Attachment 15-16TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 2
ADDENDUM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: September 28, 2016
PREPARED BY: Sally Zamowitz, Planning Manager
sza rnowi tz@ losgatosca.gov
APPLICATION NO.: Architecture and Site Application S-15-077
LOCATION: 19 Highland Avenue (north side of Highland Avenue just east
of 15 Highland Avenue)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER/
CONTACT PE RSON: Ed Pearson
APPELLANTS: Badame, Roberts, and Smullen Families
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a deci sio n of the Development Rev ie w
Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to
construct a new single-fami ly residence and remove l arge
protected trees on property zoned HR-2 Yi. APN 529-37-033
EXHIBITS: Previously received with May 11, 2016 Desk Item Report:
I. Emails from appellants, received May 11, 2016
Previously received with June 8, 20 16 Staff Repo rt:
2. Location Map
3. Required Findings and Considerations
4. Recommended Conditions (nine pages)
5. Adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (3 pages)
6 . Town Council Resolution (200 1-128)
7. December 8, 20 l 0 Planning Commission m eeting minutes ( 15
pages)
8. Consulting Architect's Report, dated February 24, 2016
9. 2010 Arborist Report (26 pages), dated February 15, 20 l 0
10. Proj ect Data Sheet
11 . Letter from Anthony Badame, recei ved March 24, 2016
12 . March 29, 2016 Develo pment Review Committee minutes (two
pages)
13. Appeal letter, received April 8, 2016 (four pages)
14. May 11, 2016 Planning Commission meeting minutes
15. Applicant's response letter and Attachments (1-14), received May
27 ,20 16
16. Public comment received through 11:00 a.m., Thursday, June 2 , 2016
17. Additional letters from applicant (11 pages), received June 2 , 2016
18. Development plans ( 16 pages), received March 22, 2016
ATTACHMENT 15
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
19 Highland A venue/S-15-077
September 28, 2016
Previously received with June 8, 2016 Addendum Report:
19 . Letter from appellant ( 58 pages), received on June 2, 2016
Previously received with June 8, 2016 Desk Item Report:
20. Revised neighborhood outreach statement (one page), received
June 6, 2016
21. Applicant's response to Appellant's letter (five pages), received
June 8, 2016
Previously received at June 8, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting:
22. Communication from appellants (11 pages), received June 8, 2016
23. Presentation by appellants (15 pages), presented June 8 , 2016
24. Communication from applicant ( 5 pages), received June 8, 2016
Previously received with September 28, 2016 Staff Report:
25. Presentation by applicant (37 pages), presented June 8, 2016
26. Revised Recommended Conditions (10 pages)
27. Revised Development plans (15 pages), received July 11, 2016
28. Revised Project Data Sheet
29. Consultant Reports (I 0 pages)
30 . Addendum to 2010 adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration
(101 pages), dated August 2016
31. Communication from appellants (23 pages)
32. Communications from applicant (110 pages)
33 . Revised Findings
Previously received with August 24, 2016 Addendum Report:
34. Revised vers ion of Exhibit 31 , Communications from appellants
(53 pages)
Previously received with August 24, 2016 Desk Item:
35. Public comment, received August 24, 2016
36. Communication from appellants, received August 23 , 2016 and
August 24, 2016
Previously received with September 14, 2016 Staff Report:
37 . Communications received from applicants (three pages)
38. Revised vers ion of Exhibit 32 (120 pages)
39. Public comment received from 11:01 a.m., August 24, 2016
to 11 :00 a.m., September 8, 2016
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
19 Highland A venue/S-1 5-077
September 28, 2016
REMARKS:
Previously received with September 28, 2016 Staff Report:
40. Revised version of the Augus t 24, 2016 l etter submitted b y
appellants in Exhibit 36 (five pages)
4 1. Public comments received from 11 :0 I a.m., September 8, 2016 to
11 :00 a.m., September 22, 2016
42. Communication from appell ants, received September 22, 2016
(55 pages)
Received with this Addendum Report:
43. Communi cation from the appellants, received from 11 :01 a.m.,
September 22, 2016 to 11 :00 a.m., September 27, 2016 (8 pages)
Staff is recommending a continuance of the matter to the October 26, 2016 Planning
Comm ission meeting in order to review the September 19 , 2016 Supr eme Court decision in
Friends of the College of San Mateo c ited in an appellant 's letter of September 22, 2016 (Exhibit
42).
