Planners give a 49-apt. proposal a go-ahead on its footprint only
Neighbors say additional traffic is a big problem
Appeal to council likely
By Nathan R. Huff
Bill Errico and the Cupertino Development Corporation succeeded in inching forward on a 49-unit apartment complex off Blossom Hill Road on Oct. 25, as planning commissioners refrained from siding with an army of traffic-weary neighbors.
The application for rezoning the area as a planned development passed 4 to 1, though commissioners included a study session and as much flexibility as possible in their approval. The commission's decision approved only the maximum allowable footprint of the development; Errico must still return to the body for architectural and site approval.
As part of the carefully crafted motion, the commission set the maximum number of units at 49 and left room to reduce the number, size and shape of apartments at the architecture and site level. Since a fraction of the property will also be rezoned for higher density, the town council must approve a General Plan amendment for the project.
The project has been on the table--in one form or another--since 1998. It has gone through a number of iterations in attempts to address density, layout, parking, traffic safety and noise issues from Highway 17, which is immediately adjacent to the site. After one council meeting, five commission meetings, three development review committee meetings and a number of neighborhood meetings, the newest plans include 49 units, all of which are two-bedroom, two-and-a-half bath apartments. Seven of the units would be leased as below-market-price apartments.
Commissioners also included a condition in their approval mandating Errico meet with the neighborhood for a commission-hosted study session before presenting an architecture and site application. Commissioner Leonard Pacheco, the sole nay vote on the motion, wanted the study session to occur before passing the planned development application, but he was outvoted.
"I believe in study sessions, but in this case, the project initially came before the commission before I was on it," Commissioner Lee Quintana said. "It doesn't seem fair to the developer to put him off again."
Residents of the surrounding apartments and single family homes disagreed, arguing the project would further exacerbate a bad traffic situation. While the project has been before the commission numerous times, the Oct. 25 crowd was the bigger than at any previous hearing on the proposal.
"I think they have a right to develop their property, but not if it impacts existing developments," neighborhood resident John Breidenthal said. Numerous residents told stories of existing cut-through commuter and school traffic, arguing the land would be better suited for other uses. However, the commission was bound by the town council's directions to focus on looking at the density, not the actual use of the property as multifamily residential.
Other residents spoke about air quality concerns regarding the site's proximity to Highway 17. Questioned about the issue, Errico's designer Rodger Griffin said the developer was required only to study the effect the project would have on air quality.
"I have no idea what the [existing] air quality is," Griffin said. "I've never had to do a study like that."
Responding to council regular Ray Davis' charge that he was sacrificing children's health for money, Errico spoke of his many years in Los Gatos and his desire to make the area safer by providing better ingress and egress.
His voice shaking, Errico took issue with Davis' comments, asking the commission to consider the town's desperate need for affordable rental housing. "Don't tenants have a right to live in this town?" Errico said.
When the architecture and site application does come back to the commission, commissioners will address a number of issues other than density and layout. A sound wall proposed to shield the development from Highway 17 noise has been a frequent point of discussion, as has the issue of parking.
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
