Attachment 2 - September 14, 2016 Planning
1
A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
Los Gatos Planning Commissioners:
Mary Badame, Chair D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair Kendra Burch Melanie Hanssen Matthew Hudes Tom O’Donnell
7
Town Manager:
Laurel Prevetti
8
Community Development Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney:
Robert Schultz
Transcribed by:
Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337-1558
3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ATTACHMENT 2 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 1
1 2
P R O C E E D I N G S:
3
CHAIR BADAME:
4
Item 4, 105 Newell Avenue. Planned
5
Development Application PD-14-002. Mitigated Negative
6
Declaration ND-16-002. Requesting approval of a Planned
7
Development to rezone a property from R-1:12 to R-1:12:PD,
8
to demolish an existing building, and construct four
9
single-family residences on property zoned R-1:12. APN 409-
10 11 12 13
24-026. May I have a show of hands from the Commissioners who have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from Commissioners?
14
We’re still gathering speaker cards, so I’ll give 15
it a moment before we’re ready to receive a Staff Report. 16 17 18 19 20
Thank you for the speaker cards. Ms. Armer, I understand that you’ll be providing us with a Staff Report this evening. JENNIFER ARMER:
Yes, good evening. Good evening,
21
Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. The project in front of
22
you this evening is a proposal for four new homes on the
23
site currently occupied by the Elks Lodge. The site is at
24
the corner of Newell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. The
25
project site is a sloped corner lot of approximately 1.4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 2
1
acres with residential on two sides and the aforementioned
2
streets on the other two.
3 4 5 6
The four proposed homes would be two stories, and two of them have alternative floor plans, which include kind of an in-law unit, a secondary dwelling unit, as a possibility. The proposed Planned Development zone would
7
include numerous exceptions to the underlying R-1:12 zoning 8 9 10 11
regulations. The proposal to redevelop the site was first seen by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee on
12
December 11, 2013. At that point there were two different
13
proposals that were included. One of them was 11 attached
14
residential condo units; the other was five single-family
15
residential units. One of the primary elements that the
16
Applicant heard at that meeting was a concern over the
17
density and intensity of the uses that were proposed, and
18
so they decided to go for the single-family residential
19 20 21
version or idea for redevelopment, and they went from five units down to four. The application was submitted approximately six
22
months later in July 2014, and then over the following year 23
they had five different Staff technical review meetings, 24 25
coming back to work with Town Staff over technical issues and resubmittals. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 3
1
In the middle of that process there was also
2
review by the Town’s architectural consultant and the
3
Town’s arborist. Both provided review in February 2015, so
4
that was about six months after the formal submittal.
5 6
Their final Staff technical review was actually last July, at which point even though there were still some
7
unresolved technical issues the Applicant decided that they 8 9 10 11
wished to move forward with the review, and with advice from Staff they did decide to conduct the environmental review so that there was an opportunity to have a decision
12
rather than having the application reverted back to Staff
13
for environmental review. A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
14 15
Declaration was prepared in the first half of this year,
16
was available for public review from June 17th to July 7th of
17
2016, and is now before you along with the proposed PD
18
zone.
19 20 21
Staff’s concerns are still detailed in the Staff Report. There are a number of different concerns; the main ones fall into three categories.
22
The first being details that are left unresolved 23
from the Staff reviews. Issues like the height measurement 24 25
in Lot 4 that was done incorrectly was shown different, and these are items that could potentially be addressed through LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 4
1
the Planned Development, through specific exceptions, or
2
through the Architecture and Site review process.
3 4 5 6
The second category of main concern is the grading and retaining walls that are proposed; the depth of the cut and fill; and noncompliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines that do apply certain categories,
7
including the grading section of those guidelines, to apply 8 9 10 11
to this lot, because it is a greater than 10% slope. Also, that includes a section that discusses maintaining the existing landform where the proposal goes a pretty far way
12
in trying to create flat parcels for the four proposed
13
houses.
14
The third category that is of concern for Staff
15
is neighborhood compatibility, both the proposed two-story
16
character of the homes, which is out of character with the
17
immediate neighborhood as well as the floor area, and the
18
total proposed square footage of the homes, which is
19 20 21
significantly larger than the next largest home in the existing immediate neighborhood. Based on these concerns, as well as those
22
included in the written Staff Report, Staff recommends that 23
the Commission forward the Planned Development application 24 25
to the Town Council with a recommendation for denial.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 5
1 2
This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be happy to answer any questions.
3 4
CHAIR BADAME:
Armer. Questions for Staff? Commissioner Hanssen.
5 6
Thank you for the report, Ms.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Thank you for your report.
I had a couple of quick questions.
7
One of the guidelines for approving the current 8 9 10 11
Planned Development, not the ordinance that we’re hopefully revising but it’s not approved yet, is to take into consideration open space. My question is how much open
12
space is there now? I actually used to run on that lot, we
13
did hill running, but it’s a parking lot. With the Elks
14
Lodge, how much open space is there now, and how much would
15
there be with the proposal, as we know it?
16
JENNIFER ARMER:
I’m going to recommend that we
17
take that question to the Applicant when they have the
18
opportunity to speak, but beyond the front yards and the
19 20 21
private driveway there isn’t a whole lot of open space that’s proposed. The existing site is predominantly the single building and the parking lot as well.
22
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Okay, so we can come back
23
to that. 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 6
1
A second question; it’s quick as well. Have we
2
ever allowed a Planned Development with this level of
3
grading, of cut and fill, flattening the hill, basically?
4 5 6
JOEL PAULSON:
I think it’s a distinction between
quantity, so there’s probably many that have had similar quantities, depths of cut and fill. Since the new Hillside
7
Development Standards and Guidelines were adopted, probably 8 9 10 11
not, but quantity, I’m sure that we’ve had projects that have had the quantity of cut and fill that this project would propose. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
12 13
The volume of yards, okay.
Then last question, is the Town Arborist here tonight?
14
JOEL PAULSON:
They are not.
15
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Because my question was
16
when I was reading her report she only recommended to keep
17
one tree, but her recommendation was based on construction
18
impacts, and this isn’t approved as a Planned Development
19 20 21
or as an Architecture and Site Application, so I would have wanted to know what trees she would have wanted to save, period, versus with construction? If we have all our
22
questions answered, maybe there’s a way to get the answer 23
later. 24 25
JOEL PAULSON:
One option there is obviously
you’ll be making a recommendation moving forward to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 7
1
Council. When you decide to make that recommendation,
2
should that happen this evening, then that would be
3
direction and we can get that answer prior to the Council
4 5 6
taking a final action. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you.
Commissioner Birch followed by
7
Commissioner Hudes followed by Vice Chair Kane. 8 9 10 11
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
Thank you so much for the
detailed Staff Report, so I’m going to apologize; I’m about to ask a redundant question. Just for the sake of
12
conversation, one of the things that you noted at first was
13
there were a number of exemptions that we’re asking for.
14
Can you list those out for us?
15
JENNIFER ARMER:
Sure. Part of the list of
16
exceptions is based on things that they are specifically
17
asking for, and some are based on things that were left
18
unresolved from the Staff technical meetings and therefore
19 20 21
were incorporated here, because that is what’s being proposed in the current set of plans. The Planned Development section of your Staff
22
Report, page 13, exceptions would include reduced lot 23
depth, exceeding the maximum allowed floor area, exceeding 24 25
the maximum cut and fill depths, no sidewalks on private
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 8
1
streets, maximum height, and encroachment of eaves into
2
setbacks.
3
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
4
CHAIR BADAME:
5 6
Thank you.
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
I had a couple process
questions for Staff. Commissioner Hanssen alluded to this,
7
this is being we’re asked to make a recommendation to 8 9 10
Council on this and it’s under the current Planned Development Ordinance, correct? JENNIFER ARMER:
11 12 13
Correct, because it would be a
rezoning. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Should the recommendation
14
from Planning Commission be to deny, is there any point at
15
which the new ordinance might come to play on this
16
particular application?
17
JOEL PAULSON:
18 19 20 21
It would not, because the
application has been deemed complete prior. Depending on the action of Council, they may remand it back to Planning Commission, or they may deny it, in which case a new application would have to be filed, so the new ordinance
22
may have caught up by then. 23
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
So that would trigger off of
24 25
the Council’s action, not this body’s action? JOEL PAULSON:
Correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 9
1
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
The other question I had,
2
because I haven’t seen Planned Developments myself before,
3
is it normal to have two designs come before the Planning
4
Commission? It seems there is an alternate design.
5 6
JOEL PAULSON:
I will just offer that they’re
proposing options, and we have had Planned Developments in
7
the past with options. One that pops into my mind is the 8 9 10 11 12
old McHugh site where currently the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is at Los Gatos Boulevard and Gateway. They had two different site layouts and designs for that proposal when it came through. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
13
Then within regard to CDAC,
14
since the discussion with CDAC was a very broad set of
15
options ranging from condominiums to five single-family
16
homes, is there any circumstance where this would go back
17
to CDAC?
18 19 20 21
JENNIFER ARMER:
The advice from CDAC is
generally something that’s done at the beginning of the process to give some direction and sense of concerns for a project before it’s begun. Once it gets to this point,
22
unless they were proposing a totally different project, no, 23
it would not return. 24 25
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Thank you. That’s all I had.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 10
1 2 3 4 5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Vice Chair Kane, did you still
have a question? VICE CHAIR KANE:
Thank you for an excellent
report and the written Staff Report; comprehensive can make our job easier. What doesn’t make my job easier is the excessive
7
detailed bioengineering, all of the things that go into a 8 9 10 11
Mitigated Negative Declaration. We can do this off record, but maybe somebody else is interested. I have three of them, and they’re all terribly detailed, and what they’re
12
essentially designed to do in about 15 different categories
13
is say it’s something potentially bad about this project,
14
and it comes in different response categories. Yes, it’s
15
very bad. No, it’s not that bad. Well, it’s kind of bad,
16
but we can fix it with mitigation. All of the standard
17
categories are treated that way.
18 19 20 21
A simple education in two points. One, why do we have three of them? I know they’re sequential and I expect they’re a response to each other, but I couldn’t find clear responses or clear revisions that something said in the
22
first one had to be fixed by the second one that had to be 23
fixed by the third one. It (inaudible) the issue, and a lot 24 25
of them are very, very objective on soils and noise and emissions, but there was a subjective one, and I don't know LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 11
1
that I’m going to put my finger right on it; maybe I can.
2
This is page 46 of the report dated May 31st, revised final,
3
July; they’re both 2016.
4 5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Vice Chair Kane, is there an
exhibit number so we can be sure we’re looking at the same one? I have Exhibit 13.
7
JOEL PAULSON:
Exhibit 13.
8
VICE CHAIR KANE:
9 10 11 12 13
It’s Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 30.
Sorry about that. Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 30, and I don’t know, I guess this was one of the originals we received, May 31st. They’re good, they’re comprehensive, they’re
14
scientific, they’re engineering, and all of this clearly
15
has to be done. When we get to the subjective portion on
16
zoning, and does the project comply with ordinances and
17
standards and guidelines, this particular one, the one I
18
mentioned, May 31, 2016, revised July 2016, says, “The
19 20 21
proposed project would not conflict with any existing land use plan or policy, therefore no impacts have been identified,” and yet in your excellent Staff Report, Ms.
22
Armer, you pointed out a number of issues that 23
argumentatively may not be consistent with our policies and 24 25
may have impact. I’m not a professional. How do I reconcile
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 12
1
those two things, and I guess really what should I be doing
2
with these three reports?
3
JENNIFER ARMER:
4 5 6
I’m going to start with a few
clarifications. I believe you should have two reports, so number three maybe you borrowed one from your neighbors, but there was a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
7
Declaration that was prepared, and then the consultant this 8 9 10 11
time decided to prepare a revision to that, so that’s what you’re looking at right now. There were only minor changes, but they were done in tract changes so you can see where
12
those were throughout the document, and that was just some
13
minor changes in response to comments, so there should be
14
two documents that you have in your materials for the
15
project tonight.
16
Your question about the environmental document
17
and its comments on land use, I’m going to let Joel add to
18
this if he has anything, but I’ll just start by saying that
19 20 21
the environmental document and CEQA have a very specific set of parameters for what it looks at, and so the proposal for residential in this location does comply with the
22
General Plan. It is generally the type of use that is 23
appropriate by our land use regulations, so this view that 24 25
CEQA takes is a much higher level view in terms of those predefined categories by the state. The environmental LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 13
1
consultant found that this project did not have any
2
significant impacts and that the potential impacts could be
3
mitigated; that that is the conclusion that they and their
4 5 6
consulting experts came to. However, you now have the opportunity to look more at a more detailed rather than the 30,000 feet level
7
review to look at the specifics of what is being proposed 8 9 10 11
for this PD zone and how it works with our more detailed requirements. VICE CHAIR KANE:
It may not follow CEQA
12
requirements or Town standards, but I was thinking of when
13
they provide the Initial Study, if there’s a Final Study to
14
come back—and don’t tell me it’s in here, because I’ll be
15
embarrassed—an executive summary of what in fact was
16
changed on the part of further review or the Applicant
17
would be extremely helpful.