Exhibit 4 3 contains communication from the appellants recei ved from 11 :01 a.m., September 22,
2016 to 11:00 a.m., September 27, 20 16, including: a res ponse to a biological evalu ation peer
re view conducted by the Town's consultant; and a respon se to notification that a continuance
would be requ ested.
~~;:..
Prepared by:
Sally Zamowitz, AIA
Planning Manager
J P:SZ:cg
Approved by:
Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
cc: Ed Pearson, 239 Thurston Street, Lo s Gatos, CA 95030
Lisa Roberts , 78 A lpine Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dede Smull en , 25 Highland A venue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Anthony Badame, I Highland A venue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
N :\D EV\PC REPORTS\20 I 6\High land-19-ap peal-9-28-16-ADD.doc
Sally Zarnowitz
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dorothea Smullen <dorothea .smullen@gmail.com >
Thursday, September 22, 2016 7:29 PM
Sally Zarnowitz
Memo for inclusion in PC Packet
19HighlandAve_Bat_Issue_Response.pdf; A TTOOOOl.htm
This was stuck in my outbox for some reason. It should have gone out to you this morning
EXHIBIT 4 3
1
PACIFIC BIOLOGY ..J
TO:
635 Carmel Avenue, Albany, CA 94706
Telephone/fax: (510) 527-1008
FROM:
Richard Grassetti, Grassetti Environmental Consulting
Josh Phillips, Principal Biologist
DATE:
SUBJECT:
September 22, 2016
19 Highland Avenue -Response to Live Oak Associates' Biological Evaluation
Peer Review
The Biological Resources Review conducted by Pacific Biology for the 19 Highland ~venue
Project raised the issue that potential impacts to roosting _ bats are not addressed in the 2010
CEQA document being used for the project. The results of the Biological Resources Review
were presented in a memo dated June 2, 2016, which included the following comment regarding
the potential of bats to roost on the project site:
"Finally, the proposed project includes the removal of n!_lmerous 1!:ees 1 ~ncluding one
particularly large oak tree (of compromised health) with numerous cavities. This tree
could be used as a roost by bats, including special-status bats species such as pallid bat
(Antrozous pal/idus); potential impacts to roosting bats are not addressed in the 2010
CEQA document being used for the project."
Live Oak Associates responded to this comnient in their Biological Evaluation Peer Review
(dated July 21 , 2016). Their response included an erroneous as_sertion that pallid bat could not
roost in the tree in question. Live Oak Associates asserted that pallid bat would not roost in the
tree because "pallid bat typically uses buildings, caves, and rock crevices" for roosting.
However, pallid bats are known to roost in trees, including oak trees. Radio-tracking efforts in
the west, including California, suggest that the pallid bat is far more dependent on tree roosts
than was previously realized. This species has been located in tree cavities in oak, ponderosa
pine, coast redwood, and giant Sequoia (Rainey et al. 1992, Cross and Clayton 1995, Pierson and
Heady 1996, as cited in Pierson and Rainey 1998).
The Live Oak Associates memo also states that "there are less than a half dozen places where
limbs have fallen that have created small, relatively shallow hollows, ranging in diameter from
about 6 to 8 inches. There are also a few areas of exfoliating bark as a result of th e bark beetle
infestation. These features do not provide potential matern ity or roosting habitat for special
status bats such as th e Townsend's big-ea red bat or the pallid bat as these latter species do not
use these types of features". A s discussed above, pallid bats do roost in trees , and the species
doe s use hollows and cavities in trees. The Live Oak Associates memo states that the oak tree
was evaluated with binoculars and that the hollows are "relatively shallow". If the hollows are
shallow, then they would not provide suitable maternity roosting habitat. However, given the
size of the tree (see photo below), it is not clear how the tree was thoroughly inspected and the
depth of all of the hollows were evaluated with just binoculars. When trees are evaluated from
the ground using binoculars, a bright focused light is generally needed to verify the depth of
cavities. The Live Oak Associates memo does not mention using a bright focused light or other
equipment (e.g., a ladder) to conclusively determine the depth of all the hollows in the tree.
