Staff Report
PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON
Community Development Director
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Reviewed by: Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
_________________________________________________________________________
https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/attachment/10620/Staff_Report_-V5.doc
4/28/2016 1:23 PM EW
MEETING DATE: 05/03/16
ITEM NO: 10
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: APRIL 25, 2016
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETTI, TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: SUBDIVISION APPLICATION M-15-001, ARCHITECTURE AND SITE
APPLICATIONS S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011. PROJECT LOCATION:
15975 UNION AVENUE. PROPERTY OWNER: BETCHART UNION AVE
JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP. APPLICANT/APPELLANT: GARY
KOHLSAAT, ARCHITECT.
CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF A PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
DENYING A REQUEST 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.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt a resolution denying an appeal of a Planning Commission decision denying the
Subdivision application and Architecture and Site applications (Attachment 10).
BACKGROUND:
The existing 43,103-square foot, R-1:10 zoned property contains a single-family dwelling and a
detached garage. The current property access is located at the northeast corner of the site from
Union Avenue. The site contains 67 protected trees and underlying vegetation. The site slopes
downward from the southwest corner to the northeast corner, below Blossom Hill Road in some
areas.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, subdivide one lot into
three lots, construct three new single-family residences and remove large protected trees.
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE/M-15-001/S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
APRIL 25, 2016
BACKGROUND (CONTINUED):
The proposed development requires public improvements and right-of-way dedications along
Union Avenue and Blossom Hill Road. The required improvements include curb, gutter,
sidewalk, dedicated right hand turn lane, crosswalk, and bike lane.
On August 13, 2014 the applicant’s preliminary plans were reviewed by the Conceptual
Development Advisory Committee (CDAC). CDAC meeting minutes are included in Exhibit 4
of Attachment 1. Following the CDAC meeting, the applicant submitted an application for a
three-lot subdivision with shared driveway access off of Union Avenue.
On August 4, 2015 the project was considered by the Development Review Committee (DRC).
The project was forwarded to the Planning Commission because neighbors had concerns that
could not be resolved.
On January 27, 2016, the Planning Commission considered the project. The Commission
continued the applications to the March 9, 2016 agenda and directed the applicant to address
concerns and questions regarding site design, fire access, parking restrictions, on-site parking,
shared driveway, CC&R’s, privacy, site drainage and long term maintenance of stormwater
treatment facilities. The Planning Commission also directed staff to provide additional
information regarding traffic and public improvement questions. The verbatim minutes of the
meeting are provided in Attachment 3.
The continued applications were considered by the Planning Commission on March 9, 2016.
The verbatim minutes of the meeting are provided in Attachment 7. The Planning Commission
raised questions and concerns regarding traffic safety, conceptual traffic improvement plans, site
configuration, and site access (Attachment 7).
Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 provides “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 can
make any of the findings….” The Planning Commission denied the applications because they
made the three of the seven possible findings for denial of the subdivision pursuant to the
Subdivision Map Act Section 66474:
(b) That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
all elements of the General Plan.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.
Attachment 7 contains the verbatim minutes and the facts that the Planning Commission put into
the record to support the findings.
PAGE 3
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE/M-15-001/S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
APRIL 25, 2016
DISCUSSION:
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed to the Town Council by the applicant on
March 16, 2016 (Attachment 8) and a letter was provided by the appellant on March 28, 2016
(Attachment 9).
A. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot into three lots. All three lots would hav e
frontage on Blossom Hill Road, however, they would all be accessed from a shared driveway
from Union Avenue. The eastern most lot would also have frontage on Union Avenue.
Lot 1 would be approximately 12,941 square feet, Lot 2 would be approximately 11,351
square feet, and Lot 3 would be approximately 11,353 square feet. All three lots would be
accessed by a shared driveway from Union Avenue, located in the same area as the existing
access.
The applicant is proposing to construct three single-family residences with attached garages.
Lot 1 would contain a residence of 3,368 square feet and a 760-square foot garage. The
residence would have a maximum height of 27 feet, one inch. Materials would include:
painted wood lap siding and shingles; vinyl clad windows with wood trim; and a composition
shingle roof.
Lot 2 would contain a residence of 3,338 square feet and a 737-square foot garage. The
residence would have a maximum height of 26 feet, nine inches. Materials would include:
sand finish stucco; vinyl clad casement windows with stucco molding trim; and a tile roof.
Lot 3 would contain a residence of 3,338 square feet and a 737-square foot garage. The
residence would have a maximum height of 27 feet, eight inches. Materials would include:
painted wood lap siding; wood windows with wood trim; and a composition shingle roof.
B. Appeal to the Town Council
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed on March 16, 2016 (see Attachment
8). The appeal states that the Planning Commission erred in its decision because their
interpretations of items (b), (c) and (d) of the findings required per Subdivision Map Act
Section 66474 were subjective, arbitrary, or inconsistent with the facts.
The appeal includes a letter from the appellant that was received on March 28, 2016 (see
Attachment 9). The main points made by the Planning Commission regarding these topics
are identified in italics below.
1. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because the proposed project
does not result in making the Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 (b) finding, “That the
PAGE 4
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE/M-15-001/S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
APRIL 25, 2016
DISCUSSION (CONTINUED):
design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
general or specific plans.” The applicant states that the proposed subdivision and
development conforms to the Town’s General Plan because the Planning Commission did
not advise the applicant how the project does not comply with the General Plan.
The Planning Commission made the finding that the design or improvement of the
proposed subdivision is not consistent with the General Plan. Planning Commission said
that the project does not meet two of the General Plan’s Land Use Element’s goals,
specifically:
Goal LU-1 - To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small-town character and
quality of life within Los Gatos.
Goal LU-4 - To provide for well-planned, careful growth that reflects the Town’s existing
character and infrastructure.
The Commission questioned just because a project can be built from a zoning or
residential design perspective, should it? The Commission asked given the traffic and
crowding in Town and just because three lots and three houses can be built, should they
be built?
2. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because the proposed project
does not make the Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 (c) finding, “That the site is not
physically suitable for the type of development.” The applicant describes the overall site
as gently and uniformly sloping (at about 8%) and each of the 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 is proposed to be eliminated from the parcel
by dedicating additional right-of-way to the Town. The applicant provides additional
justification for this point as contained in Attachment 9.
The Planning Commission made the finding that the site is not physically suitable for the
type of development due to the following reasons: the proposed lot configuration;
proposed lot frontage; proposed shared driveway/site access; the proposed emergency
vehicle access; the existing topography of the site; the project location at the intersection
of Blossom Hill Road and Union Avenue; and overall traffic safety.
3. The Planning Commission erred or abused its discretion because the proposed project
does not make the Subdivision Map Act Section 66474 (d) finding, “That the site is not
physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.” The applicant states in
the appeal that the site’s physical character is essentially the same as the subdivisions to
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 the three proposed
PAGE 5
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE/M-15-001/S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
APRIL 25, 2016
DISCUSSION (CONTINUED):
lots exceeds the required 10,000 square foot minimum area by at least 10%.
The Planning Commission made the finding that the site is not physically suitable for the
proposed density of the development. In addition, members of the public raised questions
at the January 27, 2016 and March 9, 2016 Planning Commission meetings about
whether it is appropriate to include the square footage of the shared driveway easement
in the calculation to determine lot area.
The Town Code Section 29.10.020 defines lot area as: Lot area means the total
horizontal area included within lot lines, except as otherwise provided in the chapter,
and excluding land required for public dedication and any land determined to be
riparian habitat. Town Code therefore includes easements in calculating the lot area of
a property.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
This is a project as defined under CEQA but is Categorically Exempt (Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures). A Notice of Exemption will not be filed.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Staff has received two written public comments supporting the denial of the appeal of the subject
applications (see Attachment 13).
COORDINATION:
The evaluation of the application was coordinated with the Parks and Public Works Department,
Santa Clara County Fire Department, and the Town Attorney.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that the Town Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 10 denying the
appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission denying the Subdivision
application M-15-001 and Architecture and Site applications (S-15-009 through S-15-011) with
the findings provided in Exhibit A of Attachment 10.
PAGE 6
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE/M-15-001/S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
APRIL 25, 2016
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Town Council could:
1. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 11) granting the appeal and remanding the Subdivision
application and Architecture and Site applications to the Planning Commission with
specific direction, determining that the Planning Commission's decision should be
reversed or modified, and finding one or more of the following, in accordance with Town
Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
2. Adopt a resolution (Attachment 12) granting the appeal, making the required findings and
considerations (Exhibit A of Attachment 12), approving the Subdivision application (M-
15-001), approving Architecture and Site applications S-15-009, S-15-010 and S-15-011
subject to conditions (Exhibit B of Attachment 12), determining that the Planning
Commission's decision should be reversed or modified, and finding one or more of the
following, in accordance with Town Code Section 29.20.300:
a. There was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or
b. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not
readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or
c. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or
address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision.
3. Continue the project to a date certain with specific direction.
Pursuant to Town Code Section 29.20.280, the appeal must be heard within 56 days of the
Planning Commission hearing and in this case, by May 4, 2016. The Council must at least open
the public hearing for the item but may continue the matter to a date certain if the Council does
not complete its work on the item due to the length of the agenda.
If the Council determines that the appeal should be granted, specific facts supporting the findings
as to how the Planning Commission erred or that additional information was provided must be
incorporated into the resolution (Attachment 11 if remanding to the Planning Commission or
Attachment 12 if approving the applications).
PAGE 7
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT: 15975 UNION AVENUE/M-15-001/S-15-009 THROUGH S-15-011
APRIL 25, 2016
Attachments:
1. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 1-14)
2. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 15)
3. January 27, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
4. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report (includes Exhibits 16-19)
5. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Desk Item (includes Exhibit 20)
6. Comment from Public provided at the March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Hearing
7. March 9, 2016 Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
8. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, received March 16, 2016
9. Letter from Appellant, received March 28, 2016
10. Draft Resolution to deny the appeal and deny the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings)
11. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and remand the project to the Planning Commission
12. Draft Resolution to grant the appeal and approve the project (includes Exhibit A, Findings
and Exhibit B, Conditions of Approval)
13. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, April 28, 2016.
Distribution:
Gary Kohlsaat, 51 University Avenue, Suite L, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Betchart Union Avenue Joint Venture Partnership, 349 First Street, Los Altos, CA 94022