Loading...
Attachment 02TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 6 DESK ITEM PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: December 14, 2016 PREPARED BY : Jennifer Armer, Associate Planner ja nner@ los gatosca.gov APPLICATION NO: Planned Development Application PD-15-001 Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-15-001 LOCATION: 15215 Shannon Road (north of Shannon Road between Shannon Heights Road and Sky Lane) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: Fred Sahadi APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval of a Planned Development to rezone a property pre-zoned HR-5, to HR-2 Yi :PD, subdivide one lot into five lots , construct four new single-family homes, and remove large protected trees . APN 537-25-002. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration Received with December 14, 2016 Staff Report : 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings 4. December 10, 2014, Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes 5. Project Description and Letter of Justification {21 page) received November 5, 2016 6. Arborist Consultant Report {49 pages), received June 15, 2015 7. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration {five pages) 8. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program {13 pages) 9 . Public Comment {six pages) I 0. Planned Development Ordinance {31 pages) with Exhibit A Rezone Area {one page) and Exhibit B Development Plans (22 pages) Received with this Desk Item: 11. Applicant Correspondence {nine pages) 12. Comments received from 11:01 a .m. on Thursday, December 8, 2016 to 11:00 a.m. on Wednesday, December 14 , 2016 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Commission Staff Report Desk Item -Page 2 15 2 15 Shannon Road/PD-15-001 December 14, 2016 REMARKS : The applicant has provided a response to public comments included as ex hibits with the December 14, 2016 Staff Report, and additional detail /analysis of the potential cut and fill needed for the conceptual driveway designs (Exhibit 11 ). The attached public comments (Exhibit 12) were received after distribution of the staff report. Prepared by: (ennffer Armer, AICP Associate Planner JP:JA :cg ~pproved by: JOel Paulson, AICP / Community Development Director N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2016\Shan non 15215. 12-14 -16-DESK.docx MEMORANDUM TO: Ladies and Gentlemen of the Planning Commission Meeting of December 14, 2016 FROM: Fred Sahadi DATE: December 14, 2016 RE: 15215 Shannon Road, PD-15-001 This writing is in response to Dave Weissman's communication of December 8, 2016 to the Planning Commission and is intended to comment on some items in that communication. Our comments are set out under Paragraphs A, B, C and D, as Dave outlined in his communication to you.. A. The site is located within the Town's Sphere of Influence and Urban Service Boundary and is adjacent to Town lands on three sides. Since our site is within the Town's Sphere of Influence, it is only developable within the Town in accordance with its rules, regulations, policies and statutes. Dave goes to some length to explain what we would be able to develop in the county, knowing full well that the property can't be developed in the county under any circumstances. In addition, Dave states that the "A" delineation is intended to reflect the county's desire to protect its open space. In fact, the zoning of the Shannon Road Canyon in the county was zoned many years ago and was intended to reflect the then rural agricultural nature of the Shannon Road Canyon. Dave correctly described the current zoning in the county but inaccurately states that all staff and applicants wrongly state the current property zoning as HR--5. To the contrary, all references made by staff and applicant accurately state that the property is Pre - zoned HR-5, or HR-5 Pre -zone. Surrounding land uses cited by Dave are selective, omitting the adjacent HR 2.5 land uses that abut our property and are found throughout our immediate area. Other zoning designations cited by Dave are also not accurate; he neglects to point out that other County properties are all Pre -Zoned to the designations cited. It is a stretch for Dave to suggest that the lands Pre -zoned as HR-20 are "near south"; those lands are at the far south limits of the Town's urban service boundary, about 1 mile to the southeast. The statement made by Dave that the proposed rezoning is an abuse of the annexation process in simply a subjective, emotional opinion unsupported by fact. The annexation of this county pocket is consistent with general practice and the rezoning to HR 2.5 from the Pre -zone designation of HR-5 is consistent with the Town of Los Gatos existing 1 EXEUNT 1 1 General Plan. Although the property is outside of the Town limits, the General Plan designates the Land Use Element at the property as "Hillside Residential — 0-1 du/acre". Further, staff concludes that the zoning designation of HR-2.5 "is consistent with the zoning of the adjacent properties" and "Town Code requires a PD overlay for subdivisions with five or more building sites in the Hillside Residential zone" (Section 29.40.255). So, the statement by Dave that since there is no clustering there is no justification for a PD is not only wrong and inconsistent with a statutory requirement but also reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the applicable Town statutes. The rural character of the property will be retained with this carefully planned project layout. The four logical building sites (flat and mostly free of trees) are planned to be utilized since there will be very little grading