2010081806 - Exhibit 18
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 45032
john Schwazz
104 Panorama Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408)623-1595
May 27, 2010
~~~~d~~~
MAl' 2 7 2010
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
RE: RECONSIDERATION OF THE 15928 UNION AVENUE
SUBDIVISION PROJECT
Application #M-08-04 and ND-09-02
Deaz Members of the Town Planning Commission:
Thank you for your time in reviewing dus proposed Subdivision (again} and for considering my
input. I also want to thank Staff for their time and patience with this matter. As you know, there
has been much prior correspondence on this project, and with that in mind, I would like to briefly
summarize and provide some additional thoughts on the following main points:
l) The revised Subdivision design is still not compatible with adjacent uses;
2} The same Subdivision Map Act Findings apply to this incarnation of the project, and
3) The project has been segmented and the CEQA documentation is not adequate.
1 would like to hereby incorporate by reference, the comments that I and my neighbors have
made in prior correspondence and testimony on this project.
1. Revised Subdivision Still Not Compatible with Adjacent Uses
There has been much testimony at the prior hearings regazding the fact that the 15928 Union
Avenue pazcel mirrors the original pazcels immediately to the north, and that the proposed three-
lot Subdivision is not compatible with the adjacent uses which make up the true "neighborhood"
for this site. Although the "flag lot" line from the prior Subdivision has been redrawn slightly,
the "new" Subdivision layout is still very similar to the grior incamation, and for the same
reasons outlined previously, the intensity of the proposed development it is not compatible with
the neighborhood.
2. Subdivision Map Act Findings
The applicant has indicated that the Town cannot make any of the negative findings in the
Subdivision Map Ack, and therefore, cannot deny the proposed Subdivision. This is simply not
true. Section 66474 (Chapter 4. Requirements, Article 1. General) of the Subdivision Map Act
specifically states that:
ffiIBIT 18
Letter to the Tawn Planning Conmrission
Reconsiderotion oj/5928 Union Ave. Subdivision
May 27, 20/0
Page 2 oj4
66474. A legislative bodv of a city or county shall denv approval of a tentative map, or a
parcel rnap for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following
findings: (emphasis added)
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as
specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That thz site is not physically suitable for the type of development.
(d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of develapntent.
(e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
stehstantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious
public health problems....
(Amended by Stars. 1982, Ch. 518.)
The Subdivision Map Act Findings above are subjective, and the decision regarding whether
they apply to this project is yours. As long as the Town's decision is based on and supported by
evidence in the administrative record, your decision to deny is ]egal and appropriate. It is not the
Town's job to rescue the applicant from a bad investment.
As several of us have outlined in our correspondence with the Town, and as you can see if you
review the deliberations at the prior Planning Commission and Town Council hearings, the Town
denied the previous Subdivision on the basis of items b), c), and d) above. The Planning
Commission unanimously agreed last yeaz that Subsection (c) and (d) above applied to the prior
incarnation of this project, and these same findings still apply to the latest Subdivision layout.
3. CEQA Review Has Been Seemented and Documentation Not Adequate
As I have mentioned in the past, I do appreciate Staff s and the consultant's time in preparing the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). However, given the change in the
project scope (the project now also includes Architecture and Site [A&S] approval on two lots,
and does not propose demolition of the existing house), the CEQA documentation completed for
this project is not adequate in accordance with CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and relevant case
law.
CEQA very specifically requires the consideration of the "whole of an action" [see CEQA
Guidelines Sections I5163(a)(l), 15126, and 15378]. CEQA does not allow segmenting or
"piecemealing" the project into parts, so as to avoid analyzing and disclosing all of the
environmental impacts of a project [see Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of
Ventura County and Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County of
Inyo]. According to the Citizens Association for Sensible Development of Bishop Area v. County
of Inyo case:
Letter to the Tmvn Planning Commission
Reconsideration ofl5928 Union Ave. Subdivision
May 27, 20/0
Page 3 of 4
"Project means the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a physical
change in the environment, directly or ultimately... The term project refers to the
activity which is being approved and which maybe subject to several discretionary
approvals by governmental agencies. The term project' does not mean each separate
governmental approval... Where the lead agency could describe the project... as a
development proposal which will be subjecl to several governmental approvals...the lead
agency shall describe the project as the development proposal for the purpose of
environmental analysis. "
The Town's Initial Study/Mitigated Negakive Declazation was prepared for the prior incarnation
of the Subdivision project in 7uly 2004. The IS/MND has not been revised to address the new
Subdivision layout, and it has not been expanded to address the specifics of the A&S approvals
or the implications of leaving the existing residence in place on the site. Page 1 and 2 of the
Town's prior IS/MND describe the project as only including the proposed Subdivision and
demolition of the existing house. Page 2 specifically says: "The project application does not
include specific development designs for homes on the proposed lots. Specific development
designs on the proposed lots would be evaluated at a later phase of prof ect planning, as part of
the A&S approval process." Similarly, the Staff s responses to the public comments on the
TS/MND state that the land use compatibility as well as the aesthekics/view impacts of the future
homes "...will be evaluated as part of Architecture and Site review when specific building
designs are proposed."
