2010081806 - Exhibit 16Geoff Mitchell
115 Panorama Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Suzanne Davis
Community Development Dept.,
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Subject: 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision and Architectural
Dear Planning Commission members,
R~C~IV~®
MAY 2 7 2010
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
My name is Geoff Mitchell. My family resides at 115 Panorama Way, at the end of the street
where the Union Avenue property being discussed is located. I have repeatedly written and
spoken at public hearings on this topic over the course of the past two years. In the spirit of
being brief and direct, I would like to raise the following points for your consideration.
KEY POINTS
• Based on the Town Codes and Planning Guidelines, the proposed subdivision and
architectural design is unsuitable for this property and the neighborhood of Panorama Way
and Union Avenue. The attached January 2010 letter from our lawyer, Kirsten Powell,
highlights the Town's General Plan, Land Use Goals and Policies, and Government Codes
supporting these findings.
• The prior subdivision application was denied unanimously by the Planning Commission,
and upheld by a Town Council majority vote, due to town code and planning guideline
violations caused by this attempt to fit three lots into a space suited for only two. Nothing in
this revised plan has changed that negates those violations. They still exist in this new
proposal.
• The architectural intensity of the home designs is unacceptable as a continuation of
Panorama Way or Union Avenue. The intensity of the size of the homes and the deviation
from the uniform use of the land violates the Land Use Goal and Town's General Plan (as
detailed in the Kirsten Powell letter as well).
• Although the developer previously eluded to Leewood and Lasuen courts as being part of
the neighborhood, the Town Council clearly stated that the definition of "The Neighborhood"
is that of Union Ave and Panorama Way. (There are no streets or pathways connecting them
with Panorama Way, although traffic exits onto Union Ave no homes sit on Union Ave or
have a Union Ave address, an 8ft fence running the entire length of the property separates
Leewood Court from ?5928 Union Ave. and any homes positioned on this lot will inherit a
Panorama Way or Union Avenue street address.)
ffiIBIT 16
• An historical precedence of the appropriate approach can be found in the directly adjacent
development running between Blossom Hill Road to Cambrian View Way. The shape, size
and orientation of that development to the Blossom Hill Road /Cambrian View Way
neighborhood is identical to the Union Ave property in every way (the Union Ave property is
actually smaller) yet the direction from the Planning Commission was for two single-story
homes, not three two-story homes. The three-lot concept was deemed "not good planning"
by the Planning Commission.
There are numerous other essential points and considerations raised in the lawyer's letter
as well as the many letters and packefs That have been submitted throughout these many
hearings. 1 would ask that you fake the time to carefully review and study them all when
reconsidering this application. They are filled with details and evidence thaf further supports
the conclusion that the appropriate use of this property would be atwo-lot subdivision with
single-story homes.
CLOSING
We are a close knit, tightly integrated and connected neighborhood. We welcome and
embrace the potential development of reasonable scale homes on a two-lot subdivision, in
keeping with the scale and density of our neighborhood.
Please confirm once and for all that this lot is not suitable for any more than two lots and two
single-story houses.
Please let the residents know that you support the interests and concerns of those impacted
for years to come over the short term interests of a developer who will not have to live with
the impact once the homes are completed.
Geoff Mitchell
~Ill~l~l~lll~lij~~~l~ll~~ll~fll~~l~~~~l~ll~~ll~~!
INGMEB
U
m
p WF
N
M R
m~
4pi
N
O
0
e
s~~y
~~y.
yPyyy ~
T~ ~~
~g
~ 1 •-
~
~1yy
IV ~ ~ ~s .1 :.~
~ (n y
O IT ~
'r.
9Rff li~ie X .f0
~ ~. { Ib I$ - C ~ ry3 li. -91ST ~'
~ ~,
~ ~, ;,:
~ ~
ILL f5~ ISB't I~o ISPL(m = la 3 P
• nr - y .P ~ ~ ~_-..._.
~ ~1 o
Ili
~~ ~ ` ~ N..m w •
I ~ x _1S1L_
~'` y
s ` a 1 r
~,
~
.... ; d
- PANORAMA 7NACT'IiE359'7 1 '
WAY
H. ,,, ,,,
b
3
pA,~,
ti ~
r ~
a
a
$
I ~ ' 1
w ~ i a @~-
,~ a
PP
~~ J
I [
a. .n
.vr A
A
~
~'?_ ~ BRIARWODD WAY
1
- M
?~ n R
!0.I ~ ~ q ~ d
]
N ~
d
~ Y 1 a ~ I I
~ ~ I ~
ty ~ y
t ~ M °m ~ _
Ia r.