Photo 1: Photo of Oak Tree in Question
r-
(
Further, the Live Oak Associates memo goes on to conclude that "the small hollows and areas of
peeling bark could be used as day roosts by certain common bat species, although these features
wouldn't provide maternity habitat for any of these species". As established above, pallid bats
do roost in trees, including oaks. Given this, and that Live Oak Associates concludes that "the
small hollows .... could be used as days roosts by certain common bat species'', it is unclear why
pallid bat also could not use the hollows as a day roost, or if the hollows are found to not all be
shallow, it is also unclear why pallid bats or other bat species could not use the tree as a
maternity roost.
Finally, the Live Oak Associates memo acknowledges that a low number of roosting bats could
be present in the tree and that tree "removal could impact a few individuals". Live Oak
Associates includes an avoidance measure to address this potential impact. If only a low number
of common bat species are present, then as implied by Live Oak Associates, the related impact
may not be significant under CEQA. However, for the reasons discussed above, the information
provided in the Live Oak Associates memo does not adequately support their conclusion that
pallid bat (a special-status species) could not roost in the tree. If pallid bat uses the tree for day
roosting (given that the species does use oak trees), or if pallid bat or another bat species use the
tree as a maternity roost (if further evaluation finds that the hollows are deeper than described by
Live Oak Associates), then impacts to roosting bats should be considered significant. and
mitigation would be required. Further, if it is found that the hollows are deeper than described in
the Live Oak Associates memo, and that the tree could therefore be used as a maternity roost,
then the avoidance measure recommended by Live Oak Associates would need to be revised to
also protect bats during the maternity roosting season (generally mid-April through August).
It should also be noted that while the Live Oak Associates memo addresses Townsend's big-
eared bat and presents reasons why the species is not expected to occur, the biological resources
review conducted by Pacific Biology did not suggest that species could roost on the project site.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions regarding this memo.
Sincerely,
1)\ fk
Josh Phillips
REFERENCES
Pierson, E. D., and W . E. Rainey. 1998. Pallid bat, Antrozous pallidus. In Terrestrial
Mammal Species of Special Concern in California, Bolster, B. C., editor. Draft
Bird and Mammal Conservation Program Report No. 98-14, California
Department of Fish and Game.
From: Lisa Roberts [mailto:lroberts@rehonroberts.com]
5ent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 8:46 AM
To: Sally Zarnowitz; Anthony Badame; Dede Smullen
Cc: Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz
Subject: RE : 19 Highland Continuance
' '
Sally : Thank you for advising that you will be requesting another continuance. Would you please advise
who "we" is, the town or the applicant or both?
Also, would you let me know the proposed date(s) for the new hearing so that the date(s) can be cleared
with appellants and their experts? Already, I know that one expert is unavailable during the second half
of October.
Additionally, with respect to the request for the continuance, I would like you to consider the following:
1. I was able to prepare and submit a letter on the Friends case and related issues in time for the
Thursday morning submission, and I do not understand why the applicant could not have done the
same. Indeed, the applicant has more time than I took, still having the opportunity to r_espond by way of
desk item on Wednesday as well as at the hearing itself. This is not a situation of ~urprise. The Friends
case has been pending for considerable time; the decision has been long-awaited; and , most notably, it
was known that the decision would be made by September 20 as required by Supreme Court rules . It
came out a day before that deadline. Further, while it should not have been necessary, I specifically
brought attention to the Friends case in my August 24, 2016 letter to the Planning Commission, referring
the Commission (and thus the town and the applicant) to an article regarding it.
2. Other than the Friends case, there was nothing else "new" in my letter. My letter addressed
vari ous environmental issues but all based on reports and information that had already been _maintained
by or provided to the town and the applicant. As pointed out in my letter, the town and the applicant
failed to address those issues when deciding to prepare ari addendum to the 2010 MND. The request
for more time now to consider them underscores the accuracy of my point.
3. The CEQA issue is hardly the only ground for appeal; indeed, based on the appeal, the
Commissioners raised seven different ·matters that Applicant needed to consider in revising his plans to
avoid denial of his application, of which only one was CEQA. Those other grounds alone compel denial
of the Application and upholding of the Appeal.
4. Please note that the appellants have never requested a continuance for more time. They
requested rescheduling only when a hearing was set on a date on which they were simply
unavailable . In contrast, this will be the second time that the town and the applicant hav~ requested a
continuance for more time to respond to appellants (both times .of which related to the CEQA issue).
5. In every public notice, we are advised of the importance of community input, and at every step in
this process, we have been diligent in timely and clearly providing that input both to the applicant and
to the town. We have submitted our materials in time for review and consideration by the Commission,
and we have attended the hearings (including the first hearing at which the Commission gave Applicant
the opportunity to revise his plans rather than be denied his application for appeal to the Town Council,
and the last hearing at which the hour grew so late that this matter needed to be continued). Our
involvement and input has not been easy . Each of us has a professional career as well as personal and
other obligations .
We respect your request for a continuance, bl)t please note the time, effort, and diligence we have put
into advising the town, the applicant, and the Commission of our concerns regarding this project and the
numerous problems presented by the applicant's original plan and still not add ressed by the applicant's
revised plans.
Please forward this email for consideration by the Commission . Thank you .
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland 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
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
Mary Badame, Chair
D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair
Melanie Hanssen
Matthew Hudes
Tom O’Donnell
Town Manager: Laurel Prevetti
Interim Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(510) 337-1558
ATTACHMENT 16
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland Avenue
2
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 O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR BADAME: So Item 2, this is a requested
continuance for Architecture and Site Application S-15-077,
19 Highland Avenue, considering an appeal of a decision of
the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture
and Site application to construct a new single-family
residence and remove large protected trees on property
zoned HR-2½.
At this time I will open the public testimony
portion of the hearing and allow the Appellant, or the
Applicant, first up?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, it would just be the two,
comment period.
CHAIR BADAME: Okay, so this is the comment
period?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Mmm-hmm.
CHAIR BADAME: All right.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And it’s restricted just to the
issue of continuance.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, so I have two speaker
cards, and that would be Bess Wiersema.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Three.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland Avenue
3
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
BESS WIERSEMA: Good evening, Commissioners. Here
we are again for 19 Highland Avenue.
I spoke with Ed earlier this evening. As you
know, this has been to the Planning Commission repeatedly.
We also had a request for continuance from the Appellant
group previously that we honored. I understand this one is
coming from Mr. Schultz regarding the legal matter around
the California Supreme Court hearing that just came down
recently.
We would like to request that we be continued to
the soonest possible date, the October 26th date that we had
previously discussed with Staff. I think I just heard there
might be a special meeting on the 17th as well, and we’d be
happy to jump on that earlier one also in order to
alleviate heavier Planning Commission meetings that you may
have.
It’s our intent to make sure this gets heard as
soon as possible. We have heard repeatedly from the
Appellant group that they are prepared to take this all the
way to Town Council, so it’s our understanding that it
really doesn’t matter what happens here at Planning
Commission, that should we get an approval or disapproval
that they would carry it right along, so we’d like to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland 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
24
25
expedite this so we can get this done this year, and
hopefully get underway early next year when the rains stop.
Also, Mr. Pearson would like everyone to
understand that due to all the continuances and all the
extra effort he’s had to make, he’s put in over $50,000 in
extra effort to have his team of people be available for
these Planning Commissions over the past three or four
months, and also be available for vetting reports and
everything, and some consideration should be made based on
the impact financially that that’s having on him in
addition to the delay of construction.
So we’d love the 26th, or like I said, we’ll take
the 17th. I do know that Bart Hechtman has reviewed
extensively the Supreme Court case, we’ve had meetings on
the site about it, and he’s prepared to come as soon as
possible with his understanding of that as well. Thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. Wiersema. If any of
the Commissioners have questions, can I take questions for
Ms. Wiersema, or is this strictly comments?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, there are questions.
CHAIR BADAME: Any questions? Seeing none, thank
you. Our next speaker is Cindy McCormick.
CINDY McCORMICK: Hi, I just want to briefly read
a statement from Mr. Pearson. I’m going to abbreviate this.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland Avenue
5
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
“The last time the Commission discussed my
project was at the meeting of June 8, 2016. I feel we came
away from the meeting with some good feedback and since
then have made great strides in coming up with a very good
project for the site. We have received numerous letters of
support from surrounding neighbors and have had one
Appellant remove herself from the group after reviewing the
revised plans.
We then arrived at the meeting on August 24th
excited to present our project. Unfortunately, the Alberto
Way project was too late and we were continued until
September 14th. The Appellants then requested the meeting be
continued to September 28th, which we agreed to. I would
request that we keep the October 26th date that Planning had
recommended. I have two of my consultants that will be
unable to attend at the later proposed date. I see no
reason why the Appellants should not be able assemble
adequate representation at the October 26th meeting.” Thank
you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Ms. McCormick. Any
questions? Seeing none, thank you. Our next speaker is
Anthony Badame.
ANTHONY BADAME: Anthony Badame, 1 Highland.
After speaking with my Co-Appellants, the only dates
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland Avenue
6
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
available that we could all attend would be November 9th and
December 14th.
This was not a continuance on our part. We were
all set to go tonight. This was on the Town, and I guess
specifically on the attorney, so with this change, this
continuance, October 26th we cannot make; we will not be
adequately represented.
I’d like to make one other comment. I’m not sure
where the architect is coming from that we are determined
to take this to Town Council. I’ve never said that and I’ve
never heard any of the Co-Appellants say that, so that
would be mere speculation on her part, and actually we take
a little bit of umbrage to that.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you. You still have a couple
more minutes, or a few more seconds. No? Okay. Commissioner
O'Donnell followed by Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Could you tell us what
your difficulty is in going forward on the 26th?
ANTHONY BADAME: Dede Smullen, who is a Planning
Commissioner for the City of Saratoga, cannot attend,
because she has obligations that same night. I believe Lisa
Roberts is not able to attend, or our environmental
consultants are not able to attend. Given that the CEQA is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland Avenue
7
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
such a pivotal element of this case, I think it’s very
important that our environmental consultants are available.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don’t recall, and I
apologize for that, are you represented by counsel? Who is
your attorney? Do you have an attorney?
ANTHONY BADAME: We do not have an attorney.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Thank you.
ANTHONY BADAME: Although Lisa Roberts is an
attorney, but she…
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m sensitive to the
Applicant’s concern about delays, two of which were caused
essentially by the Town and our own proceedings. Have you
explored other dates in October? Are there any other dates
in October that would be available to you and your team?
ANTHONY BADAME: Apparently Lisa Roberts had an
email exchange with the attorney and I believe that we were
unable to make the earlier October dates, and in fact, Mr.
Schultz had mentioned November and December dates for the
continuance and didn’t mention October dates. I think he
apparently needed time to review the case. And again, Dede
Smullen, who is one of the Appellants, is not available.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland 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 HUDES: So is the issue that all of
October is blocked, or is it the specific dates in October
that you were offered were blocked?
ANTHONY BADAME: To my knowledge, it’s the
specific dates that we were offered. There are only two
dates in October, correct?
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Well, October is already
filled with special meetings, and so we may have a
discussion about whether those special meeting dates are
the appropriate ones, so I’m trying to find out whether
it’s the whole month of October that’s a problem, or it’s
the specific dates that you’ve been offered.
ANTHONY BADAME: It was the specific dates that
were offered, and I couldn’t speak to other dates, although
Dede Smullen, again, she has her Planning Commission at the
City of Saratoga and she mentioned that she wouldn’t be
able to make any October dates.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you, Doctor Badame. No
further questions.
