The URL can be used to link to this page

Staff Report with Exhibits.16466 Bonnie Lane PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 10/13/2021 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: October 8, 2021 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Subdivision of One Lot into Two Lots on Property Zoned R-1:20. Located at 16466 Bonnie Lane. APN 532-02-053. Subdivision Application M-21-003. Property Owner: Mish Chadwick. Applicant: Tony Jeans. Project Planner: Ryan Safty. RECOMMENDATION: Consider approval of a request for subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:20, located at 16466 Bonnie Lane. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: R-1:20 Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan Existing Parcel Size: 81,857 square feet Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:20 South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:20 East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8, R-1:20 West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8, R-1:20 PAGE 2 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions. The project proposes to subdivide one lot into two. No development is proposed at this time. FINDINGS: ▪ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15315. ▪ As required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: The subject property is located on the east side of Bonnie Lane (Exhibit 1), accessed through a 50-foot wide ingress/egress easement connecting to Bonnie Lane. The application proposes to subdivide the existing lot into two lots. Due to the owner’s desire to maintain the existing structures on site, the applicant is requesting two lots with an irregular property line configuration. The majority of the structures and improvements on the existing property would be within newly created Parcel 1, while Parcel 2 would be vacant. No construction is proposed with this Subdivision application. On March 3, 2021, the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) re viewed the proposed subdivision proposal and provided comments on the proposal and questions to the applicant (Exhibit 5). Several neighbors submitted written comments which were included in the CDAC report (Exhibit 4). Four neighbors were present at the CDAC hearing and spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision concept. On April 23, 2021, the application submitted a Subdivision application to subdivide the property into two, irregularly shaped lots. The proposed project meets the technical requirements of the Town Code including minimum lot size, minimum street frontage, minimum lot dept h, and maximum floor area. All setbacks to the proposed new property line would comply, except that one existing pergola structure will need to be moved to meet setbacks, which is noted on the plans and included as a condition of approval (Exhibit 3). The existing residence has a non- conforming side yard setback along the southern property line, which would not change. PAGE 3 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is located on the east side of Bonnie Lane (Exhibit 1), accessed through a 50-foot wide ingress/egress easement connecting to Bonnie Lane. The surrounding properties are low density single-family residences. B. Project Summary The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property at 16466 Bonnie Lane from one lot to two irregularly shaped lots. C. Zoning Compliance The proposed new lots comply with minimum lot size, street frontage, lot depth, and floor area. The existing residence has a non-conforming side yard setback along the southern property line, which would not change. The existing structures on the site will comply with setback requirements to new property lines, except for the existing pergola adjacent to the pool which will need to be moved prior to recordation of the parcel map, per draft Condition of Approval 4 (Exhibit 3). The applicant provided a Letter of Justification (Exhibit 7) which summarizes compliance with the Town’s Zoning Code. DISCUSSION: A. Subdivision Analysis The subject property is 81,857 square feet and contains a 2,704-square foot single-family residence and 518-square foot attached garage on the southern portion of the property, a 2,468-square foot detached accessory structure labeled as a “barn” at the rear of the property, a pool area with associated equipment storage and pergola structure in the center of the property, and a sports court north of the pool area. The property is accessed from a 50-foot wide ingress/egress easement, 20 feet of which is paved, which serves two other properties. Ross Creek runs along the rear of the property, and there is an approximately 20,000-square foot grass field in the “panhandle” portion of the property running north along Ross Creek to the terminus of the Peacock Lane cul-de-sac to the north (Exhibit 10). PAGE 4 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx DISCUSSION (continued): The application proposes to subdivide the existing property approximately in half based on square footage, creating two separate lots. The table below summarizes the existing and proposed lot configurations and Zoning Code requirements. The existing and proposed lots comply with minimum lot size, minimum street frontage, and minimum parcel depth. No construction is proposed with this Subdivision application. The future driveway, grading, and construction work would require an Architecture and Site application and environmental review. In order to preserve the desired structures on one lot, comply with setbacks, and create a buildable area on the second lot, the proposed new lot line subdividing the property would be irregular with two separate bump-outs and one angle change. Proposed Parcel 1 would contain the existing residence, detached accessory “barn” structure, and pool area. The applicant proposes to move the existing pergola to meet the required 15-foot side yard setback, which is included as a condition of approval (Exhibit 3 ). The total existing floor area that would remain on Parcel 1 would be 5,690 square feet, which would comply with the 6,000-square foot maximum for a 40,406-square foot lot with an average slope of 15.3 percent. The existing circular driveway and 20-foot paved portion of the access easement would remain and continue to be used to access Parcel 1. Proposed Parcel 2 would be vacant after the removal of the existing sports court, as noted in the plans. The applicant has shown a potential building footprint and driveway location on the front half of Parcel 2 to show how setbacks and access could be complied with in the future. The conceptual driveway shown would run across the existing 50-foot ingress/egress easement, but would be separate from the existing 20-foot wide paved driveway serving the three existing properties. The back half of the property would contain the “panhandle” portion that runs along Ross Creek. No conceptual development is shown in the “panhandle” area for the Subdivision application (Exhibit 10). As part of this Subdivision application, the applicant is proposing a 20 -foot strip along the Ross Creek frontage as a private open space easement, for a total area of 10,000 square feet. The proposed parcels would meet the technical requirements of the Zoning Code; however, the proposed configuration is irregular and not consistent with the typical lot configurations in the surrounding neighborhood. PAGE 5 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx DISCUSSION (continued): B. Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Review Due to the irregular configuration of the proposed subdivision, Town Staff advised the applicant to apply for CDAC review prior to submitting their Subdivision application. On March 10, 2021, the CDAC reviewed the conceptual subdivision proposal. Written public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the subject property. Prior to the hearing, 12 written public comments were submitted by adjacent neighbors and added to the CDAC staff report (Exhibit 4). Additionally, 15 neighbors signed a letter in opposition to the proposed subdivision concept. The neighbors’ concerns revolved around the following: buildability of the “panhandle”, wildlife and riparian corridor impacts along Ross Creek, unusual lot configuration, impact to rural character of the neighborhood, and previous code complaints on the property. At the March 10, 2021 CDAC hearing, four neighbors were present to speak in opposition to the project. The neighbors were concerned with the location of the future house on Parcel 2 and potential privacy impacts, the increased density impacting the rural character of the neighborhood, and any development on the panhandle portion of the property. The CDAC members asked questions of the applicant and staff and provided comments and direction to the applicant (Exhibit 5). The CDAC had the following summarized comments and direction for the applicant: concerns with fire danger and suitability of the site for additional development; questioned whether this was the best way to divide the property; and encouraged neighborhood outreach. Following the direction received from the CDAC members and the concerns raised from the neighborhood, the applicant revised the proposal and submitted the Subdivision application. The applicant’s response letter to the CDAC comments is included as Exhibit 8. To address concerns related to future impacts to Ross Creek riparian corridor, the applicant has proposed a 10,000-square foot private open space easement along Ross Creek, at the rear of the property. To address concerns related to privacy impacts of the future residence on Parcel 2, the applicant modified the proposed subdivision line, adding the first bump-out in order to increase the separation between the future residence on Parcel 2 and the neighbor to the north. Additionally, the plans were revised to show that the future driveway to Parcel 2 will not impact the existing 20-foot paved shared driveway within the ingress/egress easement. The applicant has also reached out to the neighborhood through a series of letters, included as Exhibit 11. PAGE 6 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx DISCUSSION (continued): C. Neighbor Concerns Following CDAC review and the applicant’s neighborhood outreach efforts, several letters have been submitted to the public record in opposition to the project (Exhibit 13). The applicant’s responses to these comments are provided as Exhibit 1 2. The first point of contention in the letters questions the legality and approved use of the detached accessory “barn” structure. Town staff responded that the “barn” structure was approved as detached accessory living space without a kitchen or cooking facility, and the previous remodel of that structure was approved through Building Permit B16 -0878. These communications resulted in a Code Enforcement Case being opened on the subject property to inspect whether a cooking facility was installed without permits. The Code Enforcement Officer confirmed that a cooking facility was installed without permits. The owner remedied the Code Enforcement Case by removing the existing stove and 220 outlet from the existing structure and removing the existing electrical wire connected to the electrical panel. The electrical permit for this work (E21-203) was approved and inspected by the Building Department on September 9, 2021, which closed the Case. The public comment letters also questioned and raised concerns regarding the following: CEQA review of the project related to biological impacts along Ross Creek riparian corridor and development located in the Wildland Very High Fire Hazard Area ; lot frontage compliance; arborist review; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines compliance; and the history of illegal commercial uses associated with the property. The Town Attorney responded in writing to each of these concerns, included as Exhibit 6. A response letter to the Town Attorney’s letter was then submitted on August 9, 2021, further questioning the Town’s definition of “lot frontage” and “street”. As noted in Exhibit 6, Town Code defines both “lot frontage” and “street ,” provided below. Lot frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other than the side line of a corner lot. Street means any thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including public and private rights-of-way and easements. The proposed lots would have 142 feet and 121 feet of frontage along the existing 50-foot wide