,
~ Ig ~ @ 1 °w e
~ ~ ~ Ik ~
,,,
~ ~ `
~
---~ ~~ I
V
i~
----
1 Ib an
~;
p
o,
I°a= S O B • PIEDMONT
' s
n ~, CDURT
` '
4
~
Ii1 b ~ gyp
~ Y ~/ 'al I 8~ ~ ~
~ ~
° I I~ hi
i
~
8
~
~
I~ ;! ~ ~ P F ~ I Iq I IP. I l2' F ~ id
u 4
xyw a .n - ac 1
~ ° I u
~
>
^-
• -KENSIN070N -
WAY ~
I
~~
LOGAN & POWELL LLr
ATTORNEYS aT Law
Robert I. Logan, of Counsel
6I East Main Street, Suite C • Los Gatos, California 95030 • Telephone (408) 395-1350 • Fax (408) 395-1354 • E-mail: info@loganpowell.com
Hand Delivered
January 28, 2010
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
Dear Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members:
This office represents residents of Panorama Way, Union Avenue and Cambrian
View in their opposition to the above listed matter. These neighbors remain opposed fo
Phis project and any reconsideration of this Council's denial of this project on November
2, 20D9. The November 2, 2009, decision was the right decision for fhe neighborhood
and the Town of Los Gatos.
With three (3) lots, this project is trying to put too much on too narrow of a parcel.
No matter how the Tots are sliced, it will still be too much on toe narrow of a parcel. As
outlined in more detail below, the project with three (3) lots is inconsistent with the
Town's General Plan and the surrounding neighborhood and therefore, must be denied.
Reconsideration of this project is unnecessary.
Pursuant to Government Code § 66474, the Town Council "shall. deny approval
of a tentative map..." if it makes any of the findings outlined in that section. Given the
facts of this project, the following findings must be made: "(b) That the design or
improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consis#ent with applicable general and
specific plans; (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development;
and (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development."
"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 objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs
specified in such a plan." (Government Code § 66473.5) Due to the density and design
of this three (3) lot subdivision, it is inconsistent with the Land Use Element and the
Community Design Element of the Town's General Pfan. In addition, the narrow parcel
is not physically suited for the development of three (3) lots.
Mllchan, GaoH/COrrMlilWellTam CaunG Ilr 01.29.1 asq
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 2
INCONSISTENCY WITH LAND USE ELEMENT
As you know, the Town prides itself on its small town heritage, natural setting
and architectural diversify. In the Land Use Element of the Town's General Plan, the
Town acknowledges that preserving these attributes is important to this community and
new development should be well-designed to preserve and enhance these attributes.
To that end, the Town has established goals, policies and implementing strategies
which must be followed. The project as proposed is inconsistent with several Land Use
Goals and Policies.
Land Use Goal 3.1 (L.G.3.1) requires the Town "to maintain the existing
character of residential neighborhoods by controlling development." {L.G.3.1) One of the
policies adopted to reach this goal is L.P.3.5 which states "assure that the type and
intensity of land use shall be consistent with that of the immed'€ate neighborhood." As
determined by Phis Council on November 2, 2009, the immediate neighborhood is the
Panorama WaylUnion Avenue neighborhood. The project will be accessed on Union
Avenue and through Panorama Way. The immediate neighborhood is not Leewood
Court because "it is physically separated from the project site by an eight (8) foot
retaining wall and a five (5} foot grade separation." Development consistent with
Panorama Way/Union Avenue should follow the rectilinear orientation and involve only
two (2) lots on that parcel as shown on Exhibit A. This development pattern is
consistent with the development pattern that was approved on a similarly narrow parcel
on Blossom Hill Road as shown on Exhibit B. The developer of that parcel also
requested a Three (3} lot subdivision but was constrained to two (2) lots for these same
reasons. The development pattern of the proposed project with three (3} lots is
inconsistent with the immediate neighborhood.
