comes around the bend is accelerating to
35 miles and hour ; you 're just saying we ought to pay
attention, right?
JESSY PU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNE LL : Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions?
Commissioner Ereks on.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I just want to be sure I
understand something correctly . It 's my understandin g that
it 's a common practice in entry ramps going onto freeways ,
where pos sible , that they 're graded down so they 're at a
downward slope. That naturally allows the traffic to speed
up , and therefore when it 's going from a s lower speed limit
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /20 1 6
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
to what it would be on a freeway, it helps the traffic
naturally speed up to do that , and that's a primary reason
for the design. In the converse , when I 'm exiting off of
that, they are o ftent imes , when it 's possible , graded up to
have the opposite effect .
So it 's not clear to me where you have a natural ,
if that 's a correct understanding on my part , how the Staff
could say it would be safe and not assume that the traffic
was going to speed up and would depend upon something that
design engineers don 't depend upon , in fact depend upon the
opposite h app ening , so i t 's not clear to me why you make
that observation to us.
JESSY PU: The Staff review of the roadway
conditions is based on typi ca l roadway conditions, and this
section of roadway , it 's straight with good visibility . And
also based on review o f accident history, there have been
zero acc idents o n Union Avenue in the vic inity o f Leewood
Court and Lasuen Court, except for one DUI accident, within
the past three years.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson, continue.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON : And tha t was without this
development?
JESSY PU : That's correct .
LOS GATO S PLANNING COMM ISSION 3/9/2 01 6
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
13
1 4
15
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
2 0
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
COMMISSIONER EREKSON : Where people wo uld be
presumably potentially regularly turni ng i n witho ut this
r isk , so the history doesn 't include this potential risk ,
right?
J E SSY P U: Tha t's correct .
COMMISSIONER EREKSON : Okay , t h anks.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O 'Donne ll.
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL : The h o use that is now
there, not three houses, as near as I can tel l it 's
deserted, because when I walked the pro perty s o me of the
walls were ripped off, so nobo d y liv e s t here. The traff i c
studies you have assume essentially nothing to the left.
Secondly, I parked in the cu l de sac . As y o u come
around that bend , there 's a cul de sac about 100 ' do wn . I
pulled in there and walked a c r o ss the stree t . F i rst I
looked to see if there was a crosswa l k that I could use ,
because there 's a sign basically saying don 't walk across
here , but then they don 't tell you how to get across the
street, because I c ould not see a cro sswalk. I 'm sure
there 's one down by the high school or something , but what
do you do for pede s trians? Now the r e 's an empty lot with an
old house on it. How do you get across the street if you 're
a pedestrian?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Av enue
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
JESSY PU: I believe that sign is probably on the
north side of that intersection .
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL : There are two signs as
you come out of the cul de sac, and I figured out how am I
going to get across the road, there are two signs that say
don 't walk acros s the street , which of cour s e af t er f i nding
there was no way to get across the street, I very much
ignore d. Do you k n ow whether t h ere 's a crosswalk somewhere
there so people can walk across the street? Oh, in Blossom
Hill?
JESSY PU: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL: So you walk back up the
hill, go across, and then go down, as opposed to if you put
three houses there and yo u've g ot a cul de sac . The
crossing has nothing to do with those streets; it has to do
with Blossom Hill, I assume.
JESS Y PU: Yes , that's a s ign a l -controlled
intersection . That 's a better acces s for ped e s tr i ans .
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you .
CHAIR BADAME: I hav e a question for you . Can you
just clarify for me where you obtain your history of
accident information at particular locations?
JESSY PU : The Police Department sends the
accident records to the state, and CHP enters them in a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
19
1 compute rized system called SWITRS ; that 's where I get the
2 accident data from.
3 CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Commissioner Hudes.
4
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I had a question about the
5
guardrail or something to prevent cars from going through
6
the fence off of Blossom Hill Road . I b e lieve there 's a t
7
least a 10 ' elevation drop , and going on Blossom Hill ,
8
there is a section that has a guardrail, west of Blossom
9
10
Dale, for about a quarter of a mile , I believe . What 's the
11
purpose of the guardrail there? Why is there a guardrail in
12 that location?
13 JESSY PU: I believe that section does no t have a
14 curb cut sidewalk, and so it is straight off the edge of
15 the pavement , and that 's why there 's a guardrail there.
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
2 5
COMMISSIONER HUDES : Isn't there also a
significant elevation drop there?
JESSY PU: Yes, as well.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Because on the uphill side
t h ere 's no sidewalk or curb either , and th ere 's no
guardrail . The concern is because there 's an elevation
drop, correct?
JESSY PU: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 0 16
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
20
1 CHAIR BADAME: Any further questions? Vice Chair
2 Kane.
3 VICE CHAIR KANE: Am I correct with assuming-and
4 I don 't know whether i t is or not-that the west side o f
5
Union is San Jose?
6
JESSY PU : No, i t t he west of Blossom Dale.
7
Blossom Dale is t h e next street to the west of Union. West
8
of Bl ossom Dale, n o rth side o f the street is i n San Jose.
9
10
VI CE CHAIR KANE: So this particular corner is
Los Gatos?
11
12 JESSY PU: Cor rect .
13 VICE CHAIR KANE : And if we wanted to put up a
14 sign, we could put up a sign?
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
J ESSY PU: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE : And since we have already put
up a sign that says , "Do Not Cross This St ree t ,n (On Peri l
o f Your Life ), why did we put that sign up? I t 's almost
rhetorical . It 's suggesting there 's a danger. Somebody
figured out t hose cars come down that elevation pret ty
fast , and it says you know wha t ? You don't want to cross
this street here. Well, I don't think I want to make a left
turn there either. It 's rhetorical .
CHAIR BADAME: All right, any further questions?
Seeing none, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMM I SS I ON 3 /9/2 016
Item #4 , 15975 Union Avenue
21
1 We will now open the public testimony portion of
2 the public hearing and allow the Applicant and their team. ..
3 VICE CHAIR KANE: What about Erin? Erin may not
4 be done . In fact, I 'm not done with Er in .
5
CHAIR BADAME: All right, we have questions for
6
you. Vice Chair Kane.
7
VICE CHAIR KANE: I was hoping you would come
8
back after the Town Engineer spoke. For clarification,
9
10
maybe for myself and maybe some others, the Staff Report
11
indicates that we had concerns over CC&Rs last time we got
12 together, and the current Staff Report says that now we
13 have a maintenance agreement. Huzzah, everything is good.
14 What 's the difference between the two?
1 5 ERIN WALTERS: I will have our Town Attorney
16 speak on that.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ : CC&Rs in a nutshell is it 's a
formation of either a corporation or association . That is,
all the owners. And in that document it provides with
mechanism for collecting dues; it provides mechanism for
vot ing rights; it provides mechanism for maintenance.
You 'll find CC&Rs almost always i n subdivisions
that are large . More than five or six, you s tarting getting
in that area where CC&Rs are always ...
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Unio n Avenue
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
1 6
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
In lots of this si z e with thr ee, most often
y o u 'll find the maintenance agreements , because it's very
difficult to form an ass o ciatio n, to have a board, to
collect dues , and it 's much easier for the home owners to
just have a simple maintenance agreement that provides what
their maintenance is .
There's no common area per se for this
development , and that 's the ot h er reason why you have a
homeowners association, when there 's a common area that
needs maintenanc e , and I mean a larger area than this .
So really , the only maintenance on this project
is probably for that r o ad and maybe a little bit more , so
it 's not your (inaudible), but there's not as you typical l y
see with CC&Rs when they need to be done.
But that doesn 't mean you can 't require it . If
the Commission believes that CC&Rs are more protective of
these homeowners, you can require CC&R s be developed, but
you normally don 't see i t in a developmen t t his size .
VICE CHAIR KANE : I think that was my point. We
were concerned with compliance on the parking and the fire
truc ks, and that sort of thing.
ROBERT SCHU L TZ : One won 't provide more
protection than the other.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Av enue
2 3
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR KANE : So the main agreement is no
better than the CC&Rs regarding ...
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Not for those issues.
VICE CHAIR KANE: ... neighborly compliance with
parking your cars here and there?
ROBERT SCHULTZ : It 's the same in a CC&R.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Then wh y would we find it more
appropriate for this project , because it 's sma l ler?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes.
VICE CHAIR KANE : Thank you .
CHAIR BADAME : Any further questions f or Ms.
Walters? Seeing none, thank you, Ms. Walters.
We wi ll now open the public testimony portion of
the public hearing and allow the Applicant and their team
ten minutes to address the Commission. I have four speaker
cards from the Applicant . Please state your name and
address .
TIM CRONIN: Good evening, Tim Cronin, 306
Belladera Court, Monterey, California . I represent Betchart
Union Avenue Joint Venture Partnership, the owner.
First of all, I wanted to thank Staff and the
Commission. We were first here January 27 th . Staff wo rked
with us closely to try to answer all the questions and
concerns o f the neighbors and the Commission . I t hink Erin
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and the Staff has done a great job at answering all that,
including the traffic concerns.
With that said , I 'd like to get Ama nda Wilson
from Hanna & Brunetti up here to talk about the drainage,
which is an imp o rtant issue. We 've got parking , dra i nage ,
traffic control, the major issues, and the height of the
buildings and stuff . We 're going to try to address all
those. Even though Staff did a great job of addressing
every item in their report , we 're here to expound o n that .
Amanda.
AMANDA WILSON : Good evening, Amanda Wilson,
Hanna & Brunetti, 7651 Eigleberry Street, Gilroy,
California.
I just want to touch on the drainage, as
requested last time . Developing this project, as stated in
the Staff Report, will improv e the drainage issues on the
property. Current l y t he storm dra inage, since there 's curb
and gutter along Blossom Hill Road, from the crown of the
road down will drain into the property. Some of the
drainage will drain on through to the neighbors, but the
general drainage pattern now is from Blossom Hill and
draining through the site to Union Avenue .
After the development we'll be putting in curb
and gutter along Blossom Hill and Union Avenue, so the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water from Blossom Hill will no longer go onto the site; it
will drain in the curb and gutter through the bioretention
pond into the storm drain system. Each of the lots and the
shared driveway will drain into the bioretention ponds and
then into the storm drain system. The shared driveway will
drain away from the neighbor 's property .
Then this is a cross section through . There were
concerns about groundwater and some sump pumps from the
people on Lasuen. This shows that from Blossom Hill the
surface water will be caught in the curb, and then due to
the series of retaining walls that we're p u tting in some of
the groundwater will be caught in the subdrains of the
retaining walls and will g o into the storm drain system.
That will occur at Blossom Hill , and then again at the
property line between our project and the neighbo r 's
project.
Erin went over all this, but I just want to
reiterate that now each lot has parking on their own site,
and there are now three guest parking stalls on the site .
Also , since the roadway is 20 ' wide, i f someone does
illegally park on the shared driveway, the fire truck will
still be able to pass them. So if there is a car parked
there , there 's enough room for a fire truck to s till access
the site .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/201 6
Item #4, 159 7 5 Union Av enue
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
1 2
13
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
1 9
2 0
2 1
2 2
23
24
25
Then I 'm going to hand i t over t o Leo to talk
about traffic.
LEO TRUJILLO: Good evening, Leo Trujillo with
Hatch Mott McDonald, 1300 B First Street in Gilroy .
I just want to touch on a few things that were
discussed earlier in regard to the traffic. The way we
depicte d the tra ffi c imp r ovements h ere , we 'v e clea r ly
defined the new bike lane on Union and a future bike lane
on Blossom Hill. We revised the pork chop islands here to
accommodate that future bike lane and clearly define the
crosswalks . The signal will be incorporated with pedestrian
phas i ng for safe crossi n g . We 've added on -street parking as
well here and here, but it has enough distance from the
driveway to provide adequate site distance for vehicles
exiting the project driveway .
One point t hat I 'd l ike to make, the question
that was raised earlier about traffic coming this way and
possibly being involved in a rear end collision, luckily
the width on Union Avenue is wide enough to provide two
full lanes of traffic in the northbound direction , so
potentially that second v ehicle coming behind the car that
makes the stops here to make a left, he can easily and
safely go around that stopped car .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Av enue
27
1 I 'm here to hop e f u lly expand on any questions
2 that were raised earlier about traffic.
3 GARY KOHLSAAT: I 'm Ga r y Kohlsaat, the project
4
architect.
5
I wanted to touch on some of the issues that,
6
once we get through all this other stuff about drainage and
7
traffic, I think that we need to address these issues very
8
well.
9
10
The homes themselves I think are very well
11
designed, and it 's backed up by the Town 's archit e ct peer
12 review. He had basically no comments on any of the homes,
13 and tha t doesn't happen very oft en. Not that I'm hooting my
14 own horn , I 'm just saying that thi s is a well -designed
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
project .
These illustrations show wha t we 've done to
accommodate the concerns of the neighbors, moving the homes
away from them and also lowering them. The home on Lot 2
has been moved 4 '4" father to the south , and dropped a fu ll
3 '. The Lot 3 house is moved 2 .5 ' ba ck and dropped 2 ' from
our original submittal .
And these homes are set on the existing grade, or
below the existing grade in almo st a ll cases , and you'll
notice that the main floor is below the raised elevation of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Av enue
28
1 Blossom Hill , so it 's only the second story that exceeds
2 the height of Blossom Hill.
3 So this is what we 're de a ling with . We 're dealing
4 with sloped lots, and the fact that the home on Lot 3 is
5
higher than the home on Lot 2 or the home at 108 Lasuen
6
Court , it 's just a byproduct of the s it e and the situation
7
that we were given .
8
CHAIR BADAME: All right, you still hav e time
9
10
remaining . Is that it for the Applicant? Okay, Commissioner
11
O'Donnell has a question for y ou.
1 2 COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This would probably be
1 3 addressed to your traffic engineer.
1 4
15
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
GARY KOHLSAAT : Okay.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank y ou for your prior
testimony. I just want to clear up, y ou say if y ou make a
right turn on to Union from Blossom Hill , fo r tunately
there 's enough room for two lanes of traffic , right? But
it 's not striped , is it?
LE O TRUJILLO: No , it 's not str i ped.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL : So there are not really
two lanes of traffic , there 's enough room for two?
LEO TRUJILLO: There 's enough width , correct .
CO MM ISSIONER O 'DONNELL: Is anybody sugge sting it
be striped?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LEO TRUJILLO : I don 't thi nk that has been
suggested to this po int , but I don 't see any issue with it
having a striped left turn pocket and then the through lane
beside it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So that so far has not
been done, but it could be done, is what you 'r e saying?
LEO TRUJILLO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: And then coming up Union
going towards Blossom Hill, is that as wide as the other
side of the street?
LEO TRUJILLO: You see the dimensions . Here are
8 ', and then 10', 5 ', and 11 ', whateve r that equates to:
34'. So 34 ' wide here , and 35 ' on that side , so it 's almost
the same.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Is there parking on the
right-hand side of Union? You 're suggesting there would be
parking on the left-hand side of Union, right?
LEO TRUJILLO: On the west side of Union, on the
project side, correct.
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL: But is there going to be
parking on the other side?
LEO TRUJILLO : No, we 're not doing anythin g to
the other side .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, is there parking
now on the other side?
LEO TRUJILLO : I think it 's allowed. I haven 't
seen any No Parking signs . I didn 't see any cars parked
there.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If parking is allowed on
the right side-I 'm calling it the right side, but I guess
it 's going north-if y ou put parking there, you still have
enough room for two lanes?