18 19 20 21
I now confess, because I’d better do it, so overwhelmed was I that the third additional study is from a different project. Nobody’s perfect, but thank you for your explanation.
22
The broader view, they did not see potentially 23
significant issues when they clarified meeting General 24 25
Plans and Policies, such as there are no impacts. It’s a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 14
1
broad statement, and then I should look to the Staff Report
2
for more specific guidance?
3 4 5 6
JENNIFER ARMER:
Correct, and I would add that in
your review of the project and the changes that were made to the environmental document, I would recommend looking at the Response to Comments, which is Exhibit 12, which does
7
have copies of the comments that were received on the 8 9 10 11 12
environmental document. It has a specific response to each of those comments as well as a reference to what changes, if any, and where they were made within the environmental document.
13
VICE CHAIR KANE:
14
CHAIR BADAME:
15
VICE CHAIR KANE:
16
Any further questions for Staff?
CHAIR BADAME:
18
VICE CHAIR KANE:
20 21
I may have. I thought somebody
would.
17
19
Thank you.
No, go ahead. The CDAC minutes that were
provided, for which I thank you, is there anything broader than that, or is that the representation of the 2013 meeting of the CDAC?
22
JENNIFER ARMER:
That is what is available, and
23
what was approved and adopted by the CDAC at their 24 25
following meeting.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 15
1
VICE CHAIR KANE:
As I read them, a number of
2
recommendations, 14 or 15, were made. Is it a fair question
3
to ask whether or not you know in providing the Staff
4 5 6
Report, was attention given to those 14 suggestions, or is that not the job of the CDAC, but to provide general guidance?
7
JENNIFER ARMER:
My understanding of the job of
8 9 10 11
the CDAC is to give general comments and response, general impressions to preliminary proposals to provide some sense for the Applicant of what type of project might be
12
appropriate on their site. The Applicant then has the
13
responsibility to take those comments and move forward in
14
the way that they feel is appropriate.
15
VICE CHAIR KANE:
So whether or not any attention
16
was given to any of those recommendations would essentially
17
not be germane, because they were general guidance?
18 19 20 21
JENNIFER ARMER:
It is general guidance, and it
is up to the Applicant to choose how to proceed based on the opinions that were shared at that hearing, and it is up to them to respond to any questions that you have as follow
22
up to that. 23
VICE CHAIR KANE:
One final question, if I may?
24 25
CHAIR BADAME:
Yes, Vice Chair.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 16
1
VICE CHAIR KANE:
Inside the report, when they
2
met in 2013 there was a Plan A and a Plan B. A was houses
3
and B was condos, loosely construed. I believe the
4 5 6
Applicant in one of the documents made the statement that the condos were laid by the wayside, because CDAC did not express favor for them, which I didn’t necessarily find in
7
the document itself, but also because there was strenuous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
opposition from the neighbors. Do we have anything at this point that would document that opposition, letters or memories from 2013? JENNIFER ARMER:
I do not, since I was not staff
here for the Town at that time. JOEL PAULSON:
You’ll hear from a number of
15
members of the public in the neighborhood, and so you’ll
16
probably receive a response to that.
17
VICE CHAIR KANE:
18 19 20 21
I thought the statement was
important; I wondered if we could substantiate it, that’s all. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME:
All right, before we open the
public portion of the hearing, we are going to take a ten-
22
minute recess. 23
(INTERMISSION) 24 25
CHAIR BADAME:
We are back from break and ready
to open the public portion of the hearing. The Applicant is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 17
1
at the podium. If you could please state your name and
2
address for the record, and if you have not filled out a
3
speaker card, I will need one. You have ten minutes to
4 5 6
address the Commission. KURT ANDERSON:
I told him; he didn’t believe me.
My name is Kurt Anderson, associate architect with Camargo
7
& Associates. My office address is 120 West Campbell Avenue 8 9 10 11
in Campbell. Madam Chair and Members of the Commissioner, we are really, really glad to be here. as you can tell by
12
Jennifer’s report, it’s been a long time to get to this
13
point, and we want to take this moment to thank the Staff.
14
Jennifer, that was a fantastic report; you did a
15
really great job summarizing your report. Thank you very
16
much for that. And I want to thank all the neighbors that
17
we’ve had a kazillion meetings with. Many of them are here
18
in the audience, and we appreciate your time being here and
19 20 21
supporting the project, we hope. Without further ado, let’s run through a quick presentation. Jennifer took a little of the thunder out of
22
my sails, because she did such a great job, but let’s go 23
through this quickly just to bring you back up to speed. 24 25
Jennifer, which way do I go, to the right?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 18
1
Here is a rendering of the proposed project. As
2
you can tell, on the lower left is the intersection of
3
Newell and Winchester. This is what we are proposing
4
tonight.
5 6
This is where we started. This is what we presented to CDAC. We had five single-family homes on the
7
left, then we have the condominium on the right. Based on 8 9 10 11 12
CDAC’s comments we immediately met with the neighborhood, and I will tell you that the neighbors were adamantly opposed to five homes and the condos, and they can address that when they come up and do their presentation.
13
So we came back and we looked at doing a couple
14
of different configurations on a four-lot subdivision. We
15
had always planned to do a PD approach, because the
16
configuration of this parcel, the slope, the size, the
17
location, it really works using a PD approach to this
18
project under what’s allowed under the General Plan and by
19 20 21
the Town. On the left, you see that was a flat lot subdivision. This wasn’t going to work, because we couldn’t
22
get a fire truck turnaround, so we didn’t do that one. 23
The one on the right is a full city street with a 24 25
cul de sac, and you can see at least minimal area for development for the homes. That is an aerial view looking LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 19
1
down at the corner, and so this would actually be looking
2
at the southwest corner and you can see the access right
3
here. You notice when you’re out at the site that this is a
4 5 6
very dangerous situation, and I could tell you for a fact that I used to live on La Montagne Court, I owned a home over there for years and years and years, so I’m very
7
familiar with this site. 8 9 10 11
This corner right here, you’ll see as we get further through this process that we have relocated this entry further up Newell, which we think in our opinion
12
really increases the safety factor at that corner, because
13
especially when they had events with all the people coming
14
out of there that was a major issue, especially with the
15
increased traffic from Netflix and other commercial
16
development down the street on Winchester.
17
So here is our proposal. We have Lot 1, Lot 2,
18
Lot 3, and Lot 4. In this proposal what we’ve done is we
19 20 21
have elevated this area here, and it has a lot to do with the relationship of getting the street from this point here up to the parcel so we could access into the garages on the
22
site. The only reason that we’ve got the site configured 23
this way is because this is an extremely busy commercial 24 25
street and we did not want to have those houses, the private space, the rear yards right here, being at street LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 20
1
level from a noise standpoint, and also from a safety
2
standpoint, people coming through this intersection, losing
3
control, coming down the street. By getting these houses
4 5 6
up, we’re protecting the inhabitants of those residences. This is the current condition. There’s that retaining wall along Winchester. This will look at it from
7
Lark Avenue. That’s the existing structure. You can see the 8 9 10 11 12
orange netting here depicting the forms of the homes. This rail right here is backing right up on the parking lot that is on that building. There’s another shot of that street. And that is what it looks like with the homes
13
that we’ve proposed. You can see how the back yards have
14
been elevated through grading retaining walls. This is
15
additional fencing here. We can create layers of landscape
16
along the side to soften the structures to make it a very,
17
very attractive development to that corner.
18 19 20 21
As you know, that corner right now is just basically a sea of asphalt. This is looking at it from, again, the southwest. There’s that intersection we were talking about. You can see, this whole parcel, this 1.3
22
acres, is primarily roof and asphalt. It’s basically 23
impervious coverage. 24 25
Now, you know dealing with the new C.3 regulations we have in the State of California that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 21
1
impervious coverage is to be minimized, because you have to
2
be concerned about the runoff that goes into our bay and
3
into our groundwater and contaminates it. One of the things
4 5 6
that we’re doing with this project—there’s another picture of it—is we are getting rid of all of that asphalt and we’re turning it into landscape.
7
We have a smaller street that we’re proposing 8 9 10 11
here, and you can see as you go up Newell and up the hill that this access point right here is about probably 7-8’ above this corner right here, and that slopes up to the
12
site. There it is with superimposed landscaping. There’s
13
another shot looking directly up the drive from Newell to
14
the four parcels. You can see how it’s terraced up the hill
15
and then it conforms to the rest of the slope of that
16
existing street.
17 18 19 20 21
If you really think back about that area, if you really look at that slope, that whole hill that went down to Lark Avenue, Winchester was cut into that hill. That’s why the Town constructed the retaining walls along Winchester over on that side back here. So we’re getting
22
back more in conformance with the original contours. 23
Here’s the plan. Winchester, Newell. Here’s our 24 25
access drive. We’ve got garages here, here, here and here. Here’s our fire truck turnaround, with the requirements of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 22
1
Central Fire. We’ve got some on-street parking here, and as
2
mentioned in Jennifer’s report, we do have a sidewalk here,
3
and we do have a sidewalk here.
4 5 6
Now, a lot of these things that we feel that were expressed in the report, these technical nuances I want to call them, we know those need to be resolved. We’re here in
7
front of the Planning Commission because we want you to 8 9 10 11
recommend approval to the Council to convert this to a PD Residential zoning so we’ve got affirmation that we’re going in the right direction, and then we’ll continue to
12
expend the time and the energy to work with Staff to get
13
all the technical nuances and exceptions minimized as we go
14
through the process, through Architecture and Site review.
15
We’ve spent a lot of time and a lot of money to
16
this point, three years, and we still don’t know whether or
17
not the Commission or the Council want to see a residential
18
development. Jennifer said it great in her report: We’re in
19 20 21
conformance with the General Plan, and we’re in conformance with the zoning. This really is a residential site. Right now it’s a nonconforming commercial use. We want to get
22
this back to what it’s supposed to be according to the 23
General Plan and the zoning. 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 23
1
This Conventional Subdivision, you can see we’ve
2
got 60’ diameter bulb, width 40’, street parking, lot sizes
3
less than 10,000, on and on and on.
4 5 6
In this under Planned Development. We’re going to build and construct that road, and we’re going to maintain it so there is no cost to the Town. From Newell up, that
7
will be part of the development. They have to maintain the 8 9 10 11 12
infrastructure, storm, water, sewer, all those things, so that cost will go to those homes and not to the Town, thereby not further burdening the tax base. Part of this right here is when our clients
13
purchased this property one of the things they looked at
14
was the whole neighborhood, and they looked at La Montagne
15
Court—I used to live right here, the house that you see—and
16
this here is only one parcel away, so when we looked at
17
this we felt that was in the immediate neighborhood, that
18
this was comparable to the design of La Montagne.
19 20 21
We have statistics that we can share with you— I’ll let Maurice do that—in regard to the house sizes for that. But you’ll see on the next site, there’s La Montagne,
22
and there are the homes’ sizes that you can read as they 23
come up. You can see they go from 3,960, 4,000, and 4,248; 24 25
there are a whole variety of sizes there. These other parcels back here are homes that have been renovated and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 24
1
expanded. Now, currently the rest of the subdivision are
2
not this large, because they’re still the single-family
3
ranch-style homes, 2,500 square feet, that…
4
Madam Chair, may I keep going?
5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Yes, you have 30 seconds
remaining.
7
KURT ANDERSON:
Why don’t I just cease and I’ll
8 9 10 11
do my closing comments at the end? Because I can’t do much with 18 seconds left. Okay? CHAIR BADAME:
Okay. All right, thank you for
12
your presentation. Do Commissioners have questions for the
13
Applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much.
14 15 16
I will now invite comments from members of the public. Our first speaker will be Liat Perlman. LIAT PERLMAN:
Good evening, I live at 183 Newell
17
Avenue, which buttresses against I think Lot 3, and I’m
18
very much in support of this development. I think it’s a
19 20 21
very reasonable plan, not overusing the piece of property. The property at 183 has also got quite a significant cut and fill, probably more of a cut than a fill, but that goes
22
back to the 1960s when the house was originally built. I’ve 23
noted the delta of use on this property, and given its size 24 25
it seems appropriate.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 25
1
In addition, I think it has a really good fill
2
for the space in terms of keeping with the property and the
3
community. It doesn’t exceed the La Montagne type of
4 5 6
development, which is nearby, and although I think that what are considered the most relevant houses are small in nature, my comparison to some of these houses, if somebody
7
was to apply for a remodel and add some square footage, we 8 9
would be at about the same. Given where we’re at in the neighborhood today, I
10 11
welcome this. My family has lived here for 40 years and I’m
12
representing the household, and we all welcome this
13
development. We can’t wait for the work to begin, and I’m
14
hoping there won’t be too many holdups in terms of that.
15
This is a space that needs to be filled in and basically
16
utilized in keeping with the nature of the development of
17
the area. Thank you.
18 19 20 21
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, Ms. Perlman, and don’t
go away. We have a question for you from Commissioner Burch. COMMISSIONER BURCH:
In reviewing this, which I
22
understand that you support and I appreciate you coming and 23
speaking tonight, would you be in favor if it were a Class 24 25
A office space? LIAT PERLMAN:
Absolutely not.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 26
1
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
2
CHAIR BADAME:
3 4 5
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. For anyone speaking
tonight, when you step up to the podium please remember to state your name and address for the record. Our next speaker is Khilil Fattahi
6
KHILIL FATTAHI:
Good evening. I’m Khilil
7
Fattahi, as you mentioned, and I live just adjacent to this 8 9 10 11
project. For 21 years I’ve lived in this one, so I have part of my back fence side and all of my side yard (inaudible) Lot 2. The builders have been in touch with us, they
12 13
have satisfied everything that we want, and my wife and me
14
are both very much supportive of the plan as it is
15
presented.
16
The height of this building, even though this is
17
going to be a two-story on Lot 3 next to mine, it still is
18
a little even below my roofline because of the way that the
19 20 21
land slope is. For 21 years we have been living next to Elks parking lot. At night motorcyclists who like this cozy
22
corner and throw their pizza boxes over our fence have 23
bothered us, and we receive eggs and beer bottles, and by 24 25
the time we call the police it’s too late, so we really
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 27
1
welcome just four homes for this size lot, which is not big
2
to us.
3 4 5 6
My lot size is 11,400, I believe. I went to the Planning Department a few months ago and just wanted to find out how much more I can have. I have 2,500 square feet right now and between 1,850 square feet I can add. So for
7
this lot, especially next to mine, Lot 3, which is going to 8 9 10 11
be 16,000 square feet, if they’re going to that size around 4,000, it should be perfectly fine. This is an exceptional plan, which you will see,
12
because the whole neighborhood is behind this. We don’t
13
want anything commercial there, we don’t want tennis courts
14
from Courtside there, and we don’t want this turned into
15
another parking lot. We’re very much in support of this.
16
I heard some comments from the Planning
17
Department; they were making the comment that they need
18
sidewalks. The whole Newell Avenue on all three courts
19 20 21
don’t have one inch of sidewalks, but I heard that from the builder that they’ve going to even put a sidewalk there. We are just very much in support of this and I
22
hope without much trouble this plan goes through. We are 23
fed up with the ugly Elks building there, and it’s a 24 25
nuisance. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 28
1 2 3 4 5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, Mr. Fattahi. Our next
speaker is Harvey Yap. HARVEY YAP:
Good evening, my name is Harvey Yap
and my address is 119 Newell Court. I’ve been at this address for 40 years. My property is one of six that adjoin the proposed development, and I support their application
7
to build these four homes. 8 9 10 11
I’ve read the Planning Commission’s Staff Report and the recommendation for denial. There are six exceptions that I feel are reasonable and should be granted, because
12
this site is unique, it’s not easy to develop, it’s only
13
1.4 acres, and it’s on a hill, and you’re looking at
14
putting four homes in that location. Although these four
15
homes will be larger than most of the houses in the
16
neighborhood, being two stories, I would not object to it;
17
I feel that they would be compatible.
18 19 20 21
I request that this PD be approved and allowed to move forward. The Elks Club has been vacant for many years and I consider that this will be a good replacement for this property. Thank you.
22
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you for your comments, Mr.
23
Yap. Dale Miller. 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 29
1
DALE MILLER:
My name is Dale Miller, 115 Newell
2
Court. If you look at that number four on the drawing up
3
there, I’m behind Lot 1 of this development.
4 5 6
I, too, am for this development. This property is zoned R-1 and this project has been intended for, and I think as the neighbors have all said, we’re all in support
7
of, houses. We’re tired of the Elks, we’re tired of an 8 9 10 11 12
empty parking lot, and we’re tired of Courtside coming over and using it for their exercise classes, as was pointed out earlier. This is the first time in any development, or any
13
suggested development, that the actual architects and
14
developers came and talked to the neighbors. Everything
15
else has been forced down our throat. As Mr. Paulson knows,
16
I’m the neighborhood grump. I organize everything and we
17
come out and complain about what’s going next.
18 19 20 21
The neighborhood definitely wants to make sure this is residential. We don’t want commercial. We don’t want Courtside or anybody else. We want houses; it’s a neighborhood.
22
The original developer was Duke. According to my 23
ex-neighbor, Jack Aiello, who died, Duke willed these four 24 25
lots to the Elks Club originally in the sixties when they had a downturn. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 30
1
There was a comment about landscaping. There is
2
no landscaping on this. The Elks have never taken care of
3
the landscaping. Everything is dead, everything is old, and
4 5 6
it’s run down. There is actually a tree that fell over by the Courtside parking lot into the street one night about three months ago. There is no landscaping worth saving.
7
Maybe there are a couple of trees, but not many. The only 8 9 10 11 12 13
thing that was ever taken care of in this would be when we called the Fire Department about fire hazards in the spring when the weeds grew; that’s the only time the Elks did anything to improve this lot. I’ve read through the Planning Commission report.
14
I’d like to see you guys get together and compromise and
15
make this happen as a Planned Development. There are things
16
that can be agreed upon, changed, modified. This is the
17
first time we have a builder that’s talked to us, worked
18
with us, had several meetings with us, taken our concerns
19 20 21
and fixed them, so we appreciate that. But the one additional request I have is because parking in the area. As Khalil Fattahi talked about, there
22
are no sidewalks in this neighborhood. I complained to the 23
Town before and the previous Town traffic planner said the 24 25
streets conform to the California standards. They do, they’re 34’; I measured them the other night. That allows LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 31
1
for two 11’ lanes for cars, and two 7’ lanes for parking,
2
but there are no sidewalks. I’d like to see this
3
development have no parking on the south edge of Newell
4 5 6
Avenue, which is where this development is, so that people can actually walk and not get run over when they walk down the street.
7
Other than that, I’ll close by saying that we are 8 9 10 11
definitely for this development. The developers have talked with us, they’ve worked with us, they’ve had several meetings with us, and we are definitely in favor of this. CHAIR BADAME:
12 13 14
Thank you, Mr. Miller. Richard
Potter. RICHARD POTTER:
Good evening, I’m Rick Potter; I
15
live at 144 Newell Avenue, which is a little farther up the
16
street, but as my neighbors who back up to this property so
17
aptly pointed out, it’s a project that is due. The property
18
has been sitting there vacant for a long, long time, and
19 20 21
the plans that has been proposed for all of us who live in the neighborhood—I’ve been there for 25 years—we all seem to think it’s going to be a great project and we encourage
22
you to support it. Thank you. 23
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, Mr. Potter. Our last
24 25
speaker is Tobin Lehman.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 32
1
TOBIN LEHMAN:
Hi, I’m Tobin Lehman; I live at
2
175 Newell Avenue, which is right on that corner. It was
3
nice being last, because I get to just say, “Yeah.”
4 5 6
Everyone has made all the good points, and I just want to agree with them and say yes, please approve this Planned Development.
7
I’ve had the benefit of being next to this vacant 8 9 10 11 12 13
lot, and all the RVs and motorcycles and everything that come up in there. It would be really nice to have highquality housing. My wife Shannon and I really are looking forward to having new neighbors. Thanks. CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you. The Applicant, Mr.
14
Anderson and his team, is now invited back to the podium
15
for five minutes to add further comments.
16
KURT ANDERSON:
Thank you, everybody. We really
17
appreciate it. They really have been a joy to work with.
18
We’ve met with them at least I think six times, and they’ve
19 20 21
given us a lot of great suggestions and things for us to consider, and we’ve been working very closely, so we’re very, very happy to have their support and be next to such
22
great neighbors. 23
I’ve got some closing comments. I’m going to put 24 25
up this up; I think this will help.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 33
1
I’ve summarized this. I took that packet. I have
2
one thing for you, Commissioner Kane. Initial Study, just
3
so you understand in our language for what we do, is the
4 5 6
first environmental study for the project. If that Initial Study determines there are no environmental concerns, that’s it, that’s what you use to create the Mitigated
7
Negative Declaration. If there are additional concerns that 8 9 10 11
need to be further…like see the certain standards, then we go to what they call phase two. So when that Initial Study is presented to you like it is, that’s as far as we’re
12
going to go environmentally, because we’ve met the concerns
13
of CEQA. I don't know if that will help you or not.
14
I drilled through this report; Maurice, the
15
clients. I prepared this like I was a commissioner. If I
16
were looking at this, why would I want to approve this
17
project? So let me run through this. It’s not in your
18
packet. Do you want to see a hard copy; we can give you one
19 20 21
real quick. VICE CHAIR KANE:
It’s impossible to read. Maybe
others can, but… I hate to waste your time this way.
22
KURT ANDERSON:
That’s okay.
23
VICE CHAIR KANE:
Maybe we can stop the clock. If
24 25
you’ve got copies of that, it would be very helpful.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 34
1 2
KURT ANDERSON: right now.
3
VICE CHAIR KANE:
4
CHAIR BADAME:
5 6
We’re going to bring them to you
KURT ANDERSON:
Madam Chair, if that’s okay.
Yes, yes. Madam Chair, okay. I’ll run
through these real quick. Reasons to approve this project.
7
One, we are converting a nonconforming commercial 8 9 10
use to a residential use. Just like the neighbors said, no more commercial, we want residential. Secondly, the proposed PD Residential zoning is
11 12
in conformance with the General Plan. Jennifer said that in
13
her report.
14
Thirdly, the proposed PD Residential zoning is in
15
conformance with the Zoning Plan. Jennifer said that in her
16
report.
17 18 19 20 21
The proposed PD zoning is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods, including the Newell subdivision and the La Montagne Court subdivision. Next, we are eliminating a safety issue at the corner of Newell and Winchester by relocating the driveway
22
access. We talked about that earlier. 23
Next, we are significantly reducing the amount of 24 25
impervious coverage on the site, which reduces the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 35
1
pollution into the groundwater in the bay. That’s huge.
2
That’s all part of our greenhouse emissions issue.
3 4 5 6
Next, we are bringing the site into conformance with the CT requirements of the State of California for groundwater treatment. By building the project we’re going to build, we’re going to eliminate all that runoff that’s
7
going to now go into bioswales and treatments, as you saw 8 9 10 11
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We’re going to eliminate a big issue there. We’ll significantly increase the amount of
12
landscaping on the site. More oxygen, less carbon dioxide.
13
We are reducing the number of trips. This hasn’t
14
really been discussed tonight. Because it now goes to
15
residential use, the amount of trips generated from the
16
site instead of a commercial use are significantly reduced.
17 18 19 20 21
We’re eliminating an unattractive project and replacing it with four beautiful residences. Next, we’re diligent with the neighborhood and have designed a project that’s garnered overwhelming support from the neighboring residences, as (inaudible) in
22
the previous presentation. 23
The size and the design of the parcels is similar 24 25
in nature to La Montagne Court, which is also zoned R-1:12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 36
1
The project is designed to today’s housing
2
standards and not standards that would apply to the 50-
3
year-old subdivision that was Newell.
4 5 6
The houses will be (inaudible) rated. They’ll be constructed to the new building codes that will be adopted in 2017, which are going to be significant from an energy
7
standpoint, et cetera. 8 9 10 11
We are, at our expense, fixing a site that has got major problems, and that’s one of the reasons we need the size of the homes, so that we can afford to make those
12
improvements to that site. There is a significant amount of
13
cost with infrastructure, street, et cetera. We explored
14
other options and this is the best result, and with the PD
15
zoning we’re eliminating any cost to the Town.
16
What we are requesting tonight is this: We’re
17
asking the Commission to recommend to the Council the
18
approval of PD Residential zoning for the four-lot
19 20 21
residential subdivision. We’d like you to recommend approval of the size of the residences to vary from 3,000… May I continue?
22
CHAIR BADAME:
Yes, 30 seconds.
23
KURT ANDERSON:
Well, you can read my comments. I
24 25
don’t need to go through (inaudible). I feel that this is a summation of the report, the issues, and what we’re trying LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 37
1
to achieve. If you don’t have any further questions, we’re
2
available for technical questions from Staff, but the big
3
deal here is we’d like you to recommend to the Council that
4 5 6
our Architecture and Site Application come back to the Commission for approval and not to the Development Review Committee. That way you all can have a chance to be
7
involved in the final results. 8 9 10 11 12
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, time is now up.
Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: of the Staff that we’ve received?
13
KURT ANDERSON:
14
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
15
Correct.
KURT ANDERSON:
17
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
19 20 21
And that of course
recommends denial.
16
18
You’ve seen the report
Correct. And on page 5 of that
report they list some, but not all, of the exceptions that you would need to have this project approved. You haven’t responded to any of those. KURT ANDERSON:
Commissioner O'Donnell, we’ve
22
been working with the Staff for almost three years, and 23
we’ve just gotten to the point where we need to have 24 25
assurance and recognition from the Commission and Council that we can do a residential subdivision here. We’re going LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 38
1
to spend a bunch of money with the design, engineering,
2
work with Staff to get this approved, but we’re looking for
3
the PD zoning approval. We’re not looking for Architecture
4 5
and Site tonight, that’s not what this application is, so we’d like those considerations to come back.
6
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
This is fairly simple.
7
It says what’s wrong with your application. You have not 8 9 10 11 12
responded to one of things they’ve said. I think homes sound great there. On the other hand, when they say these are the problems, if you don’t respond, you kind of tie our hands, so could you tell me why you don’t respond? KURT ANDERSON:
13
Let me see if I can make this
14
clear, and I appreciate your position. I’ve been doing this
15
for 40 years. I know your side of the dais; I’ve been
16
there.
17 18 19 20 21
It’s a significant cost for the site. Our clients have spent a significant amount of money with all the consultants. We were told from day one by Staff they weren’t going to support our application, and so we’ve gone through five planners, we’ve gone through a whole bunch of
22
technical review, and things keep changing, and we still 23
have not yet had a positive indication of support from the 24 25
Town that we were going to be able to do this project.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 39
1
What we’re hoping to get from the Commission
2
tonight is we’d love to see residential use. You’ve got
3
some issues on there that you need to resolve. We’ll
4 5 6
support you if you get those issues resolved. Or, send it to Council, recommend approval that we come back and work with Staff; that’s on my recommendations that we’ll work
7
with them. We’re committed to have a beautiful project, or 8 9 10
we wouldn't have spent three years, met with the neighbors, and done all these reiterations. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
11
As I said, as far as I’m
12
concerned you tied our hands. You have not responded to
13
these objections, but were we to recommend denial, then
14
you’d get to the Council. Is that what you’d like? KURT ANDERSON:
15 16
your support.
17 18 19 20 21
No, we’d actually like to have
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
To get our support, we
are required that you comply with the various laws we have. You don’t comply with them. We just can’t say we like homes and let’s go for it. You’ve got a list here, but you haven’t bothered to do anything for it. I don’t understand
22
that. 23
KURT ANDERSON:
Let me use an analogy; and I’ve
24 25
used this in other cities that we work in. Think of planning, guidelines, setbacks, FARs, all the stuff that we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 40
1
do as if you were creating a dome, okay? We’re creating a
2
dome. We have to design a project that fits in with that
3
dome, but the dome here is loose, we don’t really know what
4 5 6
it is, we don’t know if we have a dome. Maybe you say hey guys, we love your project, we’ll support it, but go back to Staff, get these things worked out, and then come back
7
to the Commission. That was be the first indication from 8 9 10 11
the Town that we have… Now we’re ready to go full tilt and get this resolved, because we now get the support of a residential project. We’ve got the support of the
12
neighborhood. We have yet to have indication from the Town
13
that you all support it. Tell us you’ll support it and
14
we’ll get those things worked out, and we’ll come back here
15
happy campers and get this resolved.
16 17 18 19 20 21
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you for that answer. Did
that help you? All right, Commissioner Burch. COMMISSIONER BURCH:
To follow up with what
Commissioner O'Donnell is saying, and then to take what you’re saying, I don’t believe it’s moving parts. Very clearly in our Residential Guidelines there’s a limit to
22
the FAR, there’s a limit to square footage, there’s a limit 23
to height, there is a limit in cut and fill in the 24 25
hillsides. Those don’t change, and those are what this body has been appointed to adhere to, so if you’re saying well LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 41
1
say yes, it’s homes and we’ll fix them, then are you saying
2
if I go all right, I do think homes are what need to go
3
there—and actually your neighbors are the ones that just
4 5 6
convinced me of that—but does that mean you’re now going to fall in line with the FAR, fall in line with the setbacks, fall in line with the height requirements, fall in line
7
with the sidewalk requirements, and fall in line with the 8 9 10 11 12
cut and fill, or are you still going to say great, you let me do homes, but I’m still going to ask for all these exceptions? KURT ANDERSON:
I can’t answer that question
13
specifically to that. I can say that our clients are
14
committed to work with the Town to make a project work at
15
that site if we have a positive indication that the
16
Commission will support a residential project there. Am I
17
not answering the question well?
18 19 20 21
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
Actually, I’m going to wait.
I want to ask Staff more later. CHAIR BADAME:
We cannot give any guarantees; I
can say that. Any other Commissioners have questions for
22
the Applicant? Commissioner Hanssen. 23
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
I have a couple questions.
24 25
Have you read our guidelines, for example, to approve a Planned Development? It says here that the Planned LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 42
1
Development is supposed to provide for alternative uses and
2
developments that are more consistent with the site
3
characteristics, not to change the site into another site
4 5 6
so that you can build whatever you want there. Clearly it’s zoned for residential, I think we all agree on that, but how do you think this complies with our Planned
7
Development? I mean a Planned Development isn’t a way to 8 9 10 11
get around all of our other guidelines. KURT ANDERSON:
In my opinion, with all due
respect, a PD gives you a vehicle to do things differently
12
than that are required by your normal standard setbacks
13
because of the unusual either configuration, location, or
14
surrounding uses. It gives you some flexibility as a
15
deciding body to make changes basically because of the
16
unusual project.
17 18 19 20 21
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
There must be another
proposal out there that could meet our design guidelines; there are certainly a lot available. It’s very clear what our guidelines are. My other question for you was were you involved
22
with the CDAC feedback? 23
KURT ANDERSON:
(Inaudible).
24 25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Because that was in our
packet and they very clearly said yes, residential, but LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 43
1
they said development should meet unmet needs, don’t have
2
too much cut and fill, you don’t need to exceed the
3
guidelines that are spelled out, and you need to fit in
4
with neighborhood.
5 6
The neighborhood is very clearly defined in our Residential Design Guidelines as two, two, and five, the
7
immediate neighborhood, not Montagne Court or whatever 8 9 10 11 12
around that, and these are things that are spelled out in our guidelines, so I just ask why you think that this PD is justified? KURT ANDERSON:
I’m going to say this: I think by
13
your questions and the position you’re taking that—and I’m
14
making a supposition on my part, this is strictly me, I’m
15
not speaking for the team—generally speaking you all are in
16
favor of supporting the residential project here. And this
17
is me, I’m not holding you, I’m not putting you on the line
18
here, so I think what we should really do is we as the
19 20 21
Applicant should request a continuance to allow us to address all of the concerns that have been the exceptions, to come up with something that makes everybody on Staff
22
happy and the Town happy, and come back to you and present 23
it to the Commission at that point in time, so we can 24 25
eliminate these exceptions and get something worked out that we’re all happy with. Then we can move this thing LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 44
1
forward and I think probably that way we can come up and go
2
we’ve got it; we’ve got neighborhood, we’ve got all this
3
stuff worked out with Staff, we’re ready to move forward. I
4 5
think that probably makes the most sense for everybody involved.
6
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, I think the question
7
was answered. Commissioner Hudes followed by Vice Chair 8 9 10 11
Kane. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Just to be specific about
that, on page six of the Staff Report there are six bullet
12
points that describe how the project would require
13
exceptions, meaning that it would not be compliant. Are you
14
familiar with that Staff Report?
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
KURT ANDERSON:
Yes, correct. I’m looking at it
now; it’s page 13. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
So are you saying that you
would be willing to look at all of those six exceptions? KURT ANDERSON:
That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Including the one with 125’
minimum, the first one? Oh, I’m on page six.
22
KURT ANDERSON:
I’m sorry, where are we at?
23
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
There are six bullet points
24 25
there. I think they’re repeated several times.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 45
1
KURT ANDERSON:
We’re willing to look at every
2
single one of those items and address them and come to you,
3
a resolution. Page number six. Six items.
4
CHAIR BADAME:
5 6
All right, Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
Based on what the Applicant
is saying, would I be out of place to make a motion to
7
continue? 8
VICE CHAIR KANE:
9
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
10 11
Close the public testimony. Oh, sorry, jumping ahead of
myself. CHAIR BADAME:
12
No problem. If there are not any
13
further questions I will close the public portion of the
14
hearing. No further questions. You may sit down. Thank you
15
very much.
16
KURT ANDERSON:
17
CHAIR BADAME:
18 19 20 21
Thank you. All right, so I will look to
Commissioners, and I’m going to look to Commissioner Burch to make her motion. COMMISSIONER BURCH:
I’m going to move to
continue Application PD-14-002 and Mitigated Negative
22
Declaration ND-16-002 to a date certain, which we will get 23
to, specifically so that the Applicant can address the 24 25
items listed on page six of the Staff Report to eliminate
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 46
1
the need to ask for the exceptions. I would look to Staff
2
though for the date.
3 4 5 6 7
CHAIR BADAME:
Do we have a date?
JOEL PAULSON:
The earliest it could be would the
November 9th meeting. I’m not sure that’s going to give the Applicant enough time to address that, so probably the better option is December 7th, and if we’re still not done
8 9
then, then we’ll just continue it from there. CHAIR BADAME:
10 11
I can look to the audience and
with a nod of the head about November 9th? Okay, December 7th
12
sounds like a good idea. All right. Do you want to add that
13
date to your motion? COMMISSIONER BURCH:
14 15
motion.
16
CHAIR BADAME:
17
VICE CHAIR KANE:
18 19 20 21
Yes, I would add that to my
Vice Chair Kane. I won’t be supporting the
motion. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: CHAIR BADAME:
There’s no second.
There is no second.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
I’ll second.
22
CHAIR BADAME:
All right, Commissioner O'Donnell
23
seconds the motion, so I will look to Commissioners now for 24 25
discussion, and Vice Chair Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 47
1
VICE CHAIR KANE:
I won’t be supporting the
2
motion for this reason: What I rail against is specificity.
3
Those six points, as we progress in the development of this
4 5 6
motion, I’m got about 14 of them, and what I would say with all due respect and all sincerity is you don’t want to make people happy. You want to comply with the standards, the
7
guidelines, the things we’ve been given to uphold, and 8 9 10 11 12
there is a whole Staff Report in here about reservations and concerns. I don’t want to limit it to six points, because that becomes a target. I would say comply with the Hillside Standards
13
and Guidelines. I would say comply with the Residential
14
Design Guidelines. Often I say listen to your neighbors;
15
your neighbors love you, that’s okay.
16
But the third point is to really pay attention to
17
Staff. If we’ve been working on this since 2013, it’s not a
18
mystery. They’ve clearly told you what we need to have to
19 20 21
comply with our Standards and Guidelines, so I can’t support it, because I don’t like specificity; I don’t like being happy, I’d rather just comply.
22
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
I will strike the comment
23
about referring just to page six, and what I will instead 24 25
say is that I am asking that you comply with all of… Staff
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 48
1
made a number of recommendations and comments in this; that
2
you just stick to that.
3
CHAIR BADAME:
4 5 6
Does the seconder accept that?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
Yes, but let me say
something so that we are clear. The fact that we’ve said we’re going to send this back, because you’ve indicated a
7
willingness to try to work this out, doesn’t mean we’re 8 9 10 11
pre-approving the project. But I appreciate the offer they’ve made, and I think the motion deals within that, so I would keep my second. CHAIR BADAME:
12 13 14
Any further discussion? Vice Chair
Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE:
If it’s inappropriate, I’ll
15
stop, but I would encourage you to take heed to what you’re
16
hearing and feeling up here so that we don’t waste your
17
time. Give it a good second shot and see what we can do
18
with that property. Something will be there. Likely not
19 20 21
this is what I’m hearing from my colleagues, so give it a good shot. Work with Staff; they’re very good. CHAIR BADAME:
All right, I will call the
22
question, unless there is further discussion. Seeing none, 23
all in favor? Passes unanimously. 24 25
Mr. Paulson, are there appeal right of the actions of the Commission on this item? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 49
1
JOEL PAULSON:
There are not.
2
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 50
A P P E A R A N C E S:
2
Los Gatos Planning Commissioners:
Mary Badame, Chair D. Michael Kane, Vice Chair Kendra Burch Melanie Hanssen Matthew Hudes Tom O’Donnell
7
Town Manager:
Laurel Prevetti
8
Community Development Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney:
Robert Schultz
Transcribed by:
Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337-1558
3 4 5 6
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
ATTACHMENT 2 LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 1
1 2
P R O C E E D I N G S:
3
CHAIR BADAME:
4
Item 4, 105 Newell Avenue. Planned
5
Development Application PD-14-002. Mitigated Negative
6
Declaration ND-16-002. Requesting approval of a Planned
7
Development to rezone a property from R-1:12 to R-1:12:PD,
8
to demolish an existing building, and construct four
9
single-family residences on property zoned R-1:12. APN 409-
10 11 12 13
24-026. May I have a show of hands from the Commissioners who have visited the site? Are there any disclosures from Commissioners?
14
We’re still gathering speaker cards, so I’ll give 15
it a moment before we’re ready to receive a Staff Report. 16 17 18 19 20
Thank you for the speaker cards. Ms. Armer, I understand that you’ll be providing us with a Staff Report this evening. JENNIFER ARMER:
Yes, good evening. Good evening,
21
Chair, Vice Chair, Commissioners. The project in front of
22
you this evening is a proposal for four new homes on the
23
site currently occupied by the Elks Lodge. The site is at
24
the corner of Newell Avenue and Winchester Boulevard. The
25
project site is a sloped corner lot of approximately 1.4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 2
1
acres with residential on two sides and the aforementioned
2
streets on the other two.
3 4 5 6
The four proposed homes would be two stories, and two of them have alternative floor plans, which include kind of an in-law unit, a secondary dwelling unit, as a possibility. The proposed Planned Development zone would
7
include numerous exceptions to the underlying R-1:12 zoning 8 9 10 11
regulations. The proposal to redevelop the site was first seen by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee on
12
December 11, 2013. At that point there were two different
13
proposals that were included. One of them was 11 attached
14
residential condo units; the other was five single-family
15
residential units. One of the primary elements that the
16
Applicant heard at that meeting was a concern over the
17
density and intensity of the uses that were proposed, and
18
so they decided to go for the single-family residential
19 20 21
version or idea for redevelopment, and they went from five units down to four. The application was submitted approximately six
22
months later in July 2014, and then over the following year 23
they had five different Staff technical review meetings, 24 25
coming back to work with Town Staff over technical issues and resubmittals. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 3
1
In the middle of that process there was also
2
review by the Town’s architectural consultant and the
3
Town’s arborist. Both provided review in February 2015, so
4
that was about six months after the formal submittal.
5 6
Their final Staff technical review was actually last July, at which point even though there were still some
7
unresolved technical issues the Applicant decided that they 8 9 10 11
wished to move forward with the review, and with advice from Staff they did decide to conduct the environmental review so that there was an opportunity to have a decision
12
rather than having the application reverted back to Staff
13
for environmental review. A Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
14 15
Declaration was prepared in the first half of this year,
16
was available for public review from June 17th to July 7th of
17
2016, and is now before you along with the proposed PD
18
zone.
19 20 21
Staff’s concerns are still detailed in the Staff Report. There are a number of different concerns; the main ones fall into three categories.
22
The first being details that are left unresolved 23
from the Staff reviews. Issues like the height measurement 24 25
in Lot 4 that was done incorrectly was shown different, and these are items that could potentially be addressed through LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 4
1
the Planned Development, through specific exceptions, or
2
through the Architecture and Site review process.
3 4 5 6
The second category of main concern is the grading and retaining walls that are proposed; the depth of the cut and fill; and noncompliance with the Hillside Design Guidelines that do apply certain categories,
7
including the grading section of those guidelines, to apply 8 9 10 11
to this lot, because it is a greater than 10% slope. Also, that includes a section that discusses maintaining the existing landform where the proposal goes a pretty far way
12
in trying to create flat parcels for the four proposed
13
houses.
14
The third category that is of concern for Staff
15
is neighborhood compatibility, both the proposed two-story
16
character of the homes, which is out of character with the
17
immediate neighborhood as well as the floor area, and the
18
total proposed square footage of the homes, which is
19 20 21
significantly larger than the next largest home in the existing immediate neighborhood. Based on these concerns, as well as those
22
included in the written Staff Report, Staff recommends that 23
the Commission forward the Planned Development application 24 25
to the Town Council with a recommendation for denial.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 5
1 2
This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be happy to answer any questions.
3 4
CHAIR BADAME:
Armer. Questions for Staff? Commissioner Hanssen.
5 6
Thank you for the report, Ms.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Thank you for your report.
I had a couple of quick questions.
7
One of the guidelines for approving the current 8 9 10 11
Planned Development, not the ordinance that we’re hopefully revising but it’s not approved yet, is to take into consideration open space. My question is how much open
12
space is there now? I actually used to run on that lot, we
13
did hill running, but it’s a parking lot. With the Elks
14
Lodge, how much open space is there now, and how much would
15
there be with the proposal, as we know it?
16
JENNIFER ARMER:
I’m going to recommend that we
17
take that question to the Applicant when they have the
18
opportunity to speak, but beyond the front yards and the
19 20 21
private driveway there isn’t a whole lot of open space that’s proposed. The existing site is predominantly the single building and the parking lot as well.
22
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Okay, so we can come back
23
to that. 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 6
1
A second question; it’s quick as well. Have we
2
ever allowed a Planned Development with this level of
3
grading, of cut and fill, flattening the hill, basically?
4 5 6
JOEL PAULSON:
I think it’s a distinction between
quantity, so there’s probably many that have had similar quantities, depths of cut and fill. Since the new Hillside
7
Development Standards and Guidelines were adopted, probably 8 9 10 11
not, but quantity, I’m sure that we’ve had projects that have had the quantity of cut and fill that this project would propose. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
12 13
The volume of yards, okay.
Then last question, is the Town Arborist here tonight?
14
JOEL PAULSON:
They are not.
15
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Because my question was
16
when I was reading her report she only recommended to keep
17
one tree, but her recommendation was based on construction
18
impacts, and this isn’t approved as a Planned Development
19 20 21
or as an Architecture and Site Application, so I would have wanted to know what trees she would have wanted to save, period, versus with construction? If we have all our
22
questions answered, maybe there’s a way to get the answer 23
later. 24 25
JOEL PAULSON:
One option there is obviously
you’ll be making a recommendation moving forward to LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 7
1
Council. When you decide to make that recommendation,
2
should that happen this evening, then that would be
3
direction and we can get that answer prior to the Council
4 5 6
taking a final action. COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you.
Commissioner Birch followed by
7
Commissioner Hudes followed by Vice Chair Kane. 8 9 10 11
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
Thank you so much for the
detailed Staff Report, so I’m going to apologize; I’m about to ask a redundant question. Just for the sake of
12
conversation, one of the things that you noted at first was
13
there were a number of exemptions that we’re asking for.
14
Can you list those out for us?
15
JENNIFER ARMER:
Sure. Part of the list of
16
exceptions is based on things that they are specifically
17
asking for, and some are based on things that were left
18
unresolved from the Staff technical meetings and therefore
19 20 21
were incorporated here, because that is what’s being proposed in the current set of plans. The Planned Development section of your Staff
22
Report, page 13, exceptions would include reduced lot 23
depth, exceeding the maximum allowed floor area, exceeding 24 25
the maximum cut and fill depths, no sidewalks on private
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 8
1
streets, maximum height, and encroachment of eaves into
2
setbacks.
3
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
4
CHAIR BADAME:
5 6
Thank you.
Commissioner Hudes.
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
I had a couple process
questions for Staff. Commissioner Hanssen alluded to this,
7
this is being we’re asked to make a recommendation to 8 9 10
Council on this and it’s under the current Planned Development Ordinance, correct? JENNIFER ARMER:
11 12 13
Correct, because it would be a
rezoning. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Should the recommendation
14
from Planning Commission be to deny, is there any point at
15
which the new ordinance might come to play on this
16
particular application?
17
JOEL PAULSON:
18 19 20 21
It would not, because the
application has been deemed complete prior. Depending on the action of Council, they may remand it back to Planning Commission, or they may deny it, in which case a new application would have to be filed, so the new ordinance
22
may have caught up by then. 23
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
So that would trigger off of
24 25
the Council’s action, not this body’s action? JOEL PAULSON:
Correct.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 9
1
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
The other question I had,
2
because I haven’t seen Planned Developments myself before,
3
is it normal to have two designs come before the Planning
4
Commission? It seems there is an alternate design.
5 6
JOEL PAULSON:
I will just offer that they’re
proposing options, and we have had Planned Developments in
7
the past with options. One that pops into my mind is the 8 9 10 11 12
old McHugh site where currently the Palo Alto Medical Foundation is at Los Gatos Boulevard and Gateway. They had two different site layouts and designs for that proposal when it came through. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
13
Then within regard to CDAC,
14
since the discussion with CDAC was a very broad set of
15
options ranging from condominiums to five single-family
16
homes, is there any circumstance where this would go back
17
to CDAC?
18 19 20 21
JENNIFER ARMER:
The advice from CDAC is
generally something that’s done at the beginning of the process to give some direction and sense of concerns for a project before it’s begun. Once it gets to this point,
22
unless they were proposing a totally different project, no, 23
it would not return. 24 25
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Thank you. That’s all I had.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 10
1 2 3 4 5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Vice Chair Kane, did you still
have a question? VICE CHAIR KANE:
Thank you for an excellent
report and the written Staff Report; comprehensive can make our job easier. What doesn’t make my job easier is the excessive
7
detailed bioengineering, all of the things that go into a 8 9 10 11
Mitigated Negative Declaration. We can do this off record, but maybe somebody else is interested. I have three of them, and they’re all terribly detailed, and what they’re
12
essentially designed to do in about 15 different categories
13
is say it’s something potentially bad about this project,
14
and it comes in different response categories. Yes, it’s
15
very bad. No, it’s not that bad. Well, it’s kind of bad,
16
but we can fix it with mitigation. All of the standard
17
categories are treated that way.
18 19 20 21
A simple education in two points. One, why do we have three of them? I know they’re sequential and I expect they’re a response to each other, but I couldn’t find clear responses or clear revisions that something said in the
22
first one had to be fixed by the second one that had to be 23
fixed by the third one. It (inaudible) the issue, and a lot 24 25
of them are very, very objective on soils and noise and emissions, but there was a subjective one, and I don't know LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 11
1
that I’m going to put my finger right on it; maybe I can.
2
This is page 46 of the report dated May 31st, revised final,
3
July; they’re both 2016.
4 5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Vice Chair Kane, is there an
exhibit number so we can be sure we’re looking at the same one? I have Exhibit 13.
7
JOEL PAULSON:
Exhibit 13.
8
VICE CHAIR KANE:
9 10 11 12 13
It’s Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 30.
Sorry about that. Exhibit 13 and Exhibit 30, and I don’t know, I guess this was one of the originals we received, May 31st. They’re good, they’re comprehensive, they’re
14
scientific, they’re engineering, and all of this clearly
15
has to be done. When we get to the subjective portion on
16
zoning, and does the project comply with ordinances and
17
standards and guidelines, this particular one, the one I
18
mentioned, May 31, 2016, revised July 2016, says, “The
19 20 21
proposed project would not conflict with any existing land use plan or policy, therefore no impacts have been identified,” and yet in your excellent Staff Report, Ms.
22
Armer, you pointed out a number of issues that 23
argumentatively may not be consistent with our policies and 24 25
may have impact. I’m not a professional. How do I reconcile
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 12
1
those two things, and I guess really what should I be doing
2
with these three reports?
3
JENNIFER ARMER:
4 5 6
I’m going to start with a few
clarifications. I believe you should have two reports, so number three maybe you borrowed one from your neighbors, but there was a draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
7
Declaration that was prepared, and then the consultant this 8 9 10 11
time decided to prepare a revision to that, so that’s what you’re looking at right now. There were only minor changes, but they were done in tract changes so you can see where
12
those were throughout the document, and that was just some
13
minor changes in response to comments, so there should be
14
two documents that you have in your materials for the
15
project tonight.
16
Your question about the environmental document
17
and its comments on land use, I’m going to let Joel add to
18
this if he has anything, but I’ll just start by saying that
19 20 21
the environmental document and CEQA have a very specific set of parameters for what it looks at, and so the proposal for residential in this location does comply with the
22
General Plan. It is generally the type of use that is 23
appropriate by our land use regulations, so this view that 24 25
CEQA takes is a much higher level view in terms of those predefined categories by the state. The environmental LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 13
1
consultant found that this project did not have any
2
significant impacts and that the potential impacts could be
3
mitigated; that that is the conclusion that they and their
4 5 6
consulting experts came to. However, you now have the opportunity to look more at a more detailed rather than the 30,000 feet level
7
review to look at the specifics of what is being proposed 8 9 10 11
for this PD zone and how it works with our more detailed requirements. VICE CHAIR KANE:
It may not follow CEQA
12
requirements or Town standards, but I was thinking of when
13
they provide the Initial Study, if there’s a Final Study to
14
come back—and don’t tell me it’s in here, because I’ll be
15
embarrassed—an executive summary of what in fact was
16
changed on the part of further review or the Applicant
17
would be extremely helpful.