Another goal outlined in the Town's General Plan is Land Use Goal 2.1 (L.G.2.1)
which requires the Town "to limit the intensity of new development to a level consistent
with surrounding development and with the Town at large." For all of the reasons
previously expressed by the immediate neighbors of this project, approving three (3)
lots on this parcel is not consistent with the intensity of development in the surrounding
neighborhood. As stated above, the immediate neighborhood (Panorama Way and
Union Avenue) is developed in a traditional rectilinear orientation. In order to squeeze
three (3) lots onto this narrow parcel, the developer is forced to orient the lots at angles
to meet the minimum requirements. This change in orientation is contrary to the
development pattern of the neighborhood and should not be approved merely to allow a
developer to maximize his investment. (t is inconsistent with surrounding development.
Mllmell, GeofOCarcrtvtilchell Town Council itr 01.28.t0.eq
_.__. _. - _. __ __. __ _.. _. _. __ - __I
i
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 3
Another policy in the Town' General Plan that is relevant to this project relates to
infill development.1 Although the Planning Commission inferred this was not an infill
project because the land is developed with one residential unit, the policies and goals
are applicable because that one residential unit is proposed to be demolished to make
way for the creation and development of three (3) new lots within an area that is already
largely developed. Therefore, the following policies should also be considered:
1) Land Use Policy 1.7 (L.P.1.7) provides "In-fill projects shall contribute to the
further development of the surrounding neighborhood (e.g. improve circulation,
contribute to or provide neighborhood unity, eliminate a blighted area, not detract
from the existing quality of life)."
2) Land Use Policy 1.8 (L.P.1.8) provides "In-fill projects shall be designed in
context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the
existing scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather
than compete with the established character of the area."
The strategies to implement these policies include:
"L.1.1.3. In-fill project/Community Benefit: Applicants for in-fill projects shall
demonstrate that the project has a strong community benefit."
"L.1.1.4. In-fill projecf/Community Benefit: The deciding body shall make specific
findings of community benefit before approving any in-fill project."
As staled repeatedly by the neighbors, this project with three (3} lots is not
designed in context with the surrounding neighborhood. Cramming three (3) lots onto
this narrow parcel does not create any community benefit.
INCONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY DESIGN ELEMENT
The Town's General Plan includes a Community Design Element which is
intended to protect the unique characteristics that define the Town. To do so, the
element includes a goal "to preserve and enhance the Town's character through
exceptional community design." (CD.G.1.1) The policies to reach this goal include
"avoid abrupt changes in scale and density" (CD.P.1.5) and "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." (CD.P.1,7) Forcing
three (3) lots onto this narrow parcel results in an abrupt change in scale and density
~ The General Plan defines Infill Development as "Development of vacant land (usually individual lots or
left-over properties) within areas that are already largely developed.
MilU~ell, GeoWCortrtAitchell Town Counal Itr07.2ltJ0sq
Honorable Mayor and Town Council Members
Re: Reconsideration of 15928 Union Avenue Subdivision;
M-08-13, ND-09-02
January 28, 2010
Page 4
and breaks the established rhythm and pattern of the Panorama WaylUnion Avenue
neighborhood. Any three (3) lot subdivision is inconsistent with the Town's Community
Design Element of its General Plan and therefore, must be denied.
Any development proposal on this parcel that provides for the creation of three
(3) lots will be inconsistent with the Town's General Plan. No further consideration of
this project is necessary as long as the developer is proposing the creation of three (3)
lots. The narrow parcel is not physically suitable for the creation of three (3) lofs. The
creation of three (3) lots is inconsistent with the surrounding neighborhood. These
findings will not change. Therefore, this subdivision or any subdivision creating three (3)
lots on this parcel cannot be approved. This project should be denied on February 1,
2010. Thank you for your consideration.
Very truly yours,
C~ ~~ .
Kirsten M. Powell
KMP:sq
enclosures
cc: client
Michael Martello, Interim Town Aftorney
Suzanne Davis, Project Planner
~~1 ~
Mitchell, Geoff/GwtlMitcheli Town Council Itr05.28.10sq
Exhibit A
Ex11~it ~'
Page ~ of
Exhibit B
p
5 ~.~rw
t ~ ap
i
~n , I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ 1b A
)r„5~ ~ ~ ~~~N i ,,,~; j~ eft ~ jf.,,, i,~+_i i ar. n 1
Y1 ~r i 11/M ~~ ~ '11 4
fff111111 (.-/F~-Y'-"/1 9RSARW000 Y. VtAY -~,~
DETAIL VIEW AND CALCULATION OF SQ FT ON THE~UNION AVE AND BLOSSOM HILL LOTS USING THE
1998 TRACT DIAGRAM FROM THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE
bit `~
page 1 or..~
~~
~ ~
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank