2010081806 - Exhibit 15Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
• Public Hearing Date: June 9, 2010
• Agenda Item: 15928 Union Avenue, Subdivision Application
M-08-13 and Architectural and Site Application M-08-30.
• Subject: Neighbor Input to Agenda Item -Request Denial.
• Neighbor: Tom Mangano
0 112 Panorama Way, Los Gatos CA 95032
~,~~e
~~»~w~
R~C~IV~D
MAY ~ r 2010
fOv~iN 0!- LG~ -u~;7u~
PLANNING DI'IISION
1~Page
EXHIBIT 15
Neighbor input On 15928 Union Avenue
~~~wA19
Associate Planner: Suzanne Davis
Commissioners: John Bourgeois -Chair
Marico Sayoc -Vice Chair
Philip Nlicciche
Thomas O'Donnell
Joanne Talesfore
Marcia Jensen
Charles Erekson
I am Tom Mangano of 112 Panorama Way, an adjacent northern neighbor of the
proposed development. I have lived at my residence for 36 years, and respectfully ask
you to deny this application. I recognize the property owner's right of development, but
this application as proposed supports a resultant development intensity that does not
meet the spirit of Town's general plan and development guidelines, and should be
denied on sections B, C, and D of the California Subdivision Map Act.
This document will be made up of three parts:
• Part 1: reasoning for California Subdivision N1ap denial.
• Part 2: partial list of issues I have with the A&S portion of this application.
• Addendum 1: collage of supportive photos for your review and reference.
Part 1: Three-parcel subdivision.
A. The root of the problem is the width of the lot.
The 15928 Union Avenue lot width of 110.3 feet is just too narrow (see
Figure 1) to properly place three homes and harmonize them with the
neighborhood as is done in typical cul-de-sac termination such as Leewood
Court (to use a cul-de-sac that is similar to this proposal). As you know,
twG prc~ilGliS proposals for this property have been denied by the
Commission; one for afour-parcel application was denied (5-0) on June 25,
2008 and athree-parcel application was denied (7-0) on August 26, 2009.
2~Pa~e
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
Additionally, the August 26, 2009 denial was upheld on appeal by the
Town Council on November 2, 2009.
This application before you also falls short in its burden to meet the
Town's general plan. Yes, code does allow a 30 foot frontage on a "cul-de-
sac," and that would be appropriate if the width or depth of 15928 Union
allowed for typical "pie shape" parcels. The homes could then be placed
and harmonized with each other and the existing homes on the street that
the cul-de-sac terminates. This new Panorama Way cul-de-sac cannot
possibly do that with any three-parcel sub-division. The resultant
development intensity triggers a number of significant problems with
neighborhood harmonization, view sheds, noise, drainage, privacy and sun
access which will individually and collectively fail to meet the specifics and
spirit of the Town's general plan and development guidelines.
"hlodified Pie Shape"
Panorama
Lack of depth
approx. 35 feet
' ~ Pie shaped lots
Leewood Court 30 ft frontage
Cul-de-sac Note depth
beyond terminatio
pprox - 135 feet
Figure 1. leewood Court is example of cul-de-sac using 30 foot frontage parcels, but the "pie
shape" parcels have adequate depth to place homes in a harmonized manner.
3~Page
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
1) Harmonization: The established pattern of the predominate
neighborhood of Panorama and Union is broken with the proposal.
CD.P.1.7 New structures, remodels, landscapes and hardscapes
shall be designed to harmonize and blend with the scale and
rhythm of the neighborhood and natural features in the area.
L.P.4.3 Maintain the character and identity of existing
neighborhoods. New construction, remodels, and additions shall be
compatible and blend with the existing neighborhood.
L.G.2.2 To reduce the visual impact that new construction and/or
remodeling has on our town and its neighborhoods.
Figure 2. Neighborhood pattern of Union Ave. and Panorama Way
41Pag~
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
The applicant states there is a three structure neighborhood
pattern for Union/Panorama Way and Leewood Court. The fact is
that there are five northern lots on Union, and all five Union lots
have detached garages behind the home (Figure 2). One of those
garages has a "granny unit" attached. The existence of detached
garages or an attached granny unit to one garage does not define a
pattern of three structures on the adjacent lots that run from Union
to Panorama Way to justify the additional 3200 sq. ft. residence on
this application. The three structure pattern on the Leewood Court
neighborhood with its own cul-de-sac (which is a typical cul-de-sac
in terms of "pie shapes") should not be considered part of the
immediate neighborhood as noted by the Town Council in the
November 2, 2009 appeal.
Additionally, the applicantjustifies the lack of harmony and pattern
as a product of the proposed cul-de-sac. The fact is as pointed out
in part 1, section A, that this is not a typical cul-de-sac and the
degree of the non-conformity and harmony in this proposal is based
on the limits of the property width not the cul-de-sac. A cul-de-sac
pattern shift is not a license to establish a totally new pattern and
justify total disregard for harmonization as this proposal is doing.
2) View sheds: The story pole "story" is just that. The subdivision as
proposed does not conform to the following of the Town's general
plan:
CD.P.1.1 Promote and protect the physical and other distinctive
qualities of residential neighborhoods.
CD.P.1.4 Promote and protect view sheds.
CD.P.1.11 New structures or remodels that will affect existing scenic
views of neighbors shall be designed so that all affected properties
have equitable access to views.
L.P.2.3 Encourage basements and cellars to provide "hidden"
square footage in lieu of visible mass,
5~°aj~
f
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
Figure 3 shows the proposed view from my backyard. When you
visit the site, I extend an invitation to also visit my home, my side
yard, my backyard, and sit in my porch rocking chair and view the
story that these story poles tell loudly and clearly. The proposed
development intensity of this application does not meet the spirit
of the Town's general plan nor the design guidelines that have been
adopted to protect the Town's residents' quality of life in their own
homes.
6~?ale
Figure 3. The vieYv from my backyard
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
The applicant states that this is a transitional area and that two
story homes should be allowed. Nothing can be further from the
truth:
• 15928 Union because of its northern proximity is a
"gateway" of the beautiful mountain ridge views to the
south. Any construction over 15 to 16 feet into view sheds
will block those views. The applicant has recognized the
value of those views and has designed a viewing balcony on
the 2"d story of both A&S parcels.
• Planning has denied two-story homes on both the east
(115 Cambrian Way) and west border (101 Lausen Ct)
of this application.
In the interest of time and efficiency of communication, at this
point I have provided a collage of images in attached Addendum 1.
It captures without any ambiguity the aesthetic hideousness of this
proposal. Neighbors are referring to it as the circus tent...and
worse.
3) Noise: The proposal does not conform to the following of the Town's
general plan:
N.P.1.12 Evaluate the noise impacts of new development in terms
of any increase of the existing ambient noise levels and the
potential for adverse noise impacts on nearby or adjacent
properties. The evaluation shall consider short term construction
noise and on-going operational noise.
This development completes a perfect storm for noise
because:
71Pa~~
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
• Parcel 2's set-back of 60 plus feet from the cul-de-sac
places the home and the garage 6 feet behind the back
plane of my residence.
• Parcel 3's home is positioned to deflect noise towards my
home.
• 8-11 foot fences on the south and east and heightened
homes surrounding the cul-de-sac on three sides create a
virtual echo chamber.
• 118 Cambrian View home is no more than 10 feet from
the property line. The home is heighten for grade and
borders the cul-de-sac 15928 property for 100 feet.
Combined a cavernous effect is produced and guarantees that noise
-human and vehicular-will reverberate throughout the cul-de-sac
area and surrounding structures (see Figure 4).
T
My residence
r_
112 Panorama Way
r_
r
source zone
Figure 4. Designed to amplify noise.
4) Drainage: The neighborhood has been on record for over two decades
of problems associated with natural drainage from the proposed property
8~°age
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
due to the topography, water tables, and soil conditions. I am
appreciative of Engineering's increased review and the additional
requirements that it has given to the applicant, because of the developer's
previously inadequate drainage solutions. The application's floor to area
ratio (FAR) requests combined with the 30% increase in first floor massing
with the porches and overhangs (800 sq. ft. for parcel 2 only to mask the
second floor massing) result in 69% of the drainage surface area to south
of my home becoming impervious. I find this alarming and problematic
given the history of water problems my house has had in the last 36 years
with rain storms causing run-off water to run through my garage and
ground 4vater to accumulate under my house. Most of neighborhood
homes like mine will have sump pump activity for a month beyond any
rainy season due to existing conditions. Given these factors this
subdivision map merits conservative development intensity of two parcels
not aggressive development intensity of three parcels.
5) Privacy and sun access: Under "Town Design Guidelines" section 2.5.2,
Design with sensitivity to neighbors. This proposal diminishes my
residency privacy and sun access. Elimination of direct view windows on
2"d floor north elevation of parcel 2 does not eliminate privacy issues
associated with its east facing 2"d story windows. Sun access is lost by my
residence in the middle of the afternoon because of placement and
massing of parcel 2 during the fall and winter when such sun access would
reduce energy consumption, and be particularly enjoyable.
Part 1, Conclusion:
As part of your review, I also ask you to review the commission's video of August 26,
2009 and ask yourself how this newest proposal mitigates any of the concerns that you
voiced in your 7-0 denial. It simply does not. In fact, given that we now have defined
height and massing as proposed in the A&S section of this proposal, it is clear that the
9~Paoe
Neighbor input On 15928 Union Avenue
applicant has not listened to any of the guidance the Planning Commission has voiced,
nor the neighborhood concerns that have been documented and expressed. The
applicant stated during the November 2, 2009 Town Council appeal about the proposal
iii front of you, "i d~~~'t thi~~k its right in this ccntext." (P,ef, town council video 11/2/09:
02:18:04-07) This newest three-parcel proposal has simply morphed a previous
proposed flag lot into asix-sided "modified pie shape" as applicant call it. As result this
proposal creates the same issues the Commissioners voiced and voted 7-0 to deny on
August 26, 2009.
As part of my conclusion I would like to address some of the applicant's assertions and
statements to date:
• "The primary objection with the previous proposal was the flag lot
configuration." The Town Council denied the appeal of the August 26, 2009
Commission vote on November 2, 2009. On February 1, 2010 the Council
remanded the applicant back to the Commission to work on a new proposal be it
2 or 3-parcel subdivision. The Town Council never stated on public record that
removal of the flag lot configuration was the only barrier to a 3-parcel subdivision
approval. I encourage you to review the November 2, 2009 video and the
resolution follow-up video discussions of December 7, 2009 and February 1, 2010
to draw your own conclusions on the Council's direction - if in fact there was any
given - beyond the fact that 15928 Union application was remanded back to this
Commission.
• "Three is a compromise between two and four." "The developer originally
wanted four and the neighborhood wanted two." The four homes were a
proposal that never met the Town's general plan, was not supported by staff and
was denied by this commission (5-O). An overreaching defeated proposal is not a
viable proposal tha± merits weight in a compromise. This is a 2 or 3-parcel
subdivision and the Commission, Council or a Court will ultimately make that final
decision based on the merits of proposal and the To~nrn's general plan not based
on some alleged compromise bet~rieen 2 and 4.
1U~~a~e
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
• "We were directed to do three." This Comrission asked the applicant if he
would entertain 3-parcels instead of the requested 4-parcels during the June 25,
2008 hearing as a vehicle to continue the hearing. The applicant's answer was
"No." Investigating or exploring a 3-parcel subdivision alternative did not direct
or guarantee the applicant a 3-parcel subdivision approval. The application must
still meet the burden of the Town's general plan. This Commission's criteria for
development approvals are not based only on zoning requirements and
supportive frontage, height and setback requirements as the applicant wants us
to believe.
"We can't preserve view sheds because the August 26, 2009 proposal was
denied." I fought for the denial of August 26, 2009 because I know for all
reasons I have stated in this letter that a subdivision of 2-parcels is the only
proper use of the 15928 Union property. The burden is again on the applicant to
conform to the Town's general plan. To justify loss of view sheds because of the
denial of another proposal is disingenuous.
In closing this section I would like to take two sentences from the Introduction section
of Los Gatos' General Plan:
"Proposed development projects are held to a higher standard and what
is approved in other communities may not be acceptable in Los Gatos."
"Support of new development from surrounding residents and property
owners will be a major consideration during any development review
process."
These two sentences are reflective and important to all the residents of Los Gatos and
especially express my own expectations for the Los Gatos Community Development
Department, the Planning Commission and the Town Council. I am currently working on
my master's thesis for my graduate degree in Architecture. I hope to someday present
architectural plans to this very body. I want my architecture to be held to such a high
standard. This proposal wilts from the light cast on it by that standard.
Land use, view sheds, and neighborhood harmony are irreplaceable, and because of
that we must meet a higher standard for our community to take pride in itself and to
meet the standards it has set for itself. Too many questions have not been answered by
11~Pa~e
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
this developer and designer. Too many town and residents' concerns have not been
addressed; therefore, this proposal neither meets the higher standard of Los Gatos nor
merits the support of the surrounding residents like myself.
Thank you Commissioners for your time and thank you for your community service on
the Planning Commission. A special thank you for Suzanne Davis for all the help she has
given me and my fellow neighbors who are only asking for a responsible development
for 15928 Union Avenue so the residents present and future can enjoy Los Gatos.
Part 2: Architecture and site concerns
General:
• Southeastern and eastern borders: Development should be required to construct a
finish wall, for the developer is removing current screening. The eastern fence is not
straight because it is currently built around a tree that going to be removed, and both
fences have ongoing height variations. 150 linear feet of "back fence" not built for
primary public exposure is not appropriate for the neighborhood. (see collage pictures
on page 17 and 18)
• I am concerned about the "upkeep" of the eastern quadrant of the development in
terms of graffiti and landscape maintenance.
• Street lighting is required on the cul-de-sac.
• The neighborhood has requested 5-foot park strips around the cul-de-sac to continue
the existing park strip width on Panorama Way.
• Northern border fences' eastern termination point does not work for my residence.
• Six-foot high fencing on the northern border is not defined in quality, style, or
responsible costs. Why and how was the fence height determined to be 6 feet? The
current open plank fence is 5 feet.
• I request driveway edging on northern border of parcel 2 to minimize water runoff
towards my parcel.
Quality of homes' exterior finishes compared to detail work on adjacent homes.
• Excessive use cf first floor massing to mask the second floor massing.
• Neighborhood harmonization
12~Pa_a
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
• Drainage, drainage, drainage! I believe the Clifford Bechtel and Associates drainage
calculations of April 5, 2010, are dangerously conservative. Calculations are based on an
average of 40% impervious area, which is not the case of the effective drainage area to
my parcel.
• View sheds.
• Noise,
• Privacy.
• Sunlight.
Parcel 2:
• Horne FAR is excessive and does not mitigate issues the development creates.
• Home height (2 stories- with 9'6", 1St floor ceiling height) is excessive and does not
mitigate toward sharing of view sheds
• Home was "ballooned" 800 sq. ft. of non FAR space to mask second floor massing.
• Home northern setback is 8 feet, the minimum per code, but does not mitigate the mass
and position of the home. Homes adjacent to north have 10 and 13 feet side yard
setbacks.
• Home position interferes with backyard views for Panorama/Union immediate
neighborhood.
• Horne has a predominated garage facade
• Home has aset-back that is not compatible with immediate surrounding structures, and
the immediate neighborhood.
• Roof ridges do not mitigate view shed issues. Major roof ridges run east/west and
north/south. Additionally, aesthetically, the roof is too busy for the home size and
surrounding structures.
• 360 degree architecture and finishes do not extend beyond window styles. Cannon
Design Group (CDG) voices the same concerns in their letter of Ntarch 16 and Nlarch 26
of 2010.
13~°age
Neighbor input on 25928 Unioil Avenue
• No use of basements or cellars to minimize above ground massing. Today's building
trades and materials make basements and cellars feasible in like soil drainage
conditions.
Parcel 3
• Home FAR is excessive and does not mitigate issues the development creates.
• Home height (2 stories with 10', ls` floor ceiling height) is excessive and does not
mitigate issues the development creates.
• No use of basements or cellars to n-~ir~irnize above ground massing. Today's building
trades and materials make basements and cellars feasible in like soil drainage
conditions.
• As a condition of approval, eliminate any future swimming pool (which would acerbate
the noise issues).
• Requests:
• 60-day notice and proper involvement of underground utility pull through my utility
easement.
• Professional conduct and respect for myself and property by the landowner and any
contractors, subcontractors, or agents hired for the development.
• Current 15428 Union home be demolished prier to cons*.ructior.
a The sticct safety of P~aiivraiiia v^va''y' is g,ver', top prlCr~ty beC2U5e Cf the n:.'mhor pf yni,inba
children who live on the street.
• No construction parking on the existing Panorama Way street
• Street and residence driveways are not blocked at any time,
14~Pae
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
Addendum 1 Picture Collage
South view from my home
of the development from
my sun porch
South view from my home
of the development from
my back yard
Parcel two front is placed
behind the back plane of
my house.
Addendum 1 Picture Collage
15~Pa~e
(~
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
View of development
from my bedroom
View of development
from my inglenook
:~
Addendum 1 Picture Collage
View of development
from my dining area
16~Page
Neighbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
View of development
from my porch
dew of development
from my kitchen
window
Vew of eastern and
southeast ofdevelop-
mentsection - part of
the future noise corridor
17~Page
Neibhbor input on 15928 Union Avenue
._, ,
Addend-urrr 1 Ficture Collage
Vew of development southeast
comer - hodgepodge of fencing
now hidden -This will all be
exposed bythe development
dew of eastern fence with
height changes and line
changes
dew from future sidewalk of
development slotting of
parcel 2 home behind partial
3 home .
181Page