18 19 20 21
I now confess, because I’d better do it, so overwhelmed was I that the third additional study is from a different project. Nobody’s perfect, but thank you for your explanation.
22
The broader view, they did not see potentially 23
significant issues when they clarified meeting General 24 25
Plans and Policies, such as there are no impacts. It’s a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 14
1
broad statement, and then I should look to the Staff Report
2
for more specific guidance?
3 4 5 6
JENNIFER ARMER:
Correct, and I would add that in
your review of the project and the changes that were made to the environmental document, I would recommend looking at the Response to Comments, which is Exhibit 12, which does
7
have copies of the comments that were received on the 8 9 10 11 12
environmental document. It has a specific response to each of those comments as well as a reference to what changes, if any, and where they were made within the environmental document.
13
VICE CHAIR KANE:
14
CHAIR BADAME:
15
VICE CHAIR KANE:
16
Any further questions for Staff?
CHAIR BADAME:
18
VICE CHAIR KANE:
20 21
I may have. I thought somebody
would.
17
19
Thank you.
No, go ahead. The CDAC minutes that were
provided, for which I thank you, is there anything broader than that, or is that the representation of the 2013 meeting of the CDAC?
22
JENNIFER ARMER:
That is what is available, and
23
what was approved and adopted by the CDAC at their 24 25
following meeting.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 15
1
VICE CHAIR KANE:
As I read them, a number of
2
recommendations, 14 or 15, were made. Is it a fair question
3
to ask whether or not you know in providing the Staff
4 5 6
Report, was attention given to those 14 suggestions, or is that not the job of the CDAC, but to provide general guidance?
7
JENNIFER ARMER:
My understanding of the job of
8 9 10 11
the CDAC is to give general comments and response, general impressions to preliminary proposals to provide some sense for the Applicant of what type of project might be
12
appropriate on their site. The Applicant then has the
13
responsibility to take those comments and move forward in
14
the way that they feel is appropriate.
15
VICE CHAIR KANE:
So whether or not any attention
16
was given to any of those recommendations would essentially
17
not be germane, because they were general guidance?
18 19 20 21
JENNIFER ARMER:
It is general guidance, and it
is up to the Applicant to choose how to proceed based on the opinions that were shared at that hearing, and it is up to them to respond to any questions that you have as follow
22
up to that. 23
VICE CHAIR KANE:
One final question, if I may?
24 25
CHAIR BADAME:
Yes, Vice Chair.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 16
1
VICE CHAIR KANE:
Inside the report, when they
2
met in 2013 there was a Plan A and a Plan B. A was houses
3
and B was condos, loosely construed. I believe the
4 5 6
Applicant in one of the documents made the statement that the condos were laid by the wayside, because CDAC did not express favor for them, which I didn’t necessarily find in
7
the document itself, but also because there was strenuous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
opposition from the neighbors. Do we have anything at this point that would document that opposition, letters or memories from 2013? JENNIFER ARMER:
I do not, since I was not staff
here for the Town at that time. JOEL PAULSON:
You’ll hear from a number of
15
members of the public in the neighborhood, and so you’ll
16
probably receive a response to that.
17
VICE CHAIR KANE:
18 19 20 21
I thought the statement was
important; I wondered if we could substantiate it, that’s all. Thank you. CHAIR BADAME:
All right, before we open the
public portion of the hearing, we are going to take a ten-
22
minute recess. 23
(INTERMISSION) 24 25
CHAIR BADAME:
We are back from break and ready
to open the public portion of the hearing. The Applicant is LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 17
1
at the podium. If you could please state your name and
2
address for the record, and if you have not filled out a
3
speaker card, I will need one. You have ten minutes to
4 5 6
address the Commission. KURT ANDERSON:
I told him; he didn’t believe me.
My name is Kurt Anderson, associate architect with Camargo
7
& Associates. My office address is 120 West Campbell Avenue 8 9 10 11
in Campbell. Madam Chair and Members of the Commissioner, we are really, really glad to be here. as you can tell by
12
Jennifer’s report, it’s been a long time to get to this
13
point, and we want to take this moment to thank the Staff.
14
Jennifer, that was a fantastic report; you did a
15
really great job summarizing your report. Thank you very
16
much for that. And I want to thank all the neighbors that
17
we’ve had a kazillion meetings with. Many of them are here
18
in the audience, and we appreciate your time being here and
19 20 21
supporting the project, we hope. Without further ado, let’s run through a quick presentation. Jennifer took a little of the thunder out of
22
my sails, because she did such a great job, but let’s go 23
through this quickly just to bring you back up to speed. 24 25
Jennifer, which way do I go, to the right?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 18
1
Here is a rendering of the proposed project. As
2
you can tell, on the lower left is the intersection of
3
Newell and Winchester. This is what we are proposing
4
tonight.
5 6
This is where we started. This is what we presented to CDAC. We had five single-family homes on the
7
left, then we have the condominium on the right. Based on 8 9 10 11 12
CDAC’s comments we immediately met with the neighborhood, and I will tell you that the neighbors were adamantly opposed to five homes and the condos, and they can address that when they come up and do their presentation.
13
So we came back and we looked at doing a couple
14
of different configurations on a four-lot subdivision. We
15
had always planned to do a PD approach, because the
16
configuration of this parcel, the slope, the size, the
17
location, it really works using a PD approach to this
18
project under what’s allowed under the General Plan and by
19 20 21
the Town. On the left, you see that was a flat lot subdivision. This wasn’t going to work, because we couldn’t
22
get a fire truck turnaround, so we didn’t do that one. 23
The one on the right is a full city street with a 24 25
cul de sac, and you can see at least minimal area for development for the homes. That is an aerial view looking LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 19
1
down at the corner, and so this would actually be looking
2
at the southwest corner and you can see the access right
3
here. You notice when you’re out at the site that this is a
4 5 6
very dangerous situation, and I could tell you for a fact that I used to live on La Montagne Court, I owned a home over there for years and years and years, so I’m very
7
familiar with this site. 8 9 10 11
This corner right here, you’ll see as we get further through this process that we have relocated this entry further up Newell, which we think in our opinion
12
really increases the safety factor at that corner, because
13
especially when they had events with all the people coming
14
out of there that was a major issue, especially with the
15
increased traffic from Netflix and other commercial
16
development down the street on Winchester.
17
So here is our proposal. We have Lot 1, Lot 2,
18
Lot 3, and Lot 4. In this proposal what we’ve done is we
19 20 21
have elevated this area here, and it has a lot to do with the relationship of getting the street from this point here up to the parcel so we could access into the garages on the
22
site. The only reason that we’ve got the site configured 23
this way is because this is an extremely busy commercial 24 25
street and we did not want to have those houses, the private space, the rear yards right here, being at street LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 20
1
level from a noise standpoint, and also from a safety
2
standpoint, people coming through this intersection, losing
3
control, coming down the street. By getting these houses
4 5 6
up, we’re protecting the inhabitants of those residences. This is the current condition. There’s that retaining wall along Winchester. This will look at it from
7
Lark Avenue. That’s the existing structure. You can see the 8 9 10 11 12
orange netting here depicting the forms of the homes. This rail right here is backing right up on the parking lot that is on that building. There’s another shot of that street. And that is what it looks like with the homes
13
that we’ve proposed. You can see how the back yards have
14
been elevated through grading retaining walls. This is
15
additional fencing here. We can create layers of landscape
16
along the side to soften the structures to make it a very,
17
very attractive development to that corner.
18 19 20 21
As you know, that corner right now is just basically a sea of asphalt. This is looking at it from, again, the southwest. There’s that intersection we were talking about. You can see, this whole parcel, this 1.3
22
acres, is primarily roof and asphalt. It’s basically 23
impervious coverage. 24 25
Now, you know dealing with the new C.3 regulations we have in the State of California that LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 21
1
impervious coverage is to be minimized, because you have to
2
be concerned about the runoff that goes into our bay and
3
into our groundwater and contaminates it. One of the things
4 5 6
that we’re doing with this project—there’s another picture of it—is we are getting rid of all of that asphalt and we’re turning it into landscape.
7
We have a smaller street that we’re proposing 8 9 10 11
here, and you can see as you go up Newell and up the hill that this access point right here is about probably 7-8’ above this corner right here, and that slopes up to the
12
site. There it is with superimposed landscaping. There’s
13
another shot looking directly up the drive from Newell to
14
the four parcels. You can see how it’s terraced up the hill
15
and then it conforms to the rest of the slope of that
16
existing street.
17 18 19 20 21
If you really think back about that area, if you really look at that slope, that whole hill that went down to Lark Avenue, Winchester was cut into that hill. That’s why the Town constructed the retaining walls along Winchester over on that side back here. So we’re getting
22
back more in conformance with the original contours. 23
Here’s the plan. Winchester, Newell. Here’s our 24 25
access drive. We’ve got garages here, here, here and here. Here’s our fire truck turnaround, with the requirements of LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 22
1
Central Fire. We’ve got some on-street parking here, and as
2
mentioned in Jennifer’s report, we do have a sidewalk here,
3
and we do have a sidewalk here.
4 5 6
Now, a lot of these things that we feel that were expressed in the report, these technical nuances I want to call them, we know those need to be resolved. We’re here in
7
front of the Planning Commission because we want you to 8 9 10 11
recommend approval to the Council to convert this to a PD Residential zoning so we’ve got affirmation that we’re going in the right direction, and then we’ll continue to
12
expend the time and the energy to work with Staff to get
13
all the technical nuances and exceptions minimized as we go
14
through the process, through Architecture and Site review.
15
We’ve spent a lot of time and a lot of money to
16
this point, three years, and we still don’t know whether or
17
not the Commission or the Council want to see a residential
18
development. Jennifer said it great in her report: We’re in
19 20 21
conformance with the General Plan, and we’re in conformance with the zoning. This really is a residential site. Right now it’s a nonconforming commercial use. We want to get
22
this back to what it’s supposed to be according to the 23
General Plan and the zoning. 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 23
1
This Conventional Subdivision, you can see we’ve
2
got 60’ diameter bulb, width 40’, street parking, lot sizes
3
less than 10,000, on and on and on.
4 5 6
In this under Planned Development. We’re going to build and construct that road, and we’re going to maintain it so there is no cost to the Town. From Newell up, that
7
will be part of the development. They have to maintain the 8 9 10 11 12
infrastructure, storm, water, sewer, all those things, so that cost will go to those homes and not to the Town, thereby not further burdening the tax base. Part of this right here is when our clients
13
purchased this property one of the things they looked at
14
was the whole neighborhood, and they looked at La Montagne
15
Court—I used to live right here, the house that you see—and
16
this here is only one parcel away, so when we looked at
17
this we felt that was in the immediate neighborhood, that
18
this was comparable to the design of La Montagne.
19 20 21
We have statistics that we can share with you— I’ll let Maurice do that—in regard to the house sizes for that. But you’ll see on the next site, there’s La Montagne,
22
and there are the homes’ sizes that you can read as they 23
come up. You can see they go from 3,960, 4,000, and 4,248; 24 25
there are a whole variety of sizes there. These other parcels back here are homes that have been renovated and LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 24
1
expanded. Now, currently the rest of the subdivision are
2
not this large, because they’re still the single-family
3
ranch-style homes, 2,500 square feet, that…
4
Madam Chair, may I keep going?
5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Yes, you have 30 seconds
remaining.
7
KURT ANDERSON:
Why don’t I just cease and I’ll
8 9 10 11
do my closing comments at the end? Because I can’t do much with 18 seconds left. Okay? CHAIR BADAME:
Okay. All right, thank you for
12
your presentation. Do Commissioners have questions for the
13
Applicant? Seeing none, thank you very much.
14 15 16
I will now invite comments from members of the public. Our first speaker will be Liat Perlman. LIAT PERLMAN:
Good evening, I live at 183 Newell
17
Avenue, which buttresses against I think Lot 3, and I’m
18
very much in support of this development. I think it’s a
19 20 21
very reasonable plan, not overusing the piece of property. The property at 183 has also got quite a significant cut and fill, probably more of a cut than a fill, but that goes
22
back to the 1960s when the house was originally built. I’ve 23
noted the delta of use on this property, and given its size 24 25
it seems appropriate.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 25
1
In addition, I think it has a really good fill
2
for the space in terms of keeping with the property and the
3
community. It doesn’t exceed the La Montagne type of
4 5 6
development, which is nearby, and although I think that what are considered the most relevant houses are small in nature, my comparison to some of these houses, if somebody
7
was to apply for a remodel and add some square footage, we 8 9
would be at about the same. Given where we’re at in the neighborhood today, I
10 11
welcome this. My family has lived here for 40 years and I’m
12
representing the household, and we all welcome this
13
development. We can’t wait for the work to begin, and I’m
14
hoping there won’t be too many holdups in terms of that.