All right, so I will look to the Commissioners.
Do I have a motion to continue the item to October 26th?
Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland 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
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I have a question before
that. We shouldn’t have tension between the 26th and the
first date available in November. Would you remind me of
that date in November?
JOEL PAULSON: The first date in November is
November 9th.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So we have a 13-day
disagreement, it sounds like. I don’t recall, but were both
sides available on the 9th, or have we heard from both
sides? We’ve just heard from one side, but what about the
other?
JOEL PAULSON: The first two speakers spoke about
the 9th, and I believe they mentioned that two of their
consultants weren’t available on the 9th.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, any discussion?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’ll make a motion.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’ll make a motion that
we continue this matter until October 26th.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, do I have a second?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’ll second the motion.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland 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
CHAIR BADAME: Do I have any discussion?
Commissioner Kane.
VICE CHAIR KANE: Well, it just seems like damned
if you do, damned if you don’t. If one of the parties is
saying they’re going to be underrepresented, and given that
the continuances previously were circumstantial, it seems
like we’re penalizing one side. I’d like a discussion on
that before I vote.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: From Staff’s standpoint, yes, it
is unfortunate. There have been previous requests for
continuances also, but we do have to do the items of
business, so we do have to schedule them. Some of the
Appellants will be available on that date, and in all due
respect, having a Planning Commission in another town or
city can’t take priority. If we begin to placate all that
can’t make it because of business or other issues, then
we’d never be able to get our business done. So it does
happen, unfortunately, it does.
I will state that even by doing the October 26th
date there may very well even be another continuance due to
the fact that the addendum, depending on when we can get
that done, because in all likelihood there will be further
changes to the addendum based on the Supreme Court
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland Avenue
11
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
decision, but I think we can get it done and have it on the
October 26th date, and that’s why we recommended it.
VICE CHAIR KANE: All right, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner O'Donnell followed by
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I certainly am
sympathetic to both sides. The only reason I’ve requested
that we move it to the 26th is it looks like, as you
indicated, you’re between a rock and a hard place. On the
other hand, I realize that the Applicant has… Any time you
delay a project as long as this project is delayed, you
just keep running up money, and if I had to choose between
who was going to be unhappy, and in light of that, the
penalty of time and money, that’s why I wanted the 26th.
There’s nothing fully compelling about that, but that’s the
way I would lean, and that’s why I made the motion.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: I’m curious about the legal
review and when you think that would be complete. I
understand that we have a meeting on the 26th. We also have
a meeting on the 17th, I believe, and the 19th as well, and
before I even ask about whether there’s time on the agenda,
I’m just asking the question how long will it take to have
the legal review and the changes that are needed?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland 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
ROBERT SCHULTZ: It would be too close. We talked
about that; it would just be too close. Even if there was
time on those two agendas, it would be too close to the
issuance of it, and we want to make certain that with
changes, and possibly major changes, to an addendum that
both the Appellant and the Applicant have time to review
those, and so we anticipate that it would be out that week
and give that ten-day period before the 26th.
COMMISSIONER HUDES: So that would be the 16th?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Sixteenth, 17th, is what we’re
shooting for to have that addendum done if it all goes as
planned.
CHAIR BADAME: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I had a question. I too
find this difficult, because the last two continuances were
on the Town and not on either the Applicant or the
Appellants, but having said that, I wondered also; do we
have any time deadline because of the appeal? I didn’t
think so, because it didn’t come up, but that isn’t an
issue that we have to be worried about.
CHAIR BADAME: All right, so I have a motion to
continue to the 26th. I have a second. I will be abstaining
from the vote due to a perceived conflict of interest. I
will call the question. All in favor? Passes unanimously.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/28/2016
Item #2, 19 Highland Avenue
13
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
Mr. Paulson, I don’t believe there is appeal
right on the actions of the Commission on this item.
JOEL PAULSON: There is not, thank you.
CHAIR BADAME: Thank you.