LEO TRUJILLO: Yes . We 've got 35 ' there. A normal
standard travel lane is 1 2 ' wide , so you 've got 24 ' for two
lanes, and then you 've still got an extra 11'. Usually
parking is 8 ' wide , or by the Town 's standards it 's 8 ', so
you 've got more than enough room .
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Going on to the proposed
subdivision, you have a fire truck turnaround on Lot 2?
LEO TRUJILLO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Is that shown there,
that sort of hashed mark?
LEO TRUJILLO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: How does the fire truck
turn around t here? I'm just trying to visualize how they do
that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
2 2
2 3
2 4
2 5
LEO TRUJILLO: They typically mo v e f o rward, and
then back into that area and turn around.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So both of tho se, I
don't know what to call them, they look like perhaps hashed
marks, both those right angles are for the turnaround?
LEO TRUJILLO: Yes.
COMMISSI ONER O'DONNELL : Okay, thank y ou.
CHAIR BADAME : Vice Chair Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: If the Town so permitted, and
if the Commission so desired, y ou said you c o u l d make a
dedicated left-hand turn lane into the projec t ?
LEO TRUJILLO : Yes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: If the Town s o p e rm itte d, a nd
t he Co mmissio n so de sired , could you do i t f or t h e next
left-han d turn lane as we ll a s part o f commun i ty
dev elopment, bec ause t h ey h ave the same c o mpla int ?
LEO TRUJILLO: F o r this a r ea?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Ye ah .
LEO TR UJ I LLO : I think there 's st i ll e n o ugh room,
b e caus e the r o adway c o n t inues t o be thi s wide u p until just
a few fee t no rt h of whe r e th is pe n is showing , then that 's
wh e n the r o adway just j o g s o ver .
VI CE CHAIR KANE: So t h at 's a poss i bility?
LO S GATOS PLANNING COMMI SS I ON 3 /9 /20 1 6
Ite m #4, 1 5975 Unio n Avenue
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
LEO TRUJILLO : It 's a possibility . I 'm not
certain if the transition from these vehicles here over to
the next lane is going to be sufficient for standards based
on the limited pavement that we 've got here .
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME : Commissioner Hudes .
COMMISSIONER HUDES : Do you have an opinion about
the elevation drop and only a curb preventing a car from
coming off and down 12 ' into the residence there?
LEO TRUJILLO: In this area here, right?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Yes.
LEO TRUJILLO : I reviewed the Caltrans Highway
Design Manual, California manual, on uniform traffic
control devices, the traffic manual, and the AASHTO book,
the federal guidelines. They only provide guidance. There
is no set standard as to when specifically in this type of
situation you need a guardrail, so what they propose is an
engineering study based on accidents, or if the roadway is
very high speed, or if the roadway is curved in such a
manner that vehicles will tend to veer off the road and
into that site, and also whether you have a raised curb . So
that's actually a big factor. Whenever you don 't have
raised curbs, then it's more required that you put in a
guardrail.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
1 1
1 2
1 3
14
15
1 6
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
25
In this situation we hav e a big buffer, we have
the bike lane, and then we have a buffer fro m the bike lane
to the parking , and we've actually got the on -street
parking, the raised curb, and the sidewalk . So given all
those parameters and based on the guidance that all these
traffic manuals present , i t was determined that it 's not
necessary in this case.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I noticed farther down
Blossom Hill there are a number of stretches where there is
an additional curb on the other side o f the sidewalk, on
the inside of the sidewalk , and I noticed that that 's in
locations where there 's a drop , and sometimes it 's only a
6 ' drop , not a 1 0 ' or 12 ' drop like we have here. Is
something like that a possibility on the o t h er side of the
sidewalk , or could that reta i ning wall be 12 " taller to
es s entially f o rm a curb there as well?
LEO TRUJILLO : Yeah, it is possible, and like I
said earlier , the reason why that wasn 't presented with
this design is the fact that none of the design standards
require or suggest that for this type of situation
something like that would be necessary . It is possible,
yes .
COMMISSIONER HUDES : I know the traffic engineer
in the Town says t h at 's only done where there 's been an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Uni o n Avenue
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
accident , but we haven 't had th is development here before,
and I think the consequences of that are much more
significant with cars traveling in excess of 35 miles an
hour there .
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN : I had a question about the
bike lanes and the sidewalk. My recollection of this
intersection is there is no bike lane there now or at any
point on Union until you get up to the intersection of Los
Gatos /Almaden . Can you let me know where the sidewalk and
the bike lane will terminate?
LEO TRUJILLO : On Union, or on Blossom Hill?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: At both.
LEO TRUJILLO: This drawing pretty much depicts
where it will start. It would actually start basically here
at the beginning of the curb return, and extend all the way
to the intersection, and that would be built along with
this project.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And I understand why that
probably came to be that way, so answer this question for
me : If I read all the material from before, the intent is
to sell these houses to families with children, and I would
imagine they would go to Alta Vista Elementary and Union
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
35
1
2
3
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Middle School. If they wanted to walk to school, how would
they do so safely?
LE O TRUJILLO : I 'm sorry , I 'm not too familiar
travel here on the sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: No, other way.
LE O TRUJILLO: North on Uni o n?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN : Yeah, north. They 'd be
going like up on your graph. I don't know my direct ions. To
answer the question about the crosswalks, there actually is
a crosswalk about another couple of hundred feet up that
way that goes across Union ; I think it 's either by Mary or
Thomas Drive. I just was curious what the plan would be for
those kids to get safely to school.
LEO TRUJILLO : Like I sai d , I'm sorry, I'm not
too familiar with the Town, so I don't know if there is
actually sidewalk in this area.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: There is for part of it,
but I don 't know. You 're going to build this part of the
sidewalk. Is it going to continue on?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
LEO TRUJILLO: Not as part of this project, no.
This was just the frontage improvement on the project.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson .
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: My question probably is
for Mr. Kohlsaat. Thanks for your work and your patience in
working with the changes in design, heights, and so forth.
I assume , based on t h e fac t t hat I'm s ee ing l o ts
of other examples in town where you 've solved problems,
that there was no way without significantly changing the
design and probably size of the houses, to provide for the
turnaround without using some driveway in the project. I
don 't want to own the house on Lo t 2 , because I c a n 't p a r k
i n my driveway . The l ast time I d i dn 't want to own the
house on Lot 3 , because I couldn 't park in my dr i veway.
So I assume that you tried to figure out a
solution, because the optimum solution would be to not use
any driveway, but I assume that 's not possib l e.
GARY KOHLSAAT : Yes , that 's a very accurate
statement . This design element that changed to have the
turnaround on Lot 2 had a lot of positive results .
We still have plenty of parking, much more
parking than we wo uld have for any kind of multi-family ,
which hav e way more cars, in my experience .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
37
1 The Fire Department has reviewed this and signed
2 off on t his. This is th e best we c an do , and I think it 's
3 satisfactory, absolutely.
4
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Thank you .
5
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane .
6
VICE CHAIR KANE: You had mentioned earlier, am I
7
correct in assuming when you said the house on Lot 3 was
8
lowe red by 2 '' you mean from ou r l ast meeting to t his
9
1 0
meeting?
11
GARY KOHLSAAT: No, from the DRC meeting to this.
12 We were just showing some history.
13 VICE CHAIR KANE: So the last time we looked at
14 it , it was already down 2 '?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GARY KOHLS AAT: That 's correct .
VICE CHAIR KANE: The same height it is now.
GARY KOHLS AA T : That 's correct .
VICE CHAIR KANE: How did you do that ? Did you
lower the ceilings?
GARY KOHLSAAT: No, we lowered t he grades . We did
significant grading on all of these lots to drop it down,
drop all of these properties down lower .
VICE CHAIR KANE: We have a letter from a citizen
who e x pressed the op i n i on that the first story is 10 ', the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
38
1 second story is 9'. Why would that citizen be concerned?
2 What 's the normal height of a room?
3 GARY KOHLSAAT: I can 't remember the last house
4 I 've done that didn 't have a 10 ' ceiling on the main floor ,
5
o r higher.
6
VICE CHAIR KANE : So you think that 's normal?
7
GARY KOHLSAAT: This is absolutely the standard
8
today . And many times we do 10 ' on the second floor ,
9
10
however , that 's where we compromise to work with existing
1 1
neighborhoods that don't have the 10 ' and 10'; we go to 10 '
12 and 9 ', it 's a bedroom , and then since it 's on the second
13 story we can gain mo r e v olume in the ceilings that way .
14 VICE CHAIR KANE: Since you do this for a living,
15 you 're an expert. What 's the minimum ceiling height?
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GARY KOHLSAAT : The minimum ceiling height?
VICE CHAIR KANE : That y ou would find v iable.
GARY KOHLSAAT: It depends on the room. That 's
r eal l y kind of a pre tty open question .
VICE CHAIR KANE : So 5 ' might do? I 'm looking for
f ive . Can I get fi v e ?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Well , in my practice , 10 ' is the
mi n i mum for any ma i n room, l iving and dining r o o m, family
room, ma s te r b edroom . Kitchens sometimes we 'll go to 9 ',
and actually we hav e dropped the ceiling in the kitchen, in
LOS GAT OS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Item #4, 15 9 75 Union Av enue
3 9
1 the nook, in the hallways , and the bath rooms to 9 ' in order
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to handle all of our HVAC to supply them.
VICE CHA IR KANE: I 'm really thinking abo u t the
second floor to get it lower. Nine would probably be
minimum in your point of view?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Correct.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I 'd like to ask some
questions about the drainage, please.
I am looking at the grading and drainage plan,
sheet 6 , and I 'm going to flip between that and the cross -
section .
AMANDA WILSON: And what cross-section?
COMMISSIONER BURCH : Well, first I 'm going to ask
on this, and then I 'll go to the cross -section . I just want
to get a little bit of clarification.
In taking a look at the drainage, it looks like
you are adding a vaul t, or I don't know what you want to
call it , right off of the corner of Lot 1 ; it 's the black
square.
AMANDA WILSON: Here?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yes.
AMANDA WILSON : It 's a catch basin , yeah .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 0 16
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
40
1 COMMISSIONER BURCH: Catch basin, okay. When you
2 went through earlier, the drainage has been coming off
3 Blossom Hill just onto the site, which at this point has
4
been grass , so probably there 's a level o f absorption
5
that's happening with i n the soil that now we aren 't going
6
to have, and you're actually taking all of that drainage
7
off Blossom Hill and from these homes to that catch basin .
8
What size pipe do you have going across the drive?
9
1 0
AMANDA WILSON: Through here?
11 COMMISSIONER BURCH : Yeah.
12 AMANDA WILSON: It's a 15" pipe .
13 COMMISSIONER BURCH: And it says that you are
14 going to be putting that under the water main and over the
15 existing sewer pipe . Are you going to be saw cutting and
16 tearing apart Union, or are you going to bore that?
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
2 5
AMANDA WILSON : It will be decided during
construction, and up to the Town.
COMMISSIONER BURCH : Okay. A while back we had a
house on this street , and this is why I'm asking some more
questions, and the drainage, for whatever reason, on that
section of Union has always been a problem. It seems to
flow off the streets into people 's yards. We 've had people
complain that they have to pump out their basements. So I
have concerns that where this at one point was basically a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
41
1 big lot that was absorbing all this water, now it looks
2 like you have our drive area, it looks like it's maybe 2 '
3 up to the top of curb , retaining wall , and then it drops 3 '
4 down to the retaining wall and the neighbor behind's
5
property.
6
My concern, since that driveway is at a bit of a
7
V to catch the water to the catch basin, is that we have a
8
huge rainstorm like what we had recently; I know my street
9
flooded. If this flows over, because now that we don 't have
10
11
the absorption o f the overall property, it 's going to flow
12 right over the curb into the people b ehind , because it's
1 3 not going to be able to go all the way down and catch into
14 your invert, is that correct? Or how are you going to
15 circumvent that type of an overflow when the catch basin is
16 all the way on that e nd?
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
AMANDA WILSON: The water in this area will drain
away from the neighboring property; it drains on the south
side. Then, due to the slope of the road, we had to pitch
the road back over this way. The water, if this floods
drains or clogs or something happens to it , or it 's
inundated, will flow out to Union Avenue before it will
f l o w over int o the neighbor 's property .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
or
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BURCH : So then what 's the grade
change from the driveway behind Lot 3 to the driveway
behind Lot 1, for example? What is that drain slope?
AMANDA WILSON: The elevation here to Lot 3?
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Yeah.
AMANDA WILSON : We 're at abo ut average 3%.
Minimum slope on a street would be ... I mean yo u could go
down to .3%, so we 're at 3%.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay. All right. I just have
some concerns, knowing what we 've dealt with with other
properties on that, that your top of curb retaining wa ll to
the drive area, while your drive is sloped in a V direction
to bring it to the invert, i t 's a pretty gradual slope that
we will deal with some backup and overflow right behind Lot
1 into that property behind you .
AMANDA WILSON: You weren 't at the last meeting .
COMMISSION ER BURCH : I wasn't .
AMANDA WILSON: Maybe I 'll back up a little bit .
Each of the lots and the driveway will flow into a
bioretention pond first , and then come out into the
drain system . Your situation that you 're describing
mean that all the retention ponds would have to be
overwhelmed, plus the storm drain system would have
LO S GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2 016
Item #4, 15975 Unio n Avenue
storm
would
to be
43
1 overwhelmed, and then the water would still sheet flow out
2 onto Union Av enue before it would go into the neighbors.
3 COMMISSIONER BURCH: So you definitely like if we
4 had ...
5
AMANDA WILSON: This has a lot more slope than a
6
typical subdivision.
7
COMMISSIONER BURCH: Okay, thank you.
8
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane .
9
1 0
VICE CHAIR KANE : I 'm looking at your pro posed
11
drainage pattern . It doesn 't have all the fine pr i nt t hat
12 Kendra understands; this is simple for me, it just has
1 3 arrows. Thank you, i t 's lovely .
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In looking at this map and reading the Staff
Report I got the impression, and I 'm hoping, that if the
pr o je c t went forward a l ot of the neighbo rs ' drainage
problems would be alleviated .
AMANDA WILSON: Their concerns mainly, from what I
heard, we re from underground flow that they 're ·pumping up
from their sump pumps . We can 't solve that problem. We 're
improving it , but they 're still going to have t o have a
sump pump at their house .
VICE CHAIR KANE : I was looking to give you an
atta boy, because it looked good to me . I thought this
would really help them out, because they have trouble.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
2 5
AMANDA WILSON : It 's definitely improving it.
It 's definitely improving it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: That 's the answer I was looking
for .
AMANDA WILSON: The water that was infiltrating
from Blossom Hill and was infiltrating on the site is no
longer going onto the site , so it's improving it immensely .
VICE CHAIR KANE: One other question . I know that
Commissioner Burch knows , but I don 't know , what 's a
biopond?
AMANDA WILSON: A bioretention pond?
VICE CHAIR KANE: Is that like above the ground?
AMANDA WILSON: Yes .
VICE CHAIR KANE: You can put fish into it.
AMANDA WILSON : No. It only will have water in it
during the rain, and then it needs to be dry. Well, these
will be dry 24 hours after a rain event .
VICE CHAIR KANE : So if there 's no water , it
becomes a big ol ' swa l e?