Now, the applicant has changed the project, and is actually seeking A&S approval for houses on
two of the lots. However, the site specific implications of these houses and their designs have
never been evaluated under CEQA (and if any additional analysis has been done, it has not been
circulated to the public for review). in fact, the Initial Study calls for and promises such further
evaluation, but it has not been completed. Therefore, there is no CEQA cleazance for the houses,
and the Town has no ability to approve the A&S for any of the houses on this site.
Additionally, it is project segmentation and piecemealing under CEQA to only evaluate some of
the proposed and necessary discretionary actions on this site in the Initial Study. The whole
"project" which needs to be evaluated comprehensively in one public CEQA document includes
all of the following: 1) the currently proposed Subdivision; 2) A&S for all 3 proposed houses; 3)
impacts from the eventual demolition of the existing residence; 4) a discussion and analysis of
the proposed construction phasing and timing of buildout; and 5) analysis of the implications for
the site design and project construction if the existing home remains indefinitely.
Letter to the Town Planning Commission
Reconsideration of 15928 Union ~1ve. Subdivision
May 27, 20 t d
Page 4 of4
I respectfully request that you uphold the prior land use decision on this site and deny the
proposed Subdivision on the same grounds of the Subdivision Map Act Findings. In any case,
the environmental review documents need to be augmented and recirculated to address the entire
project as currently proposed.
You may reach me any time at the phone number above if you have questions about this letter.
Thank you again for your time and for considering my input on this project.
Best regazds, ,
Ji' ohn Schwar/~fz~
cc: Suzanne Davis, Planning Department, Town of Los Gatos
Geoff and Linda Mitchell, 115 Panorama Way
Ian Esche and Golida van Haeringen, 167 Panorama Way
Greg and Cecilia Holmberg, 103 Panorama Way
Jeff and Terry Hickey, 100 Panorama Way
Mike Brown, 108 Panorama Way
Thomas Mangano, 116 Panorama Way
June 1, 2010
Members of the Town of Los Gatos
Planning Commission
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Re: Reconsideration of the 15928 Union Avenue subdivision
and architeetural and site application.
Dear, Planning Commission;
JUPIL-'Zt)j0
TOW N OF LOS GATO$
PLANNING DIVISIOt~I
We are Paul >f<Jane De Bella, Las Gatos residents and property owners at 118
Cambrian View Way. Our property is the single story home adjacentto the proposed
subdivision, located on the East border.
We are in favor in having the 15928 Union Ave. property developed, but we are
opposed to the plans of having the property subdivided into three parce{s with (2),
two story homes built on the site.
First; we both think the two story homes do not fit with our immediate neighborhood
and if allowed it would have an intense irreversible negative impact to our current
neighborhood charm.
Frain our property we probably have one the best views in our neighborhood of the
Los Gatosi Saratoga Nilis. Judging from the current story poles of the proposed
subdivision, whieh depiets the building sites elevations, our current view of the hills
from our property will be lost #or good.
We believe the majority of our neighbors would support a plan of a two parcel
subdivision with two single story homes.
So, we respeetfully ask the Commission to please consider the rights of the existing
residents of Los Gatos. Please, do not let the monetary gains of some, to sway your
decision in doing the right thing for the citizens of Los Gatos.
Thanks for your consideration in this matter.
Paul J. De Bella
Jane De Bella
EffiIBIT 19
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
15928 Union Avenue
r
3
r A
0
3 3
~
~w m
R °z
z
o
_
LASUEN CT
LEEWOOD CT
BLOSSOM HI LL RD
a
Q
H
a:
~
.
ffiIBIT 20
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank