Attachment 8-9FILING FEES
$361.00 (PLAPPEAL) Residential
$1,449.00 (PLAPPEAL), pe.r
Comme.rcial Multi-family or
Tentative Map Appeal
TRANSCRIPTION $500 (PL TRANS)
( Town ol Lo f atos
Office of the Town Clerk
110 E. Main St., Los Gatos CA 95030
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
J , the unders i gned, do hereby appeal a decision of the Planning C ommission as
follows: (PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT NEATLY)
DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION t'\arcn gJ '201 (/)
PROJECT, APPLJCATroN No : ~tAbd '"'sf i>Vl Aw M-\S-oOJ:, Arct1 ~.,ct ~i-\e ftpp
ADnRESs tocAnoN : f 5'7115 tAnion AvevHAe S~1s ... 00r?11'-hYV1
P . thcT Cod h T Co il n1 1 f Pl .· C ... d · · · S-!S-Ol.lfthe ursuanr to own e, t e own wtc may o y grant an appea o a ~g 0JllJD1ss10n ecis1on Ul most matters 1
CounCil finds that one of.three (3) reasonHxist for granting the appeal by a vote of at least three (3) Council members. Therefore,
please specify how one of those reasons exists in the appeal
l.
2. There is new information that was not reasonably available at the time of the Planning Commission decision, which is
UCDVED
TOWN OF .LOS GA'IOS
MAR 16 2016
Q.gngwK ... D""'ZP-:&tt-Tll"'MZft..,_ITi-.'----------~-----(please attach the new information if possible); 0~
3 . The Planning Commission did not have discretion to modify or address the following policy or issue that is vested in the Town
Council : _____ ~--------------"----~~--~------
IF MORE SPACE 1$ NE~DED, PLEASE ATTACH ADDmONAL SHEETS.
IMPORTANT:
1 . Appellant is responsible for fees for transcription of ~otes. A SS00.00 dep~t is required at the tiJne of riling .
2 . Appeal must be filed within ten (10) calendar days of Planning Coillmission Decisic;m accompanied by l)le ~red filing fee .
Deadline is 5:00 p.m. on the JOlh day following the decision. If the 101h day is a Saturday, Sun.day, or Town holiqay, then it
may be filed on the Workday immediately following the I om day, usually a Monday.
3. The Town Clerk will set the hearing within 56 days of the date of the Planning Commission Decision (fown Ordinance No .
1967)
4 . An appeal regarding a Change of Zone application or a subdivision map only m~ be fil~ within the t~e limi~ ~ecified in
the .ioning or Subdivision Code, as applicable, which is different from .other appeajs .
5 . Once filed, the appeal will be heard by the Town Council.
6 . lf the reason for granting an appeal is the receipt of new information , the application will usually be rctumed to th~ Planning
PRINTNAME : ~YlA \(O\t\\~AAt SIGNATURE~~ \4bk~1~ 7 . Commission for reconsideration. .D.. ••,.~I ft)Y ~ }u!
DATE 'M l!lfl (p ADDRESSo 'E!f . ~r; Zt ~ ~L
PHONE : 4!?Z-2fl'J-1,i)i:j5 ~~Gt~-( ~~@0
<Ou,+\(\.. ck'{ ~ ~ L.\ *** OFFICIAL USE ONLY ***
DA TE OF PUBLIC HEARING :
Pending Planning Department Confirmation
DATE TO SEND PUBLJCA TION : -------
CONFIRMATION LETTER SENT: Date :
TO APPLICANT & APPELLANT BY :
DATE OF PUBLICATION:
ATTACHMENT 8
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
AR C HITE C T U RE
Members of the Los Gatos Town Council
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn : Ms. Barbara Spector, Mayor
Ms. Marico Sayoc, Vice Mayor
Ms. Marcia Jensen, Council Member
Mr. Steven Leonardis, Council Member
Mr. Rob Rennie, Council Member
March 28, 2016
--. -........ ---~ --·"-'·
Subject: APPEAL of Planning Commission Denial on March 9, 2016 of Applications for
15975 Union Avenue
Subdivision Application M-15-001
Architectural 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.
Property Owner: Betchart Union Ave . Joint Venture Partnership
Applicant: Gary Kohlsaat, Architect
Dear Town Council Members:
By way of background, the property development team is a group of local real estate
professionals that has developed a number of similar projects in cities and towns in the
Peninsula and South Bay area. We are proposing to demolish one existing single-family
residence occupying a one-acre parcel and build three new single-family residences that will be
of a quality consistent with most of the new single-family homes in Los Gatos.