AMANDA WILSON : It 's a divot . It will be a
landscape, so instead of the landscaping having a flat
grade or a mound, it would go down, just a little
depression , and it will be all landscaped.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
45
1 VICE CHAIR KANE: Would it have a stone basin to
2 retain the water?
3 AMANDA WILSON: No, it has special soil in it,
4 and it 's used to clean the storm wate r before it goes into
5
the storm drain system.
6
VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you .
7
GARY KOHLSAAT: If I may add to that, a very good
8
example of a bioswale is out in front of the library.
9
10
That 's been used , and it 's being used a ll over the place
11
now . You 'll see them everywhere .
12 VICE CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
1 3 CHA IR BADAME: Any further questions? Thank you .
14 We will now invite comments from members of the
15 public. I only have one speaker card, and that would be
16 Gideon Gimlan. I may have another speaker card coming .
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
GIDEON GIMLAN: Quick not true about the traffic ,
because my son got rear ended coming down Union trying to
make a left turn onto Blossom Hill following that , because
people don 't pay attention . It wasn 't a DUI . But that 's not
what I wanted to talk about.
And also, by the way on the traffic, the real
problem is making a lef t turn from heading eastbound on
Blossom Hi l l, because all the cars want to make that green
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
I tem #4, 15975 Union Avenue
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
turn light, so they 're all running real fast . That 's your
problem . But that 's not what I wanted to talk about .
I wanted to talk about the existing retaining
walls on the property. This is just the small portion, and
then it gets taller and taller as you move in this
direction up . I 'm not a structural engineer, I don 't know ,
so this is a question, not an observation.
In terms of when this new paved driveway comes in
behind our houses , there will be delivery trucks, UPS and
whatever heavy trucks rumbling up and down the street
delivering things to these families with their many kids,
et cetera . Has any study been made on the physical impact
of sideways pressure against our properties? We have
existing retaining walls there to begin with, and it was a
single-family use, small use, without a paved driveway
there . But now there will be a l o t of traffic back and
forth, going to school, going shopping, and delivery
trucks . Has there been a study on the sideways pressure and
whether it would damage our retaining walls? That's my
question. Thanks.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. Any questions ? Vice
Chair Kane has a question .
VICE CHAIR KANE: There was a question or concern
last time we met about garbage trucks, and I shared that,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so my question is do you know that arrangements have been
made for all garbage to be picked up on Union?
GIDEON GIMLAN: That's what Erin told me .
VIC E CHAIR KANE: So they won 't be going up and
down.
GIDEON GIMLAN: At least not the garbage trucks,
but delivery truck delivering appliances and whatever to
the new homes.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Mr. Gimlan. Our next
speaker will be Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue. I
just had Joel pass out to you some corrected copies of my
submittal. In sending it the format got all messed up, plus
I made a couple of typo corrections , but otherw i se it 's all
the same . Before addressing that, I would l ike to make a
couple of additional comments.
One is regarding the drainage . In the Condition
of Approval on the project, Conditions 48 and 49 deal with
additional drainage studies that I assume are necessary
before the actual drainage improvement can actually be
drawn up. Given that drainage is such an issue , it occurs
to me that maybe those studies should be a vail able before
any approval is given for the subdivision , if t he approval
is to be given , so that if the calculations don 't work out
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
1 5
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
2 0
21
22
23
2 4
25
the same there is the ability to modify the project before
the subdivision lines are set .
My other comment concerns FAR. Normally the FAR
is based on the lot size, and the lot size usually does not
contain the circulation for the project. In this case
that 's no t t he case , and what t h e y're call i ng a shared
driveway, that area is not subtracted from the calculation
of the lot and therefore the FAR of the maximum size house.
My question is if that were subtracted, would a subdivision
still work?
La stly, I 'd like to comment that I 'm we l l aware
that the Subdivision Map Act for the State of California's
purpose is to facilitate subdivisions, and that in this
particular case, whether you approve this or not , the
minimum that the state wo uld require you to do is a two -l o t
subdivision.
I would be happy to answer any questions about my
other comments and how I reached the c onclusions that I
did. I think if you look at each specific definitio n in the
back part of it, maybe you can justify each one, but t o me
when I l ooked at i t a l l t o gether it does me e t the findings
for denial.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you , Ms. Quintan a. We do
have questions . I 'll start with Commissioner Hanssen .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISS I ON 3 /9 /20 16
I t e m #4, 1 5975 Uni o n Av enue
4 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you, Ms. Quintana.
We always appreciate your great analysis . I got a little
confused on that last part you were going over, which was
you were suggesting that looking at the grounds of approval
or denial, depending as the case may be, you have to make a
number of findings.
When you were talking about the subdivision, you
kind of talked about the subdivision in concert with the
Town's Zoning Ordinance for subdivisions, so I wasn't clear
on the point you ... Because you talked about the frontage ,
and the frontage isn 't something that 's in the State
Subdivision Act; that 's more general and it talks about the
General Plan and the appropriate use for the site. I just
wondered if you could maybe clarify that a little bit.
LEE QUINTANA: Well, first of all, to approve a
subdivision it has to be consistent with the Zoning Code
and the General Plan, so when I look at the definition of
lot frontage, and the full definition, which was not in
your Staff Report, is, "Lot frontage means the property
line of a lot abutting a street, which affords access to a
lot other than the sideline of a corner lot. On a corner
lot, either property line on a street may be determined to
be the frontage." The way I look at that is that you may
have frontage on Blossom Hill, but in practice and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
technically and design-wise, and planning-wise, and
grading-wise , i t 's not practical or it's not possible to
take that access off of Blossom Hill , then you really don 't
have access there and you have to look for another solution
for the access.
Now this property does have a corner, and on a
corner lot you can decide to take your access from either
side. The access off of Union is preferred, and in my
opinion is the only possible access really.
Our Zoning Code has provisions for a flag lot, or
quarter lot, one and the same, and those provisions also
indicate that it's an exception to the lot frontage
requirement if you have a flag lot . There 's not that same
provision in the code that I could find that says if you
are using a shared driveway using easements that you can
escape that requirement of having frontage for each lot.
So I looked at those things together. We
discourage quarter lots in the General Plan; we don 't
prohibit them and it gives some reasons why you can approve
t hem . You can 't put a street in there ; the lot isn't big
enough . So you have all these different things that come
together, and in the end it indicates to me that the site
is not appropriate for the subdivision that is being
proposed.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
51
1 The other thing is the size of the houses on the
2 lot. Yes, it meets the requirements, you can do that size
3 houses when you 're considering t h e entire size of the lot ,
4 which in this case takes off 20-30 ' be tween the p roperty
5
line and where the houses are. If you were to take that out
6
and calculate an appropriate size house, it would probably
7
be a lot smaller, and I think my question was can you take
8
that into consideration when you 're determining whether or
9
1 0
not this meets the findings of the Subdivision Act for
11
being an appropriate project design?
12 COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you. That
13 helps .
14
1 5
16
17
1 8
1 9
2 0
21
22
23
2 4
25
CHAIR BADAME: Vice Chair Kane .
VICE CHAIR KANE: Ms . Quintana , first , you 've
given us a six-page report with chapter and verse, state
statutes, and marv elous information. If and when at all
possible, t ry to get a document this important and lengthy
into the packet , because i t deserves about an hour 's worth
of s t u dy and I 've giv en it about 15 minutes when I got to
the podium , so it 's almost disre s p e ctful to you to say that
I 've read and I understand this , and I don 't want to do
that. I 'd like to get it sooner, if that 's at all possible .
LEE QUINTANA: I try as hard as I c an. I have my
o wn problems that I have to deal wi t h that ma k e s it hard
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2 0 16
Ite m #4, 1 5 9 7 5 Unio n Avenue
52
1 for me to d o that . And in fact , I 'v e been on vacation , so
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
2 0
21
22
23
24
25
that adds to that . The law says I can submit it, and i t
needs to b e considered . I 'm sor r y ; I do the best I can .