15
This is a space that needs to be filled in and basically
16
utilized in keeping with the nature of the development of
17
the area. Thank you.
18 19 20 21
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, Ms. Perlman, and don’t
go away. We have a question for you from Commissioner Burch. COMMISSIONER BURCH:
In reviewing this, which I
22
understand that you support and I appreciate you coming and 23
speaking tonight, would you be in favor if it were a Class 24 25
A office space? LIAT PERLMAN:
Absolutely not.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 26
1
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
2
CHAIR BADAME:
3 4 5
Okay, thank you.
Thank you. For anyone speaking
tonight, when you step up to the podium please remember to state your name and address for the record. Our next speaker is Khilil Fattahi
6
KHILIL FATTAHI:
Good evening. I’m Khilil
7
Fattahi, as you mentioned, and I live just adjacent to this 8 9 10 11
project. For 21 years I’ve lived in this one, so I have part of my back fence side and all of my side yard (inaudible) Lot 2. The builders have been in touch with us, they
12 13
have satisfied everything that we want, and my wife and me
14
are both very much supportive of the plan as it is
15
presented.
16
The height of this building, even though this is
17
going to be a two-story on Lot 3 next to mine, it still is
18
a little even below my roofline because of the way that the
19 20 21
land slope is. For 21 years we have been living next to Elks parking lot. At night motorcyclists who like this cozy
22
corner and throw their pizza boxes over our fence have 23
bothered us, and we receive eggs and beer bottles, and by 24 25
the time we call the police it’s too late, so we really
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 27
1
welcome just four homes for this size lot, which is not big
2
to us.
3 4 5 6
My lot size is 11,400, I believe. I went to the Planning Department a few months ago and just wanted to find out how much more I can have. I have 2,500 square feet right now and between 1,850 square feet I can add. So for
7
this lot, especially next to mine, Lot 3, which is going to 8 9 10 11
be 16,000 square feet, if they’re going to that size around 4,000, it should be perfectly fine. This is an exceptional plan, which you will see,
12
because the whole neighborhood is behind this. We don’t
13
want anything commercial there, we don’t want tennis courts
14
from Courtside there, and we don’t want this turned into
15
another parking lot. We’re very much in support of this.
16
I heard some comments from the Planning
17
Department; they were making the comment that they need
18
sidewalks. The whole Newell Avenue on all three courts
19 20 21
don’t have one inch of sidewalks, but I heard that from the builder that they’ve going to even put a sidewalk there. We are just very much in support of this and I
22
hope without much trouble this plan goes through. We are 23
fed up with the ugly Elks building there, and it’s a 24 25
nuisance. Thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 28
1 2 3 4 5 6
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, Mr. Fattahi. Our next
speaker is Harvey Yap. HARVEY YAP:
Good evening, my name is Harvey Yap
and my address is 119 Newell Court. I’ve been at this address for 40 years. My property is one of six that adjoin the proposed development, and I support their application
7
to build these four homes. 8 9 10 11
I’ve read the Planning Commission’s Staff Report and the recommendation for denial. There are six exceptions that I feel are reasonable and should be granted, because
12
this site is unique, it’s not easy to develop, it’s only
13
1.4 acres, and it’s on a hill, and you’re looking at
14
putting four homes in that location. Although these four
15
homes will be larger than most of the houses in the
16
neighborhood, being two stories, I would not object to it;
17
I feel that they would be compatible.
18 19 20 21
I request that this PD be approved and allowed to move forward. The Elks Club has been vacant for many years and I consider that this will be a good replacement for this property. Thank you.
22
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you for your comments, Mr.
23
Yap. Dale Miller. 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 29
1
DALE MILLER:
My name is Dale Miller, 115 Newell
2
Court. If you look at that number four on the drawing up
3
there, I’m behind Lot 1 of this development.
4 5 6
I, too, am for this development. This property is zoned R-1 and this project has been intended for, and I think as the neighbors have all said, we’re all in support
7
of, houses. We’re tired of the Elks, we’re tired of an 8 9 10 11 12
empty parking lot, and we’re tired of Courtside coming over and using it for their exercise classes, as was pointed out earlier. This is the first time in any development, or any
13
suggested development, that the actual architects and
14
developers came and talked to the neighbors. Everything
15
else has been forced down our throat. As Mr. Paulson knows,
16
I’m the neighborhood grump. I organize everything and we
17
come out and complain about what’s going next.
18 19 20 21
The neighborhood definitely wants to make sure this is residential. We don’t want commercial. We don’t want Courtside or anybody else. We want houses; it’s a neighborhood.
22
The original developer was Duke. According to my 23
ex-neighbor, Jack Aiello, who died, Duke willed these four 24 25
lots to the Elks Club originally in the sixties when they had a downturn. LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 30
1
There was a comment about landscaping. There is
2
no landscaping on this. The Elks have never taken care of
3
the landscaping. Everything is dead, everything is old, and
4 5 6
it’s run down. There is actually a tree that fell over by the Courtside parking lot into the street one night about three months ago. There is no landscaping worth saving.
7
Maybe there are a couple of trees, but not many. The only 8 9 10 11 12 13
thing that was ever taken care of in this would be when we called the Fire Department about fire hazards in the spring when the weeds grew; that’s the only time the Elks did anything to improve this lot. I’ve read through the Planning Commission report.
14
I’d like to see you guys get together and compromise and
15
make this happen as a Planned Development. There are things
16
that can be agreed upon, changed, modified. This is the
17
first time we have a builder that’s talked to us, worked
18
with us, had several meetings with us, taken our concerns
19 20 21
and fixed them, so we appreciate that. But the one additional request I have is because parking in the area. As Khalil Fattahi talked about, there
22
are no sidewalks in this neighborhood. I complained to the 23
Town before and the previous Town traffic planner said the 24 25
streets conform to the California standards. They do, they’re 34’; I measured them the other night. That allows LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 31
1
for two 11’ lanes for cars, and two 7’ lanes for parking,
2
but there are no sidewalks. I’d like to see this
3
development have no parking on the south edge of Newell
4 5 6
Avenue, which is where this development is, so that people can actually walk and not get run over when they walk down the street.
7
Other than that, I’ll close by saying that we are 8 9 10 11
definitely for this development. The developers have talked with us, they’ve worked with us, they’ve had several meetings with us, and we are definitely in favor of this. CHAIR BADAME:
12 13 14
Thank you, Mr. Miller. Richard
Potter. RICHARD POTTER:
Good evening, I’m Rick Potter; I
15
live at 144 Newell Avenue, which is a little farther up the
16
street, but as my neighbors who back up to this property so
17
aptly pointed out, it’s a project that is due. The property
18
has been sitting there vacant for a long, long time, and
19 20 21
the plans that has been proposed for all of us who live in the neighborhood—I’ve been there for 25 years—we all seem to think it’s going to be a great project and we encourage
22
you to support it. Thank you. 23
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, Mr. Potter. Our last
24 25
speaker is Tobin Lehman.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 32
1
TOBIN LEHMAN:
Hi, I’m Tobin Lehman; I live at
2
175 Newell Avenue, which is right on that corner. It was
3
nice being last, because I get to just say, “Yeah.”
4 5 6
Everyone has made all the good points, and I just want to agree with them and say yes, please approve this Planned Development.
7
I’ve had the benefit of being next to this vacant 8 9 10 11 12 13
lot, and all the RVs and motorcycles and everything that come up in there. It would be really nice to have highquality housing. My wife Shannon and I really are looking forward to having new neighbors. Thanks. CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you. The Applicant, Mr.
14
Anderson and his team, is now invited back to the podium
15
for five minutes to add further comments.
16
KURT ANDERSON:
Thank you, everybody. We really
17
appreciate it. They really have been a joy to work with.
18
We’ve met with them at least I think six times, and they’ve
19 20 21
given us a lot of great suggestions and things for us to consider, and we’ve been working very closely, so we’re very, very happy to have their support and be next to such
22
great neighbors. 23
I’ve got some closing comments. I’m going to put 24 25
up this up; I think this will help.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 33
1
I’ve summarized this. I took that packet. I have
2
one thing for you, Commissioner Kane. Initial Study, just
3
so you understand in our language for what we do, is the
4 5 6
first environmental study for the project. If that Initial Study determines there are no environmental concerns, that’s it, that’s what you use to create the Mitigated
7
Negative Declaration. If there are additional concerns that 8 9 10 11
need to be further…like see the certain standards, then we go to what they call phase two. So when that Initial Study is presented to you like it is, that’s as far as we’re
12
going to go environmentally, because we’ve met the concerns
13
of CEQA. I don't know if that will help you or not.
14
I drilled through this report; Maurice, the
15
clients. I prepared this like I was a commissioner. If I
16
were looking at this, why would I want to approve this
17
project? So let me run through this. It’s not in your
18
packet. Do you want to see a hard copy; we can give you one
19 20 21
real quick. VICE CHAIR KANE:
It’s impossible to read. Maybe
others can, but… I hate to waste your time this way.
22
KURT ANDERSON:
That’s okay.
23
VICE CHAIR KANE:
Maybe we can stop the clock. If
24 25
you’ve got copies of that, it would be very helpful.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 34
1 2
KURT ANDERSON: right now.
3
VICE CHAIR KANE:
4
CHAIR BADAME:
5 6
We’re going to bring them to you
KURT ANDERSON:
Madam Chair, if that’s okay.
Yes, yes. Madam Chair, okay. I’ll run
through these real quick. Reasons to approve this project.
7
One, we are converting a nonconforming commercial 8 9 10
use to a residential use. Just like the neighbors said, no more commercial, we want residential. Secondly, the proposed PD Residential zoning is
11 12
in conformance with the General Plan. Jennifer said that in
13
her report.
14
Thirdly, the proposed PD Residential zoning is in
15
conformance with the Zoning Plan. Jennifer said that in her
16
report.
17 18 19 20 21
The proposed PD zoning is compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods, including the Newell subdivision and the La Montagne Court subdivision. Next, we are eliminating a safety issue at the corner of Newell and Winchester by relocating the driveway
22
access. We talked about that earlier. 23
Next, we are significantly reducing the amount of 24 25
impervious coverage on the site, which reduces the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 35
1
pollution into the groundwater in the bay. That’s huge.
2
That’s all part of our greenhouse emissions issue.
3 4 5 6
Next, we are bringing the site into conformance with the CT requirements of the State of California for groundwater treatment. By building the project we’re going to build, we’re going to eliminate all that runoff that’s
7
going to now go into bioswales and treatments, as you saw 8 9 10 11
in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. We’re going to eliminate a big issue there. We’ll significantly increase the amount of
12
landscaping on the site. More oxygen, less carbon dioxide.
13
We are reducing the number of trips. This hasn’t
14
really been discussed tonight. Because it now goes to
15
residential use, the amount of trips generated from the
16
site instead of a commercial use are significantly reduced.
17 18 19 20 21
We’re eliminating an unattractive project and replacing it with four beautiful residences. Next, we’re diligent with the neighborhood and have designed a project that’s garnered overwhelming support from the neighboring residences, as (inaudible) in
22
the previous presentation. 23
The size and the design of the parcels is similar 24 25
in nature to La Montagne Court, which is also zoned R-1:12.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 36
1
The project is designed to today’s housing
2
standards and not standards that would apply to the 50-
3
year-old subdivision that was Newell.
4 5 6
The houses will be (inaudible) rated. They’ll be constructed to the new building codes that will be adopted in 2017, which are going to be significant from an energy
7
standpoint, et cetera. 8 9 10 11
We are, at our expense, fixing a site that has got major problems, and that’s one of the reasons we need the size of the homes, so that we can afford to make those
12
improvements to that site. There is a significant amount of
13
cost with infrastructure, street, et cetera. We explored
14
other options and this is the best result, and with the PD
15
zoning we’re eliminating any cost to the Town.
16
What we are requesting tonight is this: We’re
17
asking the Commission to recommend to the Council the
18
approval of PD Residential zoning for the four-lot
19 20 21
residential subdivision. We’d like you to recommend approval of the size of the residences to vary from 3,000… May I continue?
22
CHAIR BADAME:
Yes, 30 seconds.
23
KURT ANDERSON:
Well, you can read my comments. I
24 25
don’t need to go through (inaudible). I feel that this is a summation of the report, the issues, and what we’re trying LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 37
1
to achieve. If you don’t have any further questions, we’re
2
available for technical questions from Staff, but the big
3
deal here is we’d like you to recommend to the Council that
4 5 6
our Architecture and Site Application come back to the Commission for approval and not to the Development Review Committee. That way you all can have a chance to be
7
involved in the final results. 8 9 10 11 12
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, time is now up.
Commissioner O'Donnell. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: of the Staff that we’ve received?
13
KURT ANDERSON:
14
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
15
Correct.
KURT ANDERSON:
17
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
19 20 21
And that of course
recommends denial.
16
18
You’ve seen the report
Correct. And on page 5 of that
report they list some, but not all, of the exceptions that you would need to have this project approved. You haven’t responded to any of those. KURT ANDERSON:
Commissioner O'Donnell, we’ve
22
been working with the Staff for almost three years, and 23
we’ve just gotten to the point where we need to have 24 25
assurance and recognition from the Commission and Council that we can do a residential subdivision here. We’re going LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 38
1
to spend a bunch of money with the design, engineering,
2
work with Staff to get this approved, but we’re looking for
3
the PD zoning approval. We’re not looking for Architecture
4 5
and Site tonight, that’s not what this application is, so we’d like those considerations to come back.
6
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
This is fairly simple.
7
It says what’s wrong with your application. You have not 8 9 10 11 12
responded to one of things they’ve said. I think homes sound great there. On the other hand, when they say these are the problems, if you don’t respond, you kind of tie our hands, so could you tell me why you don’t respond? KURT ANDERSON:
13
Let me see if I can make this
14
clear, and I appreciate your position. I’ve been doing this
15
for 40 years. I know your side of the dais; I’ve been
16
there.
17 18 19 20 21
It’s a significant cost for the site. Our clients have spent a significant amount of money with all the consultants. We were told from day one by Staff they weren’t going to support our application, and so we’ve gone through five planners, we’ve gone through a whole bunch of
22
technical review, and things keep changing, and we still 23
have not yet had a positive indication of support from the 24 25
Town that we were going to be able to do this project.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 39
1
What we’re hoping to get from the Commission
2
tonight is we’d love to see residential use. You’ve got
3
some issues on there that you need to resolve. We’ll
4 5 6
support you if you get those issues resolved. Or, send it to Council, recommend approval that we come back and work with Staff; that’s on my recommendations that we’ll work
7
with them. We’re committed to have a beautiful project, or 8 9 10
we wouldn't have spent three years, met with the neighbors, and done all these reiterations. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
11
As I said, as far as I’m
12
concerned you tied our hands. You have not responded to
13
these objections, but were we to recommend denial, then
14
you’d get to the Council. Is that what you’d like? KURT ANDERSON:
15 16
your support.
17 18 19 20 21
No, we’d actually like to have
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
To get our support, we
are required that you comply with the various laws we have. You don’t comply with them. We just can’t say we like homes and let’s go for it. You’ve got a list here, but you haven’t bothered to do anything for it. I don’t understand
22
that. 23
KURT ANDERSON:
Let me use an analogy; and I’ve
24 25
used this in other cities that we work in. Think of planning, guidelines, setbacks, FARs, all the stuff that we LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 40
1
do as if you were creating a dome, okay? We’re creating a
2
dome. We have to design a project that fits in with that
3
dome, but the dome here is loose, we don’t really know what
4 5 6
it is, we don’t know if we have a dome. Maybe you say hey guys, we love your project, we’ll support it, but go back to Staff, get these things worked out, and then come back
7
to the Commission. That was be the first indication from 8 9 10 11
the Town that we have… Now we’re ready to go full tilt and get this resolved, because we now get the support of a residential project. We’ve got the support of the
12
neighborhood. We have yet to have indication from the Town
13
that you all support it. Tell us you’ll support it and
14
we’ll get those things worked out, and we’ll come back here
15
happy campers and get this resolved.
16 17 18 19 20 21
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you for that answer. Did
that help you? All right, Commissioner Burch. COMMISSIONER BURCH:
To follow up with what
Commissioner O'Donnell is saying, and then to take what you’re saying, I don’t believe it’s moving parts. Very clearly in our Residential Guidelines there’s a limit to
22
the FAR, there’s a limit to square footage, there’s a limit 23
to height, there is a limit in cut and fill in the 24 25
hillsides. Those don’t change, and those are what this body has been appointed to adhere to, so if you’re saying well LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 41
1
say yes, it’s homes and we’ll fix them, then are you saying
2
if I go all right, I do think homes are what need to go
3
there—and actually your neighbors are the ones that just
4 5 6
convinced me of that—but does that mean you’re now going to fall in line with the FAR, fall in line with the setbacks, fall in line with the height requirements, fall in line
7
with the sidewalk requirements, and fall in line with the 8 9 10 11 12
cut and fill, or are you still going to say great, you let me do homes, but I’m still going to ask for all these exceptions? KURT ANDERSON:
I can’t answer that question
13
specifically to that. I can say that our clients are
14
committed to work with the Town to make a project work at
15
that site if we have a positive indication that the
16
Commission will support a residential project there. Am I
17
not answering the question well?
18 19 20 21
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
Actually, I’m going to wait.
I want to ask Staff more later. CHAIR BADAME:
We cannot give any guarantees; I
can say that. Any other Commissioners have questions for
22
the Applicant? Commissioner Hanssen. 23
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
I have a couple questions.
24 25
Have you read our guidelines, for example, to approve a Planned Development? It says here that the Planned LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 42
1
Development is supposed to provide for alternative uses and
2
developments that are more consistent with the site
3
characteristics, not to change the site into another site
4 5 6
so that you can build whatever you want there. Clearly it’s zoned for residential, I think we all agree on that, but how do you think this complies with our Planned
7
Development? I mean a Planned Development isn’t a way to 8 9 10 11
get around all of our other guidelines. KURT ANDERSON:
In my opinion, with all due
respect, a PD gives you a vehicle to do things differently
12
than that are required by your normal standard setbacks
13
because of the unusual either configuration, location, or
14
surrounding uses. It gives you some flexibility as a
15
deciding body to make changes basically because of the
16
unusual project.
17 18 19 20 21
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
There must be another
proposal out there that could meet our design guidelines; there are certainly a lot available. It’s very clear what our guidelines are. My other question for you was were you involved
22
with the CDAC feedback? 23
KURT ANDERSON:
(Inaudible).
24 25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN:
Because that was in our
packet and they very clearly said yes, residential, but LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 43
1
they said development should meet unmet needs, don’t have
2
too much cut and fill, you don’t need to exceed the
3
guidelines that are spelled out, and you need to fit in
4
with neighborhood.
5 6
The neighborhood is very clearly defined in our Residential Design Guidelines as two, two, and five, the
7
immediate neighborhood, not Montagne Court or whatever 8 9 10 11 12
around that, and these are things that are spelled out in our guidelines, so I just ask why you think that this PD is justified? KURT ANDERSON:
I’m going to say this: I think by
13
your questions and the position you’re taking that—and I’m
14
making a supposition on my part, this is strictly me, I’m
15
not speaking for the team—generally speaking you all are in
16
favor of supporting the residential project here. And this
17
is me, I’m not holding you, I’m not putting you on the line
18
here, so I think what we should really do is we as the
19 20 21
Applicant should request a continuance to allow us to address all of the concerns that have been the exceptions, to come up with something that makes everybody on Staff
22
happy and the Town happy, and come back to you and present 23
it to the Commission at that point in time, so we can 24 25
eliminate these exceptions and get something worked out that we’re all happy with. Then we can move this thing LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 44
1
forward and I think probably that way we can come up and go
2
we’ve got it; we’ve got neighborhood, we’ve got all this
3
stuff worked out with Staff, we’re ready to move forward. I
4 5
think that probably makes the most sense for everybody involved.
6
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you, I think the question
7
was answered. Commissioner Hudes followed by Vice Chair 8 9 10 11
Kane. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Just to be specific about
that, on page six of the Staff Report there are six bullet
12
points that describe how the project would require
13
exceptions, meaning that it would not be compliant. Are you
14
familiar with that Staff Report?
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
KURT ANDERSON:
Yes, correct. I’m looking at it
now; it’s page 13. COMMISSIONER HUDES:
So are you saying that you
would be willing to look at all of those six exceptions? KURT ANDERSON:
That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
Including the one with 125’
minimum, the first one? Oh, I’m on page six.
22
KURT ANDERSON:
I’m sorry, where are we at?
23
COMMISSIONER HUDES:
There are six bullet points
24 25
there. I think they’re repeated several times.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 45
1
KURT ANDERSON:
We’re willing to look at every
2
single one of those items and address them and come to you,
3
a resolution. Page number six. Six items.
4
CHAIR BADAME:
5 6
All right, Commissioner Burch.
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
Based on what the Applicant
is saying, would I be out of place to make a motion to
7
continue? 8
VICE CHAIR KANE:
9
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
10 11
Close the public testimony. Oh, sorry, jumping ahead of
myself. CHAIR BADAME:
12
No problem. If there are not any
13
further questions I will close the public portion of the
14
hearing. No further questions. You may sit down. Thank you
15
very much.
16
KURT ANDERSON:
17
CHAIR BADAME:
18 19 20 21
Thank you. All right, so I will look to
Commissioners, and I’m going to look to Commissioner Burch to make her motion. COMMISSIONER BURCH:
I’m going to move to
continue Application PD-14-002 and Mitigated Negative
22
Declaration ND-16-002 to a date certain, which we will get 23
to, specifically so that the Applicant can address the 24 25
items listed on page six of the Staff Report to eliminate
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 46
1
the need to ask for the exceptions. I would look to Staff
2
though for the date.
3 4 5 6 7
CHAIR BADAME:
Do we have a date?
JOEL PAULSON:
The earliest it could be would the
November 9th meeting. I’m not sure that’s going to give the Applicant enough time to address that, so probably the better option is December 7th, and if we’re still not done
8 9
then, then we’ll just continue it from there. CHAIR BADAME:
10 11
I can look to the audience and
with a nod of the head about November 9th? Okay, December 7th
12
sounds like a good idea. All right. Do you want to add that
13
date to your motion? COMMISSIONER BURCH:
14 15
motion.
16
CHAIR BADAME:
17
VICE CHAIR KANE:
18 19 20 21
Yes, I would add that to my
Vice Chair Kane. I won’t be supporting the
motion. COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: CHAIR BADAME:
There’s no second.
There is no second.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
I’ll second.
22
CHAIR BADAME:
All right, Commissioner O'Donnell
23
seconds the motion, so I will look to Commissioners now for 24 25
discussion, and Vice Chair Kane.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 47
1
VICE CHAIR KANE:
I won’t be supporting the
2
motion for this reason: What I rail against is specificity.
3
Those six points, as we progress in the development of this
4 5 6
motion, I’m got about 14 of them, and what I would say with all due respect and all sincerity is you don’t want to make people happy. You want to comply with the standards, the
7
guidelines, the things we’ve been given to uphold, and 8 9 10 11 12
there is a whole Staff Report in here about reservations and concerns. I don’t want to limit it to six points, because that becomes a target. I would say comply with the Hillside Standards
13
and Guidelines. I would say comply with the Residential
14
Design Guidelines. Often I say listen to your neighbors;
15
your neighbors love you, that’s okay.
16
But the third point is to really pay attention to
17
Staff. If we’ve been working on this since 2013, it’s not a
18
mystery. They’ve clearly told you what we need to have to
19 20 21
comply with our Standards and Guidelines, so I can’t support it, because I don’t like specificity; I don’t like being happy, I’d rather just comply.
22
COMMISSIONER BURCH:
I will strike the comment
23
about referring just to page six, and what I will instead 24 25
say is that I am asking that you comply with all of… Staff
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 48
1
made a number of recommendations and comments in this; that
2
you just stick to that.
3
CHAIR BADAME:
4 5 6
Does the seconder accept that?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL:
Yes, but let me say
something so that we are clear. The fact that we’ve said we’re going to send this back, because you’ve indicated a
7
willingness to try to work this out, doesn’t mean we’re 8 9 10 11
pre-approving the project. But I appreciate the offer they’ve made, and I think the motion deals within that, so I would keep my second. CHAIR BADAME:
12 13 14
Any further discussion? Vice Chair
Kane. VICE CHAIR KANE:
If it’s inappropriate, I’ll
15
stop, but I would encourage you to take heed to what you’re
16
hearing and feeling up here so that we don’t waste your
17
time. Give it a good second shot and see what we can do
18
with that property. Something will be there. Likely not
19 20 21
this is what I’m hearing from my colleagues, so give it a good shot. Work with Staff; they’re very good. CHAIR BADAME:
All right, I will call the
22
question, unless there is further discussion. Seeing none, 23
all in favor? Passes unanimously. 24 25
Mr. Paulson, are there appeal right of the actions of the Commission on this item? LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 49
1
JOEL PAULSON:
There are not.
2
CHAIR BADAME:
Thank you.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 9/14/2016 Item #4, 105 Newell Avenue 50
