The San Jose Water Company came before the commission for the third time last week with the proposal, and for the third time the commission decided it needed more information and would revisit the issue at a later date.

"We need to have a pretty clear picture of what we're allowing before we allow it," said Commission Vice Chair Jeanne Drexel.

Drexel later made the motion to return the application to town staff and instructed the San Jose Water Company to provide maps the next time around that would show what physical constraints there are to the project and where access roads leading up to the proposed lots would be located. Her motion was approved unanimously.

The water company's desire to eliminate its nonoperating reservoir and facility at Reservoir Road is due in part to the state requirement that facilities no longer in use be retired and because the company wants to "remove this significant liability," Ray Hashimoto, planning manager for HMH Engineers, wrote in a letter to the commission.

The letter went on to state that since town policy won't allow demolition until new plans for the site are also provided, the water company proceeded to seek subdivision of the 2.6-acre property as the replacement project.

Plans submitted last week incorporated changes the water company has made since the commission last reviewed them in February.

"This is the safest plan for reclamation, and we're putting our name on it," Hashimoto said.

Notable changes included reconfiguring the four proposed lot lines; reducing the amount of dirt needed to fill the reservoir to 8,000 cubic yards and decreasing the minimum length of time needed to complete trucking activity to 6.5 days. The company also proposed reducing the number of trees to be removed to 37 and introducing an improved fire hydrant across the way.

Fifteen of the 37 trees considered for removal are identified as dead, non-native species or hazardous. Up to 15 other trees may have to be removed in the future during the application process for homes on the four proposed lots, according to a town staff report.

The proposed plans also featured a sanitary sewer easement to run through the proposed northern lot to Reservoir Road. It is unclear whether a sewer line must be placed at that location.

Apparently a lawsuit settlement between a property owner near the reservoir, the West Valley Sanitation District and the town of Los Gatos somehow resulted in a decision to relocate the sanitation district's sewer line. Before the district allows the San Jose Water Company to gain access to its sewer line now, it appears that the district is requiring the water company to provide an easement, said Orry Korb, the town's attorney.

The water company was not mentioned in settlement documents but was named in the lawsuit, Korb said. What the company's involvement in the case was and whether the issues have been resolved are uncertain, he added.

Calls to the water company and sanitation district were not returned.

A handful of residents who spoke on the issue criticized the water company for what they say was a failure to address concerns brought up at the last two meetings.

College Avenue resident Bob Simons said that though the company's revised plans suggest trucking activity to transport dirt would be reduced from 13 to 6.5 days, the company has not specified how it will accomplish this, nor has it indicated where trucks will be staged during the project.

One question the commission continued to ask last week was whether the water company had considered subdividing the land into three lots as opposed to four.

Community Development Director Bud Lortz reminded the commission that the town had gone through a similar situation with a project on Nina Court, wherein the commission had asked the applicant to reduce the number of lots from five to three. Afterwards, neighbors became upset because reducing the number of lots resulted in larger individual homes on each lot.

"I see this happening all over again," Lortz said.

With questions left unanswered, Drexel proposed continuing the issue to a future meeting. The commission will consider the application again on May 14.