VICE CHAIR KANE : It 's wo rt hy of mo re attention
t h an I 've bee n a b le to give it .
You made a comment about the FAR, that a shared
driveway should not be included in the calculation of the
size of the lot?
COMMITTEE MEMBER QUINT ANA : I didn 't say the
shared dr i veway shouldn 't be included in t h e size of the
lot , I'm say ing that the Zoning Code is silent on how or if
shared driveways are exempted from fro ntage requirement s ,
and when there is a situation where , as this is with a
shared driveway, unlike a flag lot you do not hav e to make
that deduc tion when you 're calculating the size of the lot
that you are calculating the FAR. In other words, when you
have a flag lot , the flag is subtract ed , it 's not counted
as the size that you 're calculatin g the FAR on , and that 's
an exception that is in our code.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Therefore, are y ou say ing that
there 's a violation of the FAR?
LEE QUINTANA: No , it 's not a technical violat i on
of the FAR , because the code doesn 't speak t o that . I 'm
asking is it s o mething that could be considered in y our
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISS I ON 3/9 /2 01 6
I tem #4, 15 9 75 Un ion Av enue
5 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
24
25
deliberations and determination about whether the proposed
developmen t is ... I forget wh at the wording of the findings
are, but there is one finding where if you could consider
it, you might come up with a different answer to the
finding than if you weren 't able to consider it .
VICE CHA IR KANE: To Town Staff, is that a viable
interpretation, something we should do?
JOEL PAULSON: That is one interpretation .
VICE CHAIR KANE: That 's an interpretation. My
last question: You make reference to Subdivision Map Act
66474 and it 's got eight or nine points . Bottom line it for
me. Are we in violation of any of those, according to your
opinion?
LEE QUINTANA: Those are the findings that you
have to make to approve the subdi v ision, which you have in
your packet, which is actually in your last packet.
VICE CHA IR KANE: You 're bringing to our
attention what was in our last packet?
LEE QUINTANA: Yeah, those are the findings that
you have to make according to the Subdiv ision Map Act, and
t hat 's your Finding sect i on of your Staff Re port.
VICE CHAIR KANE : I said I didn 't have time to
study it. I was just looking to see if you highlighted o ne
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Uni on Avenue
54
1 of these as something that is in violation, and the answer
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
1 8
19
20
2 1
22
2 3
2 4
25
is no , you ' re just telling me what ...
LEE QUINTANA: I am saying that when I read those
I can make at least one of the findings, possibility
(inaudible).
VICE CHAIR KANE: Which one?
LEE QUINTANA : I don 't have it in front of me .
CHAIR BADAME : May I interrupt here? There are
two that I think you may be alluding to, if I c ould clarify
for the Commissioners, that the site is not physically
suitable for the type of development, and that the site is
not physically suitable for the proposed density of the
application for development. Is that what you were
ref erring to?
LEE QUINTANA : Yeah, and one of the things, the
way I looked at this is it 's not a P D, which is an
excep t ion , it 's not a quarter lot , and I l ost my train of
thought , I'm sorry . I 'll probab l y remember when I sit down .
CHAIR BADAME : All right, bu t I think it 's
Subdivision Map Act Sections C and D, and Commissioner
O'Donnell has a que stio n .
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: (Inaudible ) quot ed i f
one were to look at Ex hibi t 2 of our prior set o f paper s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Ite m #4, 1 597 5 Union Av enue
55
1 you will find the required findings, and I agree with the
2 Chair, those two seem to kind of jump out at you.
3 But the other question I wanted to ask you,
4 without belaboring the weight of the information you gave
5
us this afternoon, but if I understand you correctly y ou 've
6
now corrected the weight of the information you gave us
7
this afternoon, is that correct?
8
LEE QUINTANA: No , all I've done is when I sent
9
10
it in, the formatting got all whacked up, and I corrected
11
some typos , because I 'm a very bad typist and a bad
12 proofreader.
13 COMMISSION ER O 'DONNEL L: So then it 's safe to say
14 that it is substantively is the same?
1 5
16
17
1 8
19
20
21
22
2 3
24
25
LEE QUINTANA: The substance is exactly the same .
COMM I SSION ER O 'DONNELL : Okay , that 's what I
wanted to know. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME : Thank you, Ms. Quintana. Do we
have any further questions? Seeing none, thank you. Our
next speaker will be Maria Ristow.
MARIA RISTOW : I 'm Maria Ristow , 85 Broadway .
My issues are not as detailed . I 'm concerned
about a lack of a s i dewalk, about the placement of the bike
paths, and any discussion that you might make t o decide
h ere whether another lane or left turn lane should be
LOS GA TOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
striped in before we have a chance to consider what the
impacts are on pedestrian bike safety.
At this point the Town doesn 't have the Bike and
Pedes trian Maste r Plan . We 're ge t t i ng t he contractor ; we 'll
be working on that and it will have community input. My
primary concern would be that we don 't do anything that
would preclude a plan that we want to put into place . Once
you pour concrete it's incredibly expensive to change it,
and one of the things we 're looking at is there are p laces
in Town where we do need sidewalks, and connecting those
sidewalks is going to be very expensive.
I would not want to see this project go through
and lose an opportunity to put a sidewalk in when we can do
it now, because the Town is not going to be able to put in
all the sidewalks we want for a very long time, and every
single person is a pedestrian when they get out of their
car.
We are going to want kids walking places . We are
going to need kids that are not going to want to ride their
bike nav igating between the right turn lane and the left
turn lane ; there are a lot of bicyclists who won't do that ,
that may need to get up on the sidewalk , or if t hey're
turning right .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
57
1 I would just hope that if this project gets
2 approved, that there is a requirement for a sidewalk .
3 Saying that 's it okay to walk along a driveway or t o walk
4 along the edge of road , I don 't t hink it 's acceptable for
5
the level of safety that we 're going to be looking for in
6
Los Gatos.
7
I appreciate that we 're going to have some bike
8
path going in . Whether it exists father down, that will get
9
1 0
connected later, l et 's make sure wherever we do something ,
11
we put the right pieces in place.
12 CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson has a
1 3 question for you.
1 4
15
16
17
1 8
19
2 0
2 1
22
23
24
2 5
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I foll ow your concern. Are
you suggesting that there needs to be a sidewalk where the
shared driv eway is , because all other areas adjacent to
this project hav e sidewalk? I follow y our concern, but I
didn 't follow how it plays out to the detail .
MARIA RISTOW : The packet I was reading t o night
didn 't have any reference to sidewalk , but online it talked
about the fact that there wasn 't go i ng to be a sidewalk in
front of this project. Am I incorrect? All right, may be
that changed from the last thing. Okay , so it 's got
sidewalk.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: Okay, got it . Thanks .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I really appreciate your
having us think with some foresight about the bicycle paths
and the bicycle traffic around there . There is a plan for
improvements, Exhibit PD-1, that shows some bicycle lanes.
Have you had a chance to look at that, and do you have a
rea ct i on to the plan for bicycle la nes as they 're drawn?
MARIA RISTOW : I have not seen them tonight, and
from the back I couldn 't see it on here, and I couldn 't
pull it up on my phone. I know that for some other bigger
projects they 've been brought to Transportation and Parking
and the BPAC, and I sit on both of those commissions . I
haven 't seen these.
I do know that one standard way to put bike paths
in when you 've got a right turn lane and a straight ahead
is to put the bike lane between the lanes of traffic. I 'm
an incredibly experienced bike rider; I'm fine doing that .
A lot of people are not, and I know, for example, at the
North 40 there 's going to be a multimodal path where people
can get up out of the fray .