The project incorporates substantial public dedications and major improvements at the corner
of Blossom Hill Road and Union Avenue, including road widening, a right turn lane, room for
bike lanes, sidewalks, crosswalks and upgraded signaling. It will change this corner -that has
been neglected and is now an eyesore -into a safer intersection and an attractive part of the
neighborhood and Town.
The project was presented to the Town Conceptual Development Advisory Committee in
August 2014. A proposal similar to the shared driveway (Option 8) was presented and
discussed. The CDAC minutes expressed interest in this option. After receiving input from the
committee, a refined shared driveway concept was developed and presented to an absent CDAC
ATTACHME N T 9
51 Un i versity Avenue, Suite L • Los Gatos, CA 95030 • 4 0 8.395 -2555
member two days later. The refined shared driveway concept was encouraged and is the
present proposal (Attachment).
Our project was reviewed by the Planning Department and was recommended for approval. We
had an initial hearing before the Planning Commission in January 2016. A number of questions
were posed of us and the hearing was continued to March. We worked with Planning Staff and
addressed every one of the issues to the full satisfaction of your Planning Staff, such that they
continued to recommend approval. At no time during the January Planning Commission
meeting was the issue raised of our project not complying with the California Subdivision Map
Act. Rather a number of other issues were raised and, as shown in the Staff Report for the
March hearing, we addressed all of those issues to the full satisfaction of the Planning Staff .
Among the revisions we undertook to address the concerns raised at the January hearing was
to increase and improve the arrangement of on-site parking, which now has seventeen (17)
parking spaces (only six are required by the Town code), to move the location of one of the
houses to provide needed room for fire apparatus (in conjunction with the parking
improvement), to provide for a Maintenance Agreement among the three property owners that
will include deed restrictions and other covenants, to improve privacy, to improve the drainage,
and to address traffic and safety in the adjacent area. Each of these issues was addressed in the
March Staff Report and can be seen there in detail. We have also set them out below and
specified how we have addressed them. As the Staff Reports states "Staff believes that the
applicant has addressed the Commission's concerns ... " Based on that, Staff recommended
approval of our project.
At the March 9 hearing itself, and for the very first time, the issue of compliance with Section
664 7 4 of the California Subdivision Map Act was raised. Initially, a member of the public
mentioned the Map Act, but ultimately it was the basis on which our applications were denied.
According to the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting our applications were denied
based on California Subdivision Map Act Section 66474(b), (c) and (d). There was no other
basis stated for the denial of our applications.
Despite the fact that the denial of our applications was based on provisions of the Subdivision
Map Act (SMA ), there were no findings of fact made to support the conclusions reached. We
believe that is because our project does meet all of the requirements of the SMA. The lack of
findings also creates a significant problem for us in that we cannot address the factual basis for
the denial if we are not provided with that factual basis. We believe that we are entitled to
findings sufficient to enable us to determine whether and on what basis we should seek review.
Without such findings we are both unable to revise our project to address those issues and we
must also guess at the rationale of the Planning Commission as we bring this appeal.
The only factual findings of which we are aware are those contained in the Staff Reports . Both
the January and the March Staff Reports show that our applications and our project as a whole
comply with all existing laws and requirements. Staff recommended approval in January and in
March based on their factual findings. We believe those findings and the conclusions reached
from them are correct and should be upheld .
UNION ESTATES, 15975 Union Ave, Los Gatos, CA
Page 2 of 7, 3/28/16
We therefore appeal to you for approval of our applications and ask that you overturn the
Planning Comm is sio n 's denial at i ts hearing of March 9, 2016. The Planning Commission erred
or a bu sed its discretion because its interpretations of SMA Sections 66474 (b ), (c), and (d)
were not based on the required findings of fact. Rather, the Planning Commission reached
conclusions that were subjective, arbitrary, or inconsistent with the facts. SMA language and
pertinent facts are detailed below :
SMA Section 66474 prov i des "A l e gislative body of a city or county sha ll 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 ...
SMA Section 664 7 4 (b) "That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans." In this case, the proposed subdivision
and development conform entirely to the General Plan . We have been unable to determine
and the Planning Commission did not advise us on how our project does not comply with
the General Plan. We also asked Town Staff to help us identify any applicable provision of
the General Plan or specific plans with which our proposed project may be inconsistent
and, to our knowledge, none has been found .
