Item 5 - Staff Report.16100 Greenridge Terrace
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 406-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 07/10/2019 ITEM NO: 5
DATE: July 1, 2019
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Subdivision Application M-19-004. Project Location: 16100 Greenridge
Terrance. Appellant: David Weisman. Property Owner: Emerald Lake
Investments, LLC. Applicant: Hanna & Brunetti. Project Planner: Sean Mullin
Consider an appeal of a Development Review Committee decision approving a
request for subdivision of one lot into eight lots on property zoned HR-2½:PD.
APN 528-12-002.
RECOMMENDATION:
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development Review Committee (DRC) to
approve the Subdivision Application, subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential
Zoning Designation: Hillside Residential: Planned Development, HR-2½:PD
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines;
Hillside Specific Plan
Parcel Size: 36 acres
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Single-Family Residential Hillside Residential HR-1
East Single-Family Residential Agriculture RC
South Single-Family Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½:PD
West Single-Family Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½:PD
PAGE 2 OF 6 SUBJECT: 16100 Greenridge Terrace/M-19-004 DATE: July 1, 2019
CEQA:
A Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
were adopted by the Town Council (Ordinance 2281) for the proposed development and no
significant unmitigated impacts are associated with the application (Exhibit 4).
FINDINGS:
As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act.
STANDARDS FOR REVIEW:
As required by Planned Development Ordinance 2281, that the tentative map complies with
the performance standards contained in Ordinance 2281 and is in substantial conformance
with the Official Development Plans contained therein as described in the application
materials (Exhibit 4).
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten (10) days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject 36-acre property is currently vacant with an existing graded road and a San Jose
Water Company storage tank located on the southern portion of the property. The subject site
takes access from Santella Drive and Greenridge Terrace (Exhibit 1).
On March 13, 2019, the Planning Commission considered a Planned Development (PD)
Application and forwarded a recommendation for approval to the Town Council. The Town
Council considered the Application on April 2, 2019, and introduced an Ordinance approving
the project. On April 16, 2019, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2281 approving the
Planned Development Overlay and allowing for the subdivision of the subject property into
eight lots (Exhibit 4).
A Subdivision Application (M-19-004) for the subject property was received on April 15, 2019
and deemed complete on May 22, 2019. The Development Review Committee (DRC) approved
the Application on June 4, 2019. The Application is being reviewed by the Planning Commission
because the decision of the DRC has been appealed (Exhibit 5).
PAGE 3 OF 6 SUBJECT: 16100 Greenridge Terrace/M-19-004 DATE: July 1, 2019
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Subdivision
In accordance with Ordinance 2281, the applicant applied to subdivide the subject property
into eight lots. Following approval of the Tentative Map, a Final Map must be submitted
and approved by the Town Council, and then be recorded to effectuate the subdivision of
the property.
DISCUSSION:
A. Town Council
Video of the Town Council consideration of the project at the April 2, 2019 meeting is
available at https://www.losgatosca.gov/13/Agendas-Minutes. The following discussion
includes time-stamp references to specific points of discussion.
While questioning the applicant, a Councilmember suggested dedicating an open space
strip of some amount connecting the open space area on the north end of the property to
the property to the south to prevent installation of fencing and ensure wildlife movement
across the property (0:50:30). The Councilmember also mentioned that the same thing
could be done across the north edge of lots 1 and 8. During discussion, the Councilmember
also asked about how a motion could be constructed to include language describing where
scenic easements could be added (1:02:00).
A motion for approval was made by the Vice Mayor with the addition of a performance
standard requiring dedication of scenic easements on those lots that the Councilmember
had been discussing (1:05:00). The Council voted unanimously to introduce the Ordinance
and approve the project.
On April 16, 2019, the Town Council adopted the draft Ordinance approving the Planned
Development Overlay and allowing for the subdivision of the subject property with the
addition of the following performance standard. This performance standard was drafted to
accomplish the goal of connecting the open space area on the north end of the property (on
lots 1, 5, and 8) to the property to the south, creating a contiguous protected area through
the property:
To the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development:
28. SCENIC EASEMENTS: Scenic easements shall be dedicated on the parcel map by
separate instrument across portions of lots 1, 2, 3, and 5 connecting the area to be
dedicated as open space on the north portions of lots 1 and 5 to the south property
PAGE 4 OF 6 SUBJECT: 16100 Greenridge Terrace/M-19-004 DATE: July 1, 2019
DISCUSSION (continued):
lines of lots 2 and 3. Easement language shall indicate that such land shall not be
encroached into with fences, structures, landscaping, or improvements of any
kind, and no work shall be performed within the Scenic Easement, including
clearing, other than for wildland fire fuel management or weed abatement. Any
and all maintenance within the scenic easements shall be the sole responsibility
of the property owner.