It's really dangerous to ride between cars, and
jus t because you put paint there doesn't mean somebody is
not going to run you over. I would not envision school
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
children riding in there, so my guess would be you 're
striping that for the experienced bike riders.
There are not a lot of easy ways if you have a
right turn going and somebody wants to go straight ahead;
they really can 't be o n the right side of a right turning
car. The Silicon Valley Bike Coalition has a bunch of ideas
on how to deal with that, and we usually defer to them.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Do you usually see projects
of this nature corning before that commission?
MARIA RISTOW: We have not had any in the past
until recently, so the North 40 is the very first one we 've
gotten , and we 're h opi ng that things will start corning to
us for our reactions or input, just so that your commission
would then have that kind of feedback, if you wanted.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I h ope so too . Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you , Ms. Ristow. I
wondered what would be your ideal outcome out of what you
presented to us now that you know that there is a plan for
some sidewalk and some bike lane specifically around the
project itself? I was trying to decide were you asking us
to delay considering it until the plans can be further
reviewed , or put a condition in the terms and conditions,
if it were approved, to have the actual plan be fore it gets
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMM I SSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 159 75 Union Avenu e
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
put in be reviewed by someone that is able to make a
(inaudible)?
MARIA RISTOW : So first of all, I was grossly
mistaken . I was under the impression there wasn't a
sidewalk, so I was wrong on that . Being that there is
sidewalk, that was my primary concern.
I would not think it would be okay to put a
condition where it has to wait for the master plan, because
I don't know how long that will take. That could take a
year. I mean once we start we'll have community outreach
meetings. I don't know how long it will take for that to
come along .
I would be hesitant to say let's stripe two lanes
so there 's a left turn lane unless Parks and Public Works
can review that and make sure that we are saving enough
room for the proper kinds of bike paths or other
improvements that we'll need. I would hate to have that
block out something else.
I think there's a danger in trying to solve one
problem, especially in a car-centric way, that might
preclude bike and pedestrian safety, which is going to be a
big part of solving our traffic problems in town.
CHAIR BADAME : Thank you. Any further questions?
Thank you, Ms. Ristow. We will now allow the Applicant and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
1 6
1 7
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
their team five minutes to add any further comments about
their application.
TIM CRONIN: I just want to make it clear that we
put the bike paths on there to work with the Town to start
the process of where bike lanes might be . We defer to the
Town on where any bike lanes or the final traffic plan will
be. We 've bought into t h e fact that we 're going to have t o
improve over 400 ' of fron tage with probably $800,000 to $1
million worth of improvements.
We 're ready to do that , and how the fina l
configuration goes on the bike paths is totally up the
Coalition, the Town, anybody. This project will take eight
to ten months to build , and we 're open to de ferring the
bike path part of it until the Town decides what they want,
and still pay the price to get a strike .
You want to talk about the drainage a little bit?
AMANDA WILSON: There was one concern from the
neighbor about the retaining wa ll that 's on t he shared
property line . We actually made our r etaining wall go a lot
deeper into the ground than it actually needs to be so that
we don 't put a surcharge on their r etaining wal l , so it
will keep our street structurally sound and that wall will
not lean over into their property, so their proper ty will
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2 016
Item #4, 1597 5 Union Avenue
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1 3
14
15
16
1 7
1 8
19
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
be protected, our property will be protected, and everyone
should be happy.
TIM CRONIN : When we go to final construction
drawings, obviously a structural engineer will design the
retaining wall on the neighbor 's side first of all to carry
the fire trucks, 75,000 pounds. The driveway is going to be
constructed to those standards, and so will the retaining
wall . I just want to make that clear .
CHAIR BADAME: You still hav e time remaining . Any
further comments?
GARY KOHLSAAT: Speaking on behalf of the
ownership group, we feel that we put a lot of effort into
this , we 've worked very hard , and you guys have spent a lot
of time and brain power on it as well, and the Staff of
this Town, everybody has done a great job .
We truly feel that you have every thing in front
of you that 's going to be here t o make that decision
tonight. Obviously we hope that y ou v ote to approve this,
but we respectfully ask that you put this to a vote
tonight, if you can see that as a possibility. Thank you .
CHAIR BADAME : Thank y ou , Mr. Kohlsaat . All
right, n o questio ns? The public testimony portion of the
public hearing is now closed. Do Commissioners have any
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9 /2 016
Item #4, 159 7 5 Union Av enue
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
1 7
1 8
1 9
20
2 1
22
23
2 4
25
comments, questions, entertain a motion? Commissioner
O'Donnell .
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL : I just have a couple of
comments , and I'd be very interested to know what people
will say.
I 'm looking at Exhibit 2 of the prior package we
got, the January 27 th , which are the required findings t o
deny a subdiv isio n applicati o n of the site . The section was
66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act . As the Chair
remarked, Section C and Section D strike me as a problem
here , and I mean that as a prob l em for the developer. "The
site is not phy sically suitable for the proposed
development ," so that 's a v ery serious question . The sec ond
is , "The site is not physically suitable for the proposed
density of t he development ."
As near as I can tell, the application before us,
essentially other than the demolishing of the existing
single-family residence , which is perhaps the first issue,
the second issue is the subdivision, because obv i o usly if
you can 't prove the subdivision , you don 't get into the
construction of three new single-family residences, and
really there 's no reason then to get into removal of the
large trees . So I personally would have trouble not say ing
that the project is not physically suitable for the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Av enue
64
1 proposed development, and that the site is not physically
2 suitable for the proposed density of the development.
3 I just throw that out . It 's not a motion. I want
4
to see where my fellow commissioners are on this.
5
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen .
6
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: In going through this
7
project, I went to the place. I ended up kind of starting
8
at the beginning, which is should there be subdivision on
9
this as a matter of a land use decision? In addition to
10
11
Items C and D, I looked at the requirements . I also went
12 back and read the General Plan, and I wondered if Item B
13 wasn 't an issue as well , that , "The design improvement of
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the proposed subdiv ision is not consistent with all
elements of the General Plan ." What I mean b y that is that
our General Plan 's Land Use Element is all about very
controlled and managed growth in the Town, and retaining
the small town character .
The question you have to ask with every
development is just because you can do it from a zoning or
a residential design perspective, should you do it? Given
the traf fic and crowding and all of the issues that we 're
having in the Town, just because we can mak e three lots and
three houses where there was one , should we? I don 't know
that I could find that this would be consistent with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 1
12
1 3
14
1 5
1 6
17
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
Genera l Plan, combined with the fact that this is a
terr ible location for p utting three houses ; it 's right next
to an intersection , and I didn 't hear anything from any of
the traffic statements that would make me confident t hat
we 'd be safe.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you f or your comments.
Commissioner Erekson.
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: I want to understand
Comm issioner O 'Donnell 's concern , so with respect to the
proposed density o f th e development we 've had testimony
about the potential o f having a flag lot, which would then
have two parce ls. Th ere 's one now , so the density issue , if
you think about what the right sol ution is , I 'm presuming
that in your mind the wrong solution is three is the
present proposal . So anything other than a single parcel
with access off of Union wou ld vio l ate Section D, or would ...
I 'm trying to understand what the range of tole r ance is .
CHAIR BADAME : I 'll a llow Commissione r O 'Donnell
to r espond to that.
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL : Fortunately , I didn 't
have to get there, but I would say this. I would be a lot
more sympathetic with a flag l ot subdivision. The lot i s
certainly a big lot. On the other hand, I've heard and I
believe the testimony about how expensive it is to develop
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9/2 016
I tem #4, 15975 Uni o n Avenue
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
1 2
1 3
14
15
16
1 7
1 8
19
2 0
21
22
2 3
2 4
2 5
this lot, and I 'm very symp athet i c with the fact that if
you 're going to spend $800.000 or a $1 million it may not
justif y it , but that 's r eally not our issue .
I think it 's too dense with three . We don 't have
before us an application for two, and I don't know where
they 'd come down , alth ough I think we heard in the earlier
hea ring that two would not pay for itself , and if that 's
the case , we don 't have to get there. But no , I 'm not
saying necessarily that it could only be one lot, but I
certainly think three lots is too dense .
COMMISSIONER EREKSON: That was my hunch . You 'd
have to help me understand what the huge disadvantage is to
havi ng three on ... So you 've got a large piece of property ,
and if you 're going to have a f l ag lot , and you 're going to
have two lots there and you ' re going to have access off ... So
the frontage access issue i s n 't addres s ed any better
necessarily , because you 're still go i ng come off of Union ;
arguably you 're only going t o go one lot deep rather than
two lots deep . What I 'm trying to understand is what the ...
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL : But y our hypothetical to
me is illusory, because the only thing we hav e before us is
three lots . You 're saying let 's argue about two lots . I
don 't want to argue about two lots . I don 't know ; it 's not
before me . Maybe I'd say no on two lots if that would make
LOS GAT OS PLANNING COMM ISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Item #4 , 15975 Union Av enue
67
1 you happy, and consistency being the hobgoblins of small
2 minds and all t ha t , but we 're not there, so I don 't think
3 we have to deal with that.
4 All we 've got is do we want three lots, and I
5
think no.
6
CHAIR BADAME : It almost sounds to me like you're
7
ready to make a motion, Commissioner O'Donnell .
B
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL : Well , I haven 't heard
9
10
from everybody. I listened and really respect the
11
Commissioner 's comments here, but I think it is fair to say
12 we are not considering two lots . I n fact , we 're not
13 cons idering one lot . All we 're considering is three , and
14 yes, I could make a motion on three.
15 VICE CHAIR KANE: Well , you wanted to hear from
16 me, Commissioner O'Donnell. I wish you 'd make a motion.
1 7
18
1 9
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, I will make a
motion.
We hav e before us I think four distinct issues,
however, as I look at it, if the motion is to not allow the
subdivision of one lot into three lots. Everything except
demoli tion is p recl uded , and therefore I don 't think I have
to get into those things . I'll defer to Counsel on that,
but it is a condition precedent to the other conditions.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
20
2 1
2 2
23
24
2 5
The motion would be that we would deny the
application on the basis that the subdivision does not
satisfy the State Subdivision Map Act, and in particular
Subsections C and D, wh i ch we 've previously discussed. I
would agree that it 's possible that it mi g ht not sat i sfy B,
too, as discussed; t hat is to s a y , it 's not consistent with
all of t he elements in the Ge n eral Plan . I 'm just kind of
tenuous on that, but I think is quite possible.
The only other issue I guess I've got is I
suppose one could grant the request for the demolition of a
single-family dwelling notwithstanding that the project
wo n't g o forwa r d . But I'm getting some nods over here , so
maybe I can 't .
JOEL PAULSON: No, Staff would not suggest that,
because typically we want to see the replacement struc ture,
a nd since we 're not go i ng to be a ble to take f i nal action
other than p oten tially denial on t he A&S , we 'd not
recommend that .
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL : So the motion then is as
I stated, that we deny the application on the basis that we
make the findings under the Subdivision Map Act, that the
site is not physically suitable f o r the proposed
development , and the site is not physically ... Well , one is
for the proposed development, and one is for the density of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
the development, and those are two reasons for the denial
of the application.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And that's for both the
Subdivision Application and the Architecture and Site
Application.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH: I 'm going to support the
motion , and I'm also going to add that we 've recently seen
a number of projects, PDs, things that come in front of us,
and we have really demanded a high level traffic study and
mitigation plan to be put in front of us to understand . I
think it 's something that the Town has become painfully
aware of that's become an issue and I 'm very uncomfortable
with. I underst and that they've looked it , but this to me
is still conceptual planning. We haven 't seen a final plan .
I haven 't seen something fully vetted out with a full
traffic study and the potential of divided lanes .
While I feel that we have to look at each
property separately , and we don 't have an application for
two, I do feel that three on this lot is too much basically
because of the access for the fire trucks , but I 'm also
very concerned about the traffic plan that we have in front
of us.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/9/2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1 2
13
14
15
1 6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2 5
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Burch, was that a
second?
CO MMISSIONER BURCH: Sure , t ha t 's a second , wi th
comments.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. All right, further
discussion? Vice Chair Kane .
VI CE CHAIR KANE: Two items. Commissioner
O 'Donne ll, did you include or deminimize the concerns on B?
COMMISSIONER O 'DONNELL: No, I would include
that, because instead of having two reasons, there are
three, and I would adopt the reasoning that we heard.
VICE CHAIR KANE : So it is i n fact B, c, D?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yes.
VICE CHAIR KANE: My second question maybe is to
Sta f f . On th e front page of the pac k et where we 're
describing the project, under Applicable Plans and
S t a ndards , i t 's e ve r y t h ing we 'v e been t a l k ing about with
the except i on of reference to an applicable standard of the
Hillside Dev elopment Standards and Guidelines . Is that
because of the slope of this property?
JOEL PAULSON : That 's an error .
VICE CHAIR KAN E: Th at 's an error?
JOEL PAULSON : Correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING CO MMIS SION 3/9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
7 1
1 VICE CHAIR KANE: What is the slope of this
2 property?
3 JOEL PAULSON: Less then 10%. Ten percent is the
4 trigger .
5
VICE CHAIR KANE: And 10% is the hillside
6
trigger?
7
JOEL PAULSON: Correct .
8
VICE CHAIR KANE: So this is almost a hillside.
9
JOEL PAULSON: It is almost applicable to some of
1 0
11
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
1 2 VICE CHAIR KANE : I f i nd it unbelievable you 're
13 saying that 's an error . Anyway , I guess it was there
14 because it is a severe slope and somebody thought it was
15 almost a hillside . Because of the constraints of the site,
16 I will support the motion for that reason .
17 CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes .
18 COMMISSIONER HUDES: I will also be supporting
1 9 the motion , but I just wanted on the record to say I don 't
20
have the same density concern . Here we have a one-acre,
21
43,000 square foot parcel in an R-1 :10 zone, s o I 'm not
22
that concerned that we 're inconsistent in terms of density .
23
2 4
25
I do think that the site configuration and the
traffic , I don 't think we've worked out the safety issues .
By putting essentially a street inside this parcel, I think
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2 016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that that may have created other issues, but not per se a
density issue.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Erekson .
COMMISSIONER EREKSON : I won't be supporting the
motion . I wouldn 't be able to find that it 's inconsistent
with the General Plan of the Town; it's the General P l an
designation for this. the proposed development is
consistent with the General Plan designation, is consistent
with the zoning of it, and I think they made a reasonable
effort to address other parts of the General Plan .
I think the type of development; the propos ed
development on the site is, again, consistent with the type
of zoning. I t's appropriate and the size of home, the type
of home, is consistent with the surrounding r e sidential
areas both adjacent t o it to the north and across from it
to the east, so it 's consistent with the neighborhood .
I 'm of the same opinion as Commissioner Hudes
that I don 't have the issues with density of development
with this, given the size of the parce l .
CHAIR BADAME: All right, I will call the
question . Al l in favor? Opposed ? Passed 6-1, Commissioner
Erekson opposed .
Mr. Paulson, are there appeal rights of the
actions of the Commission on this item?
LOS GATOS PLANNI NG COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1 0
11
12
1 3
14
1 5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4
25
JOEL PAULSON: There are appeal rights . Anyone
who is not satisfied with the decision of the Planning
Commission can appeal that decision . The forms are
available in the Clerk 's Office . There is a fee for filing
the appeal , and the appeal must be filed within ten days.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3 /9 /2016
Item #4, 15975 Union Avenue
74