ingress/egress easement, and therefore comply with Town Code. PAGE 7 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx DISCUSSION (continued): The Town Attorney has provided the following information below to further clarify the environmental review concern. The Subdivision Map Act (SMA) does not contain a requirement for environmental review. Instead, one must do an analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to determine whether and to what degree a CEQA analysis must be done for a subdivi sion application. In this case, staff has relied on a Categorical Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions. The project proposes to subdivide one lot into two and no development is proposed at th is time. In addition to the Categorical Exemption for Minor Land Divisions, the Planning Commission can also rely on State CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Common Sense Exemption applies when an action or project can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant impact on the environment. Again, the project proposes to subdivide one lot into two and no development is proposed at this time. Also, environmental review will be done if an Architecture and Site application is filed. Finally, Planning Commission can also rely on CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 which allows for a streamlined environmental review process for projects which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies. Again, the project proposes to subdivide one lot into two and no development is proposed at this time and the project is currently consistent with the development density established by existing zoning and General Plan policies. Mr. Lippe’s letter alleges that, “the Town cannot make a CEQA determination regarding the subdivision application considered in isolation from the proposed new residence. Doing so would unlawfully ‘piecemeal’ the CEQA determination”. Generally, impermissible piecemeal review occurs when a large project is chopped into many little ones—each with a minimal potential impact on the environment or requiring only a ministerial permit —which cumulatively may have significant consequences (Planning & Conservation League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency [2009] 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 235). The piecemeal rule against segmenting does not, however, mean that every activity related to a proposed project must be included in a single CEQA document. Rather, the California Supreme Court held that related actions only had to be included in a CEQA document when they were reasonably foreseeable, but not when they were remote and speculative (Laurel Heights Improvement Association v Regents of the University of California 47 Cal. 3d 376). In Laurel Heights, the Supreme Court noted that the level of CEQA analysis required in any particular case depends on many factors, including the nature of the project, the directness or indirectness of the contemplated impact, the ability to forecast the actual effects the project will have on the physical environment, whether future effects will themselves require analysis under CEQA, and whether the effects will be felt outside of the project area. PAGE 8 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx DISCUSSION (continued): Contrary to Mr. Lippe’s letter, there is no “proposed new residence”. The project proposes to subdivide one lot into two lots and no development is proposed at this time. Under such circumstances, it would be impossible to specify the precise development that will eventually occur and the impacts that would result therefrom. As mentioned, environmental review will be done if an Architecture and Site application is filed and such an application is not considered ministerial. Therefore, the Town is not piecemealing the project as alleged by Mr. Lippe. D. Environmental Review The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions. The project proposes to subdivide one lot into two. No development is proposed at this time. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Written notice of the Planning Commission hearing was sent to neighboring property owners and occupants. Public comments are provided in Exhibit 13. The applicant’s responses are included as Exhibit 12. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The applicant is requesting approval of a Subdivision application to subdivide one lot into two lots at 16466 Bonnie Lane. The proposed configuration of the two lots would be irregular and not consistent with the surrounding neighborhood lot pattern. The application complies with the technical requirements of Town Code. No construction is proposed with this application. None of the findings from Section 66474 of the SMA could be made to deny the application (Exhibit 2). B. Recommendation Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Subdivision application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should: 1. Make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions (Exhibit 2); PAGE 9 OF 9 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/M-21-003 DATE: October 8, 2021 S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\10-13-21\Item 2 - 16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx CONCLUSION (continued): 2. Make the findings as required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act (Exhibit 2); and 3. Approve Subdivision application M-21-003 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 10. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the application. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval 4. March 10, 2021 Conceptual Development Advisory Committee report packet 5. March 10, 2021 Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes 6. Town Attorney response letter to public comment, dated June 22, 2021 7. Project Description and Letter of Justification, received July 22, 2021 8. Applicant’s response to Conceptual Development Advisory Committee recommendations, received July 22, 2021 9. Pictures of subject property, received July 26, 2021 10. Subdivision Plans, received July 29, 2021 11. Summary of neighborhood outreach, received August 6, 2021 12. Applicant’s response to public comments, received September 10, 2021 13. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, October 8, 2021 This Page Intentionally Left Blank BONNIE LNSHANNO N R D ANN ARBOR DRPEACOCK LNSHADY VI E W L N WOLLIN W Y 16466 Bonnie Lane 0 0.250.125 Miles ° Update Notes: - Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm) - Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label - Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area - Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm) EXHIBIT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION – October 13, 2021 REQUIRED FINDINGS 16466 Bonnie Lane Subdivision Application M-21-003 Requesting Approval for Subdivision of One Lot into Two Lots on Property Zoned R-1:20. APN 532-02-053. PROPERTY OWNER: Mish Chadwick. APPLICANT: Tony Jeans. PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty FINDINGS Required Finding for CEQA: ■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions. Required findings to deny a Subdivision application: ■ As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if any of the following findings are made: None of the findings could be made to deny the application. Instead, the Planning Commission makes the following affirmative findings: a. That the proposed map is consistent with all elements of the General Plan. b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with all elements of the General Plan. c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. e. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. f. That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. g. That the design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. EXHIBIT 2 N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2021\BONNIE LANE 16466 - FINDINGS PC 10-13-21.DOCX This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION – October 13, 2021 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 16466 Bonnie Lane Subdivision Application M-21-003 Requesting Approval for Subdivision of One Lot into Two Lots on Property Zoned R-1:20. APN 532-02-053. PROPERTY OWNER: Mish Chadwick. APPLICANT: Tony Jeans. PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or Town Council, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The Subdivision Application will expire two years from the date of approval, unless the approval is used before expiration. Section 29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning Ordinance. 3. ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPROVAL: Approval of an Architecture and Site Application is required for the new residence, driveway, and any associated grading work shown conceptually on the subdivision plans. 4. NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURES: Any existing structures on that site that become non- conforming to setbacks with the subdivision application must be removed, moved to meet new setback requirements, or legally permitted prior to recordation of the parcel map. 5. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 6. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer. 7. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website. EXHIBIT 3 8. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner and/or Applicant’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy- two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans. 9. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer and maps prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Owner and/or Applicant. 10. GENERAL: The Owner and/or Applicant shall comply with all Town, County, State and Federal laws and regulations applicable to this land division. No other proposed development is included in this particular Subdivision. Approval of a Parcel Map will acknowledge the Town’s acceptance of the parcel as legally created in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. Any subsequent development will be required to demonstrate compliance with the Town Development Standards and Codes. 11. PARCEL MAP: A parcel map shall be recorded. An electronic copy (PDF) of the parcel map and all associated materials shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department for review and approval. Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and the appropriate fee. The map shall be recorded prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. The Owner/Applicant shall provide the Engineering Division with an electronic copy (in PDF format) of the signed recorded map along with a CAD drawing of the Parcel Map after it is recorded. 12. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits, or immediately prior to the issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event occurs first. Written confirmation of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to the issuance of permits. 13. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map. The dedication shall be recorded before any grading or building permits are issued. a. Public Utility Easement (PUE): Ten (10) feet wide, next to the Bonnie Lane right-of-way. b. Ingress-egress, storm drainage and sanitary sewer easements, as required. c. Private Open Space Easement across the eastern portions of both Parcels 1 and 2, as delineated on the Tentative Map (sheet 2 of 6) that was submitted to the down, prepared by Westfall Engineers, Inc., and dated June 16, 2021. 14. PRIVATE EASEMENTS: Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities of involved parties shall accompany each private easement. The easements and associated agreements shall be recorded simultaneously with the Parcel map. An electronic copy (PDF) of the recorded agreement(s) shall be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of any permit. N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2021\Bonnie Lane, 16466 - PC COA - 10-13-21.docx PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/10/2021 ITEM NO: 2 DATE: March 4, 2021 TO: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-001. Project Location: 16466 Bonnie Lane. APN. 532-02-053. Property Owner: Mish Chadwick. Applicant: Tony Jeans, THIS Design. Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:20. ROLE OF THE CDAC: The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) advises a prospective applicant on the overall consistency of a project with Town policies prior to submitting a formal application and investing in the development review process. The Committee also endeavors to identify the potential issues that will need to be addressed during the development review process should the applicant wish to submit an application. The issues identified by the Committee are not intended to be all-inclusive and other additional issues may be identified during the formal development review process. None of the Committee's comments are binding on the Town and in no way are they intended to indicate whether the project will be received favorably by the various review bodies that are charged with evaluating and deciding the application. As noted in thi s report, if an application is filed, technical analysis would need to be done during the evaluation of the proposal. In addition, public input is a required and essential component in the development review process. Notice has been sent to residents and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. In addition to the public comments received at this meeting, a ll applicants are strongly encouraged to hold neighborhood meetings to receive input as the design of the project evolves should they decide to proceed with the development review process. EXHIBIT 4 PAGE 2 OF 4 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/CD-21-001 DATE: March 4, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Reports and Attachments\2021\03-10-21\16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted a project description (Attachment 3), site photographs (Attachment 4), and conceptual plans (Attachment 5) for the subdivision of one lot into two lots at 16466 Bonnie Lane. Due to the owner’s desire to maintain the existing structures on site, the applicant is requesting two lots with an irregular property line configuration. The subject property is zoned R-1:20 (Single-Family Residential) and is outside of the Hillside Planning Area. Future development would require an Architecture and Site application and be subject to the Residential Design Guidelines and portions of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) due to the average slope of the lot. The subject property is accessed through a 50-foot wide ingress/egress easement off Bonnie Lane, which is shared with two other properties. The proposed new lot would also have access through this easement, serving a proposed total of four properties. The applicant is also requesting preliminary review of an optional 10-foot reduction to this easement (from 50 feet to 40 feet) for added flexibility with the future house design and placement. To pursue this option, the applicant would need to work with the surrounding property owners to amend the easement and receive approval through a Subdivision application. Key elements of the proposed project, as listed on the project description and plans submitted, are as follows: • Subdivision of one 81,866-square foot lot into two irregularly shaped single-family residential lots of approximately 40,000 square feet with frontages of 138 and 124 feet and depths of 230 and 240 feet; and • Optional ingress/egress easement reduction from 50 feet to 40 feet. EXISTING GENERAL PLAN, ZONING, SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION, AND PLANNING AREA: 1. General Plan designation: Low Density Residential, 0-5 dwelling units per net acre. 2. Surrounding General Plan designations: Low Density Residential on all sides. 3. Zoning designation: R-1:20 (Single-Family Residential). 4. Surrounding zoning designations: R-1:20 (Single-Family Residential) to the north and south, and R-1:8 (Single-Family Residential) and R-1:20 (Single-Family Residential) to the east and west. 5. Hillside Specific Plan (HSP) Study Area: Not located in a sub-area. 6. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines: Residentially zoned parcels with an average slope of 10 percent or greater outside of the Town’s Hillside Area. PAGE 3 OF 4 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/CD-21-001 DATE: March 4, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Reports and Attachments\2021\03-10-21\16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx EXISTING CONDITIONS: 1. The project site is 1.88 acres (81,866 square feet). 2. The average slope of the project site is 13.1 percent. 3. The project site contains an existing single-family home, detached 2,256-square foot accessory barn structure, pool with a cabana structure, sports court, and large grass field in the “panhandle” portion of the lot. POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ISSUES: The following is a brief list of issues and topics for consideration by the CDAC. Staff has not reached conclusions on these topics. Staff is identifying them here to help frame the discussion and to solicit input. The main question for the CDAC is whether or not the applicant’s concept for the project creates a high-quality plan appropriate for Los Gatos in this location. If an application is filed, staff would evaluate the technical issues. 1. General Plan/Zoning a. The subject property is currently zoned R-1:20 (Single-Family Residential), which is consistent with the existing General Plan designation, Low Density Residential. b. Is the proposed subdivision consistent with all elements of the General Plan? 2. Density a. Is this site physically suitable for the proposed density? 3. Lot Configurations a. Minimum lot area for the R-1:20 zone is 20,000 square feet. b. The minimum frontage required for the R-1:20 zone is 100 feet. c. The minimum lot depth required for the R-1:20 zone is 140 feet. d. Is the site physically suitable for the type of development? e. Is the site layout and lot pattern compatible with the surrounding properties? 4. Parking/Circulation a. Would each lot have adequate access? b. Will adequate parking be provided for each lot? c. Would driveway slopes exceed the 15 percent limit in the HDS&G? d. Is a reduction to the shared ingress/egress easement appropriate? 5. Tree Impacts a. An arborist report will be required during development review to evaluate the potential impact to trees. b. Will driveways be located to avoid tree impacts? c. Will underground water, sewer, electrical, and telephone utility lines impact trees? PAGE 4 