or tree removal required. "Clustering" of homes in this case, would be inappropriate and be of greater negative impact. The benefit of the PD for this project is a reduced impact (less paving, grading and tree removal) in providing roadway access to each lot using a private street. The narrower private.roadway without sidewalks requires far less grading and tree removal than would be required with a traditional public road. Further, the 25-foot height limit would allow for two-story homes, eliminating 1/2 of the footprint for a single -story home resulting in more open space and overall aesthetics consistent with the purpose clause set out on Page 55 of the HDS&G and set out in full in the Staff Report to you at the top of page 4 of that report. For your convenience, it says: "The Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G), page 56, state that: The purpose of the PD overlay zone, as it relates to hillside areas, is to encourage the appropriate location of residential units in the least restrictive development areas of the site. The intent is to significantly reduce the amount of grading, roads, and other alterations to the existing environment, to minimize the visual impact of the development, and to retain the maximum amount of continuous open space in its natural state. Town Code states that the purpose of a PD is to provide for alternative uses and developments that are more consistent with site characteristics to create an optimum quantity and use of open space, and to encourage good design. The Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for the PD application to the Town Council, who will be the final deciding body." Whether two homes were approved (as suggested by Dave) or five as proposed, existing roadway access would need to be improved. The existing driveway from Shannon Road does not meet County standard for emergency use; the grade is too steep. Reconstruction of the road to flatten it would require fills of over 10 feet, tree removal, and impacts to adjacent properties for grading and roadway realignment. Use of this existing driveway in its current configuration as a secondary access point is not only a benefit to the project, but also provides added safety to the surrounding area in 2 the event of an emergency evacuation. So the result here is also consistent with the goals of the HDS&G purpose clause set out in full above. Project access is proposed from both Shannon Road and Shady Lane/Santella Drive. Project construction traffic can be directed to either access road, or both. If it is undesirable to have any construction access through the Highlands project, all construction traffic can be directed to Shannon Road. That has been our plan from day one. Dave's discussion of public vs private roads is not clear. Shady Lane and Santella Drive are already designated as public roads. The short roadway extension proposed for this project is private. Whichever access route is used for construction traffic, pre and post construction documentation will be required for public roadway conditions and, if any damage to existing public infrastructure is caused by construction traffic for the project, the project will be required to repair the damages at no expense to the Town. The citizens of Los Gatos will not be burdened with roadway upkeep for construction, as stated by Dave. B. Dave states that "applicant's visibility analysis is inadequate and outdated." Despite Dave's comments to the contrary, our project visibility has been extensively evaluated for all viewing platforms and the majority of the valley floor as well. Dave's written comments have been made without him even seeing our analysis (we offered to show him at our site meeting with him on November 30, but he refused). He stated "no need to because there is no view platform problem here." We understand there has been long discussions on revising the hillside visibility methodology but nothing has yet been adopted. Our analysis is far more comprehensive than required and clearly shows the extensive screening provided by the existing hillsides and extensive on and off site vegetation. But to argue applicants must be bound and judged by hillside visibility methodology that has not been adopted and not by existing statutory standards is inappropriate. Dave's suggestion that the building sites have not been evaluated is simply not true. We have demonstrated possible building site placement and grading for each lot proposed. Again, as stated above, with minimal grading and tree impacts. Further design refinement is envisioned to further reduce the grading currently shown for driveway access. This has been completed and delivered to staff. The four houses have not yet been designed. The house locations are simply a freehand footprint designed to show flexibility and how easily each home might fit within the LRDA for each lot. Staff knows that no houses have been designed nor are they required at this stage. To say that A&S approvals are inexorably connected to a zoning application is yet another fiction. We have demonstrated the feasibility of development for each lot and we will still have A&S review and approvals required to build any of the proposed homes; that is the proper venue to raise A&S questions. Reference is made to Dave's discussion about Lot 1, which paragraph begins, "The perils of not having complete information", etc. His discussion seems to be intended to 3 mislead and confuse, particularly all of the assumptions relating to Lot 1. Since no homes have been designed, it is both unfair and unrealistic to guess about how many trees will actually be removed as a result. Any house on this lot will be designed to fit on the lot and will have to be reviewed and approved by the Town. However, we have demonstrated that it is feasible to develop a home site on Lot 1 with far Tess tree removal than is speculated by Dave. To accommodate the Town's requirements, the house may have to be reduced in size to comply with the Town's policies, but to guess about it now is unfair to all concerned. With respect to Debbie, the Town Arborist, we have promised to provide to her whatever is necessary to perform her evaluation of each lot with the A&S application review and approval. C. For clarity, it is fair to say that the great majority of trees in our forest are coastal oaks, sometimes generally referred to as California live oaks. There are a few other species of oak on the property and a large number of trees that are not oaks. When Dave says, "was once diverse" he apparently quoted some communication from me with which I am not familiar. If anything close to what he quotes is accurate, the information is wrong and here are what the facts are: The pastures and arena area had fallen into disuse and were overgrown almost exclusively with poison oak. We had received notice after notice from the County Fire Marshall requesting that we eliminate the fire hazard. In the spring of 2005, I hired a D6 operator to do the scrubbing. That operator's name is Randy Shrader and between 6/17/05 and 6/22/05 we paid him a total of $4,560.00 based on an hourly rate for his D6 and other related equipment. There was a significant amount of poison oak that was pushed down and piled into the arena, and I have no idea how much but I do know on or about July 5, 2005, we hired Tru Green ArborCare, whose invoice recited "brush pile removal" and paid him $1,800. They used 30-yard trucks and completed the removal in 4 or 5 truckloads. That included dump charges and a special clothing for truck drivers to insulate them from the poison oak. On or about July 14, 2005, we paid Reed & Graham $2,860.51 for the erosion control matting over sloped areas that the county required once the scrubbing was completed. We matted and replanted all scrubbed areas with seeds purchased from Clyde Robin Seed Co. and completed the scrubbing, matting and replanting over the area. So, while I can't explain the removal of 56 tons of poison oak material in the year 2000 or even where that information came from, I can tell you what actually happened in 2005 and I have attempted to do so as herein above set out. I have lived on the property for 46 years, and our forest has remained pretty much the same over that period of time. The trees are precious to me and my family, and we have attempted to properly care for them. Over the years, we have trimmed dead branches and have removed tree limbs that have fallen to the ground as a result of storms and insects, including but not limited to ants. To say that the site is "full of aging and over pruned trees" is not accurate. Our entire forest now is overstressed and is at 4 its lowest point of health and resistance as a result of the prolonged drought, which hopefully has come to an end. The building sites for all our 4 lots are relatively flat with very large LRDA areas that will require very little, if any, grading and only minimal tree removal. For example, Lot 4 has one tree in the center of a 16,000 SF LRDA area and we will only take out that one tree (Tag No. 86) for the house to be built on that lot. The ridge itself is shale for the most part and there are very few trees that take root on the top of the ridge as a result, so the building areas are there naturally and not manmade as Dave has inferred. We keep the property relatively clean, both in terms of weeds and debris, to eliminate the fire hazard not only for the structures on the property (there are 11 of them) but also for our forest. D. What is interesting here is that on the one hand Dave says, "lots 1, 3 and 4 are all located within a semi dense evergreen oak forest", but on the other hand says the forest is old, dying and over pruned. Most of you Planning Commissioners have visited the site and you can make a value judgment for yourselves as to how accurate Dave's analysis is of our forest. On the one hand the forest is in the process of dying and within some relatively short period of time will die out, the result being a violation of the view platform problem in years to come. Yet in another part of his comments to you, particularly under this Paragraph D, "Lots 1, 3 and 4 are all located within a semi dense evergreen oak forest" so the owner of those lots will cause the death of the trees to gain access to views and the sun in years to come, a proposition that is simply preposterous by any measure. Many of those trees have been on the property for more than a hundred years and a great majority of them will be on the property a hundred years from now. My belief is that anyone that locates on our site will cherish the trees as we do and will do everything humanly possible to protect them. . In sum, Dave's inferences seem to associate our application with prior negativity associated with home sites in the hills. We are seeking to subdivide our acreage on which we have lived for over 46 years within the letter and spirit of the Town's policies and should in no way be associated with prior wrongdoing by others. We want to do what is right for the Town and our environment. Town staff has ventured an opinion on what we propose and is recommending approval of our application for the PD zoning allowing for 5 lots. We believe that after review of our submitted materials and presentation you will arrive at the same conclusion. Thank you, Fred Sahadi 5 834 7j �#6d 840 #7© �`#8r• Ivo Boo / I ' Jy #18 #14 .. • i I. i ..