On April 15, 2019, the Subdivision Application was submitted. The Tentative Map included
a 100-foot wide easement corridor connecting the open space on the north end of the
property to the property to the south. Because a scenic easement along the west property
line of lot 1 would crowd the conceptual building pad, the scenic easements were located
on the east edge of lots 2, 3, and 5. Additionally, the scenic easement corridor was turned
southeast into the southern portion of lot 2 to avoid a portion of a fenced property owned
by the San Jose Water Company and a dirt road leading to a gate and structures on the
property to south. The revised location accomplishes the goal of connecting the open space
area on the north end of the property on lots 1, 5, and 8 to the property to the south,
creating a contiguous protected area through the property. Additional scenic easements
were not pursued along the north property lines of lots 1 and 8 as they would not create a
connection through the property from the open space area on the north end of the
property to the property to the south.
B. Appeal
On June 10, 2019, the June 4, 2019 decision of the DRC was appealed to the Planning
Commission by David Weissman (Exhibit 5). The reasons for the appeal are summarized
below, along with staff’s responses in italic font.
1. The appellant indicates that the scenic easement corridor shown on the Tentative Map
does not conform to the motion made by the Vice Mayor (Exhibit 5).
During questions of the applicant and Council discussion, a Councilmember explored
various placements of scenic easements to accomplish the goal of connecting the open
space area on the north end of the property to the property to the south, creating a
contiguous protected area through the property. At one point, the Councilmember
mentioned a scenic easements along the west edge of lots 3 and 5 (1:02:00). The Vice
Mayor’s motion included a performance standard that scenic easements be added to
“those lots where Mr. Rennie has been talking about a scenic easement” (1:05:00).
Because a scenic easement along the west property line of lot 1 would crowd the
conceptual building pad, the scenic easement corridor was located on the east edge of
lots 3 and 5, turning southeast into a portion of lot 2. This easement corridor addressed
PAGE 5 OF 6 SUBJECT: 16100 Greenridge Terrace/M-19-004 DATE: July 1, 2019
DISCUSSION (continued):
the performance standard to connect the open space area on the north end of the
property to the property to the south, creating a contiguous protected area through the
property.
2. The proposed scenic easement corridor, with its width of 102.4 feet, is capricious and
too small. It also completely misses the proposed trails system of lots 1 and 2, which
makes no sense whatsoever (Exhibit 5).
The placement of the scenic easement corridor included on the Tentative Map addressed
the performance standard to connect the open space area on the north end of the
property on lots 1, 5, and 8 to the property to the south, creating a contiguous protected
area through the property. A scenic easement was not placed on lot 1 because it was
perceived to crowd the building pad on the lot. Separate four-to ten-foot wide trail
easements, independent of the scenic easements and open space, would provide north-
to-south pedestrian access through the property and traverses through portions of all
but one of the properties. Additionally, this trail crosses through portions of the scenic
easement corridor and open space.
Regarding the width of the proposed scenic easements, the proposed 102.4-foot width
would provide a substantial corridor through the property connecting the open space
area on the north end of the property to the property to the south.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written notice of the Planning Commission hearing was sent to property owners and tenants
within 500 feet of the subject property. No public comments have been received as of the
writing of this report.
CONCLUSION:
A. Conclusion
During the April 2, 2019 Town Council meeting, a number of locations for scenic easements
were discussed. While the Town Council motion for approval was not prescriptive in
defining the exact location of each easement, it did include a requirement for scenic
easements to create a connection through the property. Staff implemented the goal of
including a scenic easement performance standard to connect the open space area on the
north end of the property on lots 1, 5, and 8, to the property to the south, creating a
contiguous protected area through the property. The placement of the scenic easements
across portions of lots 2, 3, and 5 accomplishes the goal of the performance standard.
PAGE 6 OF 6 SUBJECT: 16100 Greenridge Terrace/M-19-004 DATE: July 1, 2019
CONCLUSION (continued):
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to deny the
appeal, uphold the decision of the DRC, and approve the Subdivision Application:
1. Find that a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program were adopted by the Town Council (Ordinance 2281) for the
proposed development and no significant unmitigated impacts are associated with the
application (Exhibit 2);
2. Find that the proposed project complies with Section 66474 of the State Subdivision
Map Act and make affirmative findings to approve the application (Exhibit 2);
3. Find that the project is in substantial conformance with the performance standards and
development plans contained within Ordinance 2281 (Exhibit 2); and
4. Approve Subdivision Map Application M-19-004 with the conditions contained in Exhibit
3 and the map attached as Exhibit 6.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Deny the appeal and approve the Application with additional and/or modified
conditions; or
3. Grant the appeal and deny the Application.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Ordinance 2281
5. Appeal of Development Review Committee decision, received June 10, 2019
6. Tentative Map