But just as residents feared that the Los Gatos Planning Commission was headed for an approval of the water company's application, Vice Chair Jeanne Drexel's motion to accept the plans was shot down by a majority of her colleagues, who in turn made a new motion to deny the application.

The San Jose Water Company wants to remove its non-operating reservoir and facility on Reservoir Road and subdivide the 2.6-acre plot into four lots. As part of this plan, the company would upgrade an existing fire hydrant, install a new hydrant and relocate a sewer line.

Residents living near the reservoir packed the chambers last week to urge the planning commission to reject the proposed plans. Throughout the two-hour public hearing, they repeatedly questioned the community benefit of the proposed project. Many also said the water company underestimated the number of trees needed to be removed as well as the grading footprint of future home developments.

The proposed plans call for the removal of 38 trees just to reclaim the land—remove the reservoir and fill the resulting hole with material in order to allow the land to be cultivated and developed for future homes. Up to an additional 14 trees could be removed in the next phase to subdivide the land, according to the water company. Residents say these figures translate into a total removal of up to 50 percent of the trees in the area.

"The proposal has too many unknown elements and too many misrepresentations to merit approval at this time," said Reservoir Road resident Susan Kankel.

Representatives of HMH Engineers, which the water company hired for this project, said the new fire hydrants will each pump out 1,800 gallons of water per minute—an improvement over the 800 gpm that the existing hydrant can handle and more than the 1,000 gpm required of new hydrants.

Additionally, the water company's plans to relocate a sewer line is not a requirement but something the company decided would be a community benefit, said Ray Hashimoto, planning manager with HMH.

A letter from the West Valley Sanitation District stated that the district determined the water company "should be required" to provide a new sewer line. Hashimoto noted that the letter does not state that the company "must" provide this.

A letter from the town's engineering department dated June 19 states that "the town and sanitary district have jointly requested that the applicant bear both the construction cost of relocating the [sewer] line and the burden of granting an easement."

According to Hashimoto, a third community benefit is the elimination of a potential safety hazard with the removal of a nonoperating reservoir. But resident Kim Worsencroft said her children play in the area and have never felt unsafe.

"Just because something hasn't happened there doesn't mean it won't happen," Hashimoto said after the meeting.

Roughly two hours into the discussion, Drexel made the motion to approve the application, citing new fire hydrants and improvements to the sewage system as strong community benefits.

Four residents stood up and walked out, cutting off Drexel's speech. They shouted that her decision was "ridiculous" and that she had made up her mind before the hearing.

Following that scene, Commissioner Morris Trevithick expressed concern that the plans did not reflect sensitivity to the land's natural topography. Residents have in the past requested that the water company hire an expert with knowledge in environmental issues to help with the project.

"I'm concerned it's being governed by engineering," Trevithick said, causing members of the audience to break out in applause.

While Commissioner Lee Quintana saw "definite community benefits" from the project, she said she could not approve it without first seeing an environmental impact report. Following the defeat of Drexel's motion, the commission voted 6-1, with Drexel dissenting, to deny the water company's request.

"I believe our plan is to appeal the decision," Hashimoto said afterward.

Art Bonner, one of the residents who later walked out during Drexel's speech, said that the water company probably did not expect such resistance.

"They thought they could just run this thing through," Bonner said. "The water company made a tremendous mistake in underestimating the neighbors."