• #20 , # 8 \" .• f O#21 J • O#22 #34 �ii `� O 2 #79 68 #41 28 .; ` #48 �.�_ ✓'• y `fir, s #. 0 �� �. -yam . 4►;�#43� #36 `�i; i .� ` #5lM17 4 1 t • Of'` II •i�4� _#48 ' O 7 #82 •#4E: • d.I # V'38 ii • 5xDBH / LOT 1 „}30, 1 / /• N. • #1 #135 #1360 #1370 #13 #1400 #126 • }� N \ #1410 0#142 #125 R #122 , 0.143 1\','• #i2' l� ,.\\ • #144 ,, / ? • • #123 • • �. a • • #120 #119•>--1 • • • Possible Removal with Road • #i116 • 5xDBH s • • LOT 3 • #110 • • _- •• #98. #97 • • a #`35 #87 • Possible Remova with Road #84 1 • _\ Possible Removal with Rid 0000 • • • • :8(Removed) • ��• • / 76 of.. 'IN /• /'N 5xDBH LOT 4 • )11 / 1,, 30, NONE a • MIE • 5xDBH ! 60' Dead Monterey Pine Dead/Removed LOT 5 10., 3D This Page Intentionally Left Blank Jennifer Armer From: Josine [maiito:josinesmits@msn.com] Sent: Monday, December 12, 2016 8:35 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Re: PD-15-001 15215 Shannon Road Dear Jennifer, Thank you for your reply. The remarks below are intended for the Planning Commission. Please be so kind to forward this email. Mr. Sahadi has kindly shown me his property and explained his proposed plans for a 5 lot subdivision on the ridge which faces our home along Shannon Road. Unfortunately, the site visit has not alleviated our three main concerns regarding run-off, traffic, and views. Since the 1980' s we have struggled with increasing run-off and erosion problems on our property due to new development on the hilltops above Shannon Road. The increased run-off from the current proposed high -density hill- side development will not be insignificant: The drive -ways of lots 1 and 5 are sloping toward the existing cul-de-sac, and even though on the plans it looks like the drive -way is saddled across the ridge -line, in reality the entire pavement is sloping toward the steep existing drive- way, channeling the run-off toward Shannon Road. The proposed cut and fill of the cul-de-sac may change this profile and channel the run-off from lot 5 toward Santella Drive, but the hard surface of the driveway and parking area of lot 1 is located in our watershed. Since the house location of lot 1 is on a narrow ridge, at least half the run-off from the roof will also flow our way. This increased run-off will add to an already dangerous situation all along Shannon Road, where drainage systems fail even during minor precipitation events, causing sheet flooding across the pavement at several locations toward Short Road. Please take this into account. There is nothing in the plan that will restrict the increased traffic caused by this development and redirect it to the new access toward Santella Drive and Shady Lane, which is long and windy. How will this become the "primary" access? The future owners of the additional lots will prefer to come down the existing driveway and race down Shannon Road, adding to the endless stream of cars that have made this a dangerous street for residents and bicyclists alike. Last but not least, the detrimental impact on our view --of three houses built on the main ridge --has not been taken into account. Please see the picture taken from our house. Even if more trees are planted to shield the view of the proposed development as seen from our perspective, light pollution will be inevitable. Since we have chosen not to develop our 21 acre property of oak woodlands since we acquired it 30 years ago, we provide a spectacular unspoiled view to all our surrounding neighbors. We ask in return that a high -density hilltop development designed to maximize view lots is not approved by the town at our expense. Please do not allow any exceptions to the Hillside Development Plan. With sincere regards, Josine Smits VanBIT 1 2 To the Planning Commission Shannon Road Project Planning Commission Meeting of 12/14, 2016 From: Lee Quintana Please consider the following: This 13 acre site is zoned in the county requires a minimum of 20 acres per lot, and is a non -conforming lot in the County. This proposal is changing the base zoning to HR-21/2 to allow a 5 lot subdivision, and at the same time requesting a PD overlay as is required for a 5 lot subdivision in the hillsides. Any subdivision within the hillsides is subject to the provisions of Chapter VIII of the HDS&G. I have attached some of the most applicable parts of Chapter VIII below. suggest that the analysis of the request for the proposed 5 lot subdivision needs to start with an analysis of its consistency with Chapter VIII. Subdivision and Planned Development Profects. I believe the proposed subdivision is not consistent with Chapter VIII. Los Gatos pre -zoned this parcel as HR-5 (5-40 acres per dwelling unit). I am going to take a wild guess that pre -zoning was determined to avoid creating a non -conforming lot if it were to be annexed to the Town. The HR-5 zoning could allow 1 lot as in the County, or possibly, two lot subdivision provided the proposed subdivision is consistent with the requirements of Chapter VIII Subdivision and Planned Development Projects. A two lot subdivision may be possible but would need more study. Access from Shannon already exists for the existing home. It may be possible to provide access for a second home in the northwest corner of the lot to an existing flat area without going outside the 25% or 35% slope area, which could potentially allow a two lot subdivision. VIII. While a 5 lot subdivision is required to be processed under a PD zoning. It is possible for an applicant to apply for a PD zoning for a subdivision with less than 5 lots. In their Letter of Justification the applicant