SMA Section 66474 (c) provides that our application may be denied if there are facts
supporting a finding "That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development ." The
overall site is gently and uniformly sloping (at about 8% ). It is well below the 10% slope
criterion that is used to activate "Hillside" Development Standards and Guidelines. Each of
our proposed lots has an average slope of less than 10%. The one topographic feature that
is significant is the existing fill slope on the north side of Blossom Hill Road that
encroaches on the parcel's southern boundary. This topographic feature will be effectively
eliminated from the parcel by dedicating additional right of way to the Town. Retaining
walls are provided in order to maintain the grade of the widened Blossom Hill Road and
provide required curbs and sidewalks. Two of the proposed lots have frontage only on
Blossom Hill Road; this frontage affords the opportunity for physically and technically
feasible access, thereby meeting legal requirements. This feasibility is confirmed by the
existence of several driveways on the North side of Blossom Hill Road as one proceeds to
the West. However, such access for our project is inconvenient and would have to contend
with the high volume and high velocity traffic on Blossom Hill Road. Since we have the
opportunity, we have proposed alternate access for the two interior lots from Union
Avenue via easements implementing a shared driveway. This plan, which is both more
convenient and safer, was encouraged based on discussions and refinements with the
Town Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (in August 2014) and is explicitly
preferred by the Town Staff. This shared driveway plan has been encouraged by the Town
and discussed with neighbors for the past year and one-half. A Maintenance Agreement
and appropriate Deed Restrictions will mandate the cooperation that is needed among the
three new homeowners in order to successfully operate and maintain this shared
driveway.
Finally, SM A Section 664 7 4 ( d) provides that our application may b e denied if ther e are facts
support ing a finding "That the si te i s not physically s uitable for the proposed density of
development." The site's physical character is essentially the same as the subdivisions to
UNION ESTATES , 15975 Un i on Av e , Los Gatos , CA
Page 3 of 7 , 3/28/16
the North, West, and East that are zoned for the same or denser development (the
subdivision to the North, which is closest, is zoned R-1:8). Each of our three proposed lots
exceeds the required 10,000 square foot minimum area by at least 10%. There is no
quantitative basis in Town Guidelines or Standards for saying that the proposed
development is too dense.
Responses to Concerns Expressed at January Meeting
At the previous Planning Commission meeting in January of this year a number of issues were
raised. We reviewed all of these issues with Planning Staff and resolved them to Staff's
satisfaction and several of them were discussed further at the March 9 meeting. We are
providing this list of modifications from our original applications for the convenience of the
Council:
Precedents for a Shared Driveway -There are numerous precedents for use of shared
driveways in infill subdivisions in nearby jurisdictions . Several were shared with the Town staff
and the Planning Commission. Four pertinent examples are:
a . Los Gatos -80, 90, 100, and 110 Reservoir Road, near Prospect Avenue . This project is a
quite recent four-lot subdivision with two shared driveways. The homes at 80 and 90 share a
relatively long driveway with one gate that is near Reservoir Road. The homes at 100 and 110
share a driveway entrance and each has its own gate leading to the major part of the respective
driveways. The driveways are very carefully designed and implemented and enhance each of
the four homes as well as the neighborhood .
b . Los Altos -780, 782, 786, and 788 Dixon Way . This project is about five years old and
located southeast of the intersection of Foothill Expressway and Arastradero Road , but with no
immediate access to either. It is a carefully developed infill project with luxury homes . An
Owner was encountered who said there were joint maintenance responsibilities attached to his
deed, but there had been no issues with the shared driveway in the five years he had owned his
(new) home.
c. Palo Alto -143, 145, and 147 Hawthorne Avenue. This project was implemented within the
last two years . It consists of three lots that share a common driveway. It is an attractive project
that raises the quality of its neighborhood . The project was developed by members of our
Union Avenue project team . There have been no issues (of which we have become aware)
regarding parking or access since close of escrow approximately one year ago.
d. Menlo Park-1273, 1275, 1277, 1279, 1281, and 1283 Laurel Street. This project was
completed about two years ago and some members of our development team were key
participants. It converted two lots into six and provided a shared driveway with three new
houses on one side and three on the other. It also enhances the quality of its neighborhood . No
maintenance/management issues or controversies have been raised with the developer .
Privacy -Increasing the height of the fence to 8 feet along the North property line and
increasing the size of tree plantings in the adjacent planter strip enhanced privacy.
UNION ESTATES, 15975 Union Ave, Los Gatos , CA
Page 4 of 7 , 3/28/16
Drainage / Bio-Retention Pond Maintenance -The drainage issue that presently concerns
the neighbors will be substantially lessened because retaining walls along the South, West, and
North sides of the property will cut off underground seepage and convey it to the storm
drainage system on Union Avenue . The drainage on the proposed lots will be routed to Bio-
Retention Ponds for treatment per C3 requirements with overflow conveyed to the storm
drainage system on Union Avenue. Needed improvements to the Union Avenue system will be
installed. Essentially, most (if not all) of the surface water that may now flow towards the lots
to the north will be retained and filtered on our site before entering the Town storm system .
Any water that may now be seeping onto our site under Blossom Hill Road will also be picked
up by retaining wall sub-drains to a depth of approximately 10 to 12 feet below the road.
Additionally, new curbs, gutters and sidewalks along the Blossom Hill frontage will pick up any
water that may currently be entering our site from surface of Blossom Hill Road.
On-Site Parking --On-Site parking spaces are provided far in excess of Town requirements
with each house having a three-car garage, at least one exterior private parking place and
access to three shared parking places. The proposed project includes 17 on-site parking places
for the three lots rather than the minimum requirement of six .
Fire Access / Turn Around / Parking Restrictions -The required fire truck access and turn
around space has been designed into the shared driveway and the driveway in front of the Lot
2 garage. All dimensions conform to fire department requirements. The required access will be
maintained free of impediments by restricting parking on the shared driveway and on the turn
around area.
Enforcement of Maintenance for Drainage Systems and Control of Parking and Fire
Access --Commissioners expressed concerns about maintenance ofbio-retention and drainage
systems and maintaining clear access and maintenance of the shared driveway for emergency
vehicles and controlling parking spaces. The applicant has expressed that responsibility for
maintenance of drainage systems and strict guidelines for parking and access can be defined
and enforced through a shared maintenance agreement coupled to access easements and
recorded with each property. The Applicant has experience with several similar shared
driveway developments in various jurisdictions on the Peninsula in recent years. All require
self-enforcement by the collective homeowners and are functioning without any major issues .
Building Mass -The proposed residences conform to the Town's Residential Design
Guidelines including FAR restrictions. The proposed designs are less than the maximum
allowable in every category.
Building Height/Peak Elevation/Shadowing -The neighbor to the North of Lot 2 expressed
concern that the maximum elevation of the proposed houses would be overbearing and creates
unwanted shadowing. Our building height was lowered 3 feet and located 4 feet 4 inches
farther away to lessen this impact. Further adjustments would threaten the marketability of
the project.
Removal of Protected Trees -Approximately two-thirds of the protected trees designated for
removal are within the land area to be dedicated to the Town and must be removed in order to
provide required perimeter improvements.
UNION ESTATES, 15975 Union Ave, Los Gatos, CA
Page 5 of 7, 3/28/16
Guard Rail on Blossom Hill Road -One Commissioner expressed concern about the danger
of vehicles breaking through the fence on the North side of Blossom Hill Road and falling some
ten feet into the back yards of the proposed residences . The topic was researched and the
separation from traffic provided by the potential bike lane, on-street parking area, the curb
elevation, sidewalk width, and the addition of a six-foot fence at the back of the sidewalk, were
found to be adequate mitigation per Caltrans Highway Design Manual and the California
Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) guidelines, so that no guardrail was
required or recommended . Other elements that contribute to the exclusion of the guardrail are
the facts that Blossom Hill Road is not curved at the Union Avenue intersection and it is not a
high-speed roadway (i.e., over 45 mph).
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety-On the project perimeter (Blossom Hill Road and Union
Avenue) sidewalks are provided in conformance with Town requirements. Crosswalks are
provided at the intersection of Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road. Space is available for bike
lanes, should the Town decide to implement them.
Traffic Study -One Planning Commissioner voiced a desire for a traffic study. Town Staff
stated that the project does not meet the criterion for requiring a traffic study .
Traffic/ Ingress and Egress Safety (see Exhibit A) -Concern was voiced regarding the
safety of vehicles leaving the shared driveway and tuning left to proceed North on Union
Avenue -needing to cross the potential bike lane plus two lanes of south bound traffic. A
similar concern was voiced regarding vehicles turning left from Union Avenue (North bound)
trying to enter the shared driveway. Town Staff (Engineering, including the Traffic Engineer)
assessed the safety of these maneuvers and concluded that due care would be sufficient to
avoid accidents. If the Town desires additional prudence, it has the option of implementing the
two-direction left turn lane illustrated in Exhibit A. This potential safety enhancement was
introduced and discussed during the Planning Commission Hearing on March 9, 2016. Exhibit
A simply provides clarity and detail. Town Staff does not find additional feature to be essential.
The Applicant contends that any concern voiced by Planning Commissioners relative to this
issue is not a sufficient basis for denying the application nor does it necessitate any further
condition on the proposed development. If the Town wishes to enhance ingress and egress
safety, it has a viable option available for doing so.
Summary
The Project Applicants fully support the intention of the Town of Los Gatos to be a model, high-
end community through planning standards and criteria that enhance rather than diminish the
character of the Town and its neighborhoods.
The parcel at the corner of Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road is presently an eyesore for the
neighborhood and Town . The proposed project will clean up this corner, providing substantial
right of way dedication and perimeter improvements, including over 300 feet of retaining walls
and 400 feet of sidewalks and curbs at a cost of more than $800,000. It will provide three new,
high-quality single-family residences that fit the character of the neighborhood and Town . It
will also e nhance the flow and safety of vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic a t this busy
UNION ESTATES , 15975 Union Ave , Los Gatos , CA
Page 6 of 7 , 3/2 8/1 6
intersection. The project (with its heavy financial burden of perimeter improvements) is not
viable with less than three lots . The proposed three-lot subdivision and development plan
meets all relevant plans, standards and guidelines.
The benefits of the project to the Town are substantial and merit your support. We have made
all adjustments that are practical to respond the neighbor and Planning Commission concerns,
while maintaining the financial viability of the proposed project. We respectfully request that
you make the necessary findings and approve the project.
Sincerely,
UNION ESTATES, 15975 Union Ave, Los Gatos , CA
Page 7 of 7, 3/28/16
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
I
I -----1
I
I
I
GUEST PARKING
LOT 3 PARJ<lNG
, LASUEN CT :;;;;;..
/ ~----,,~
(, "'-----! I 'I ' ~ : i 8' 10' 5' 11'
I §iji
100 22,00
FIRE lRUCK TURNIHG AAtA
I
I
I l
I I
I I
Lot GatM Fire irutk ·-· ...,. :&.50
f«M :&!!ID
lMll.,.\.ocl<~ :LO s.i--.,,,,,.. : "'3
'
I RED CURB ON 801ll S I D£S
I WITH "FlRE ZONE" SIGNAGE /IS
NE C ESSARY
I 1H : ,r
! 111
I I 1 1 j
,
I I
I I
I I
-----;::::::==-=...::....::---==...::-:...=....::::::-----=-=---===..:L-=-=-=_ ---==-=-=--=-===-=-=-=--J_::::=...=...--=-==-~---====-===---
B'X17'
L. TYP ...L ...L ...L.. ...L ...L B'X22' ...L.. TYP ...L..
"'""F\lruRE BIKE LANE
11 : EXlSTIHG LANE TRANSlllON IS
II I
N'PROX I MATEL Y 95 ' LONG . R ESTR IP E ROAD
TO I N CREASE TAANSmON TO H S 5' LONC .
I CREDI PAINTED 9 11<£ LAN£
I
6 lt (_ ___________ __/ ______ ""'
~ \\ -=
12' 23'
5•
LEEWOOD CT I
-----------~
~--
-------
I
J
I
/
RECEiVED
2016
TOV.'!'! oc LOS GATOS
PU.:\!:-.::~\3 DIVISION
====
~
j
I
~ -;=--~-=-~-=-~~-~~__;::.~~~i
-------------1--------------------------, -.... -f ·----r---------'-----. '.--1 ----------------~ ..
u.......a... Mott 1300-BFIRSTSTREET ncu.\.11 C I UIOY, CA 9 5 0 20 ! e MacDonald (408)1148-31 22 i -! WWW .HAT C HMOTT.CO "' ~
PLANS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS ! CONCEPTUAL PLANS I I
SHOWING POTENTIAL TRAFFIC
ENHANCEMENT IMPROVEMENTS.
TOWN OF LOS GATOS TO DECIDE
ON FINAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE
IMPLEMENTED. ~--J ~-
GRAPHIC SCALE
I T I
<•-> tt••-•n. [IJ 111\lt
T UllfGIDOll!U.alll.l'L
~-
De lignad B y: CL
Orewn By: C L
C hecked By. L T
OF 15975 UNION AVE I LL
OPTIONAL TRAFFIC ENHANCEMENT !
FOR UNION AVE AT BLOSSOM HILL I
If CONCEPTUAL
STRIPING PLAN !i Dlil"E: 3-Sl-10 SCALE; SN#TACl.AAA PD-1 OOUN1Y f ;i N:.Nl ALE NO: 1""'20' 3548S 1 C9 CALIFORNIA SHEET2 OF2 u
J
I
I
I I
I ~-
-
:c::~=-=====~~=:=-===~--1 ---....,..------------+--~:----
' ' t
' '
I
• •
. . ,,
I
-J • .
I
'
I
' -.,~ .... ,,,..,,,,~~J )
' I
I
t
I
I
I
I
J
TOW N OF S CATO S
PLA Ni!!;J 01\liSiON
t