notes the site's topographical constraints do not provide much option in the configuration of access roads. Sheet 5 confirms this. The Letter of Justification also states five lots are needed to justify the investment in utilities and roads (p.7). Neither of these justifications are consistent with Chapter VIII. Sheets 5 Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) shows that almost 100% of the proposed new access is not only outside the 25% slope area but is also almost 100% outside the 30% slope. This is not consistent with the Chapter VIII. Page 2 Chapter VIII Subdivision and Planned Development Projects. A. Purpose and Intent (p.56) Subdivisions may be processed under the provisions of the Town of Los Gatos Zoning Ordinance as a standard subdivision or in conjunction with a Planned Development overlay zone. The maximum density of new subdivisions in hillside areas is determined by the use of a slope density formula that diminishes residential densities as the slope of the natural terrain increased (emphasis added). The purpose of the PD overlay zone, as it relates to hillside areas, is to encourage the appropriate location of residential units in the least restrictive development areas of the site. The intent is to significantly reduce the amount of grading, roads, and other alterations to the existing environment, to minimize visual impact of the development, and to retain the maximum amount of continuous open space in its natural state. B. Applicability of Standards. (p.56) In addition to all applicable standards and guidelines of the previous chapters, the following development standards and guidelines apply to all Planned Development applications in hillside areas (emphasis added) C. Least restrictive development areas (LRDA) (p.56) 1. Hillside residential development shall preserve open space and protect significant natural features in the layout and design of streets, lots, and grading patterns in subdivisions and planned developments. Development shall be limited to the least restrictive development areas as defined below. 2. The least restrictive development areas within sub -area 2 through 9 of the Los Gatos Specific Plan shall be defined as those areas: a. Below the ridge view protection line as defined in Chapter III, Section D.3.1 b. Outside riparian corridors, c. Within a 30 percent slope or less, and d. Where the impact on the natural hillside environment, including vegetation, wildlife corridors„ cut and fill slopes, and natural watersheds is minimized. e. Development outside of the least restrictive development areas results in minimal grading, tree removal and/or changes to the natural landscape and is more advantageous as determined by the decision making body D. Exceptions to development within the LRDA. (p.57) Within Sub -area 1 of the Hillside Specific Plan development outside of the least restrictive development areas, as identified by the Blossom Hill Open Space Study, shall be prohibited except when all of the following conditions exist (emphasis added). The development is clearly in compliance with the provisions of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, Hillside Specific Plan, and General Plan. 2. Development outside of the least restrictive development areas results in minimal grading, tree removal and/or changes to the natural landscape and is more advantageous as determined by the decision making body. 3. Access to a development within a least restrictive development area can only be attained by developing a roadway or driveway outside a least restrictive development area (emphasis added). 4. Project visibility from any valley floor viewing platform shall not exist or shall be significantly less than development within the LRDA. E. Development Standards and guidelines. 1. Site preparation. Standards: a. Grading shall be kept to a minimum and shall be performed in a way that respects all significant natural features and visually blends with adjacent natural features. b. The existing natural grade as well as the proposed final grad shall be shown on all elevations submitted on the plans c. Graded areas shall appear as smooth flowing contours of varying gradients, preferably with slopes of 2:1 to 5:1. Sharp cuts and fills and long linear slopes that have uniform grad should be avoided. Guidelines: a. Grading should be avoided in areas where the slope is greater than 25%. b. Pad and terrace grading should be avoided to the maximum extent possible Jennifer Armer From: George Tzanavaras <gtlechaion@fastmail.fm> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 10:59 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: PD-15-001 at 15215 Shannon Road To: Jennifer T. Armer From George and Simone Tzanavaras We were shocked, when looking at the tiles tor the PD-15-001 that the private ranch road which is on our land, between Shannon Road and Mr. Sahadi's property, was going to undergo important work to facilitate this project, such as grading, retaining walls, etc..., and we were never informed until last week about such a massive development, on top of the hill, that would greatly increase traffic on this road. Mr. Sahadi's property only has right to enter and exit through that road, and we are glad he found a main access for his project elsewhere, through Santella Drive. But we feel very strongly that our road should not be used even as a "secondary access" for so many houses, not just the six houses planned now, but all the other houses behind Santella Drive, it should revert to our own private use, to avoid making our property vulnerable to vandalism. Sincerely, George and Simone Tzanavaras gtlechaion[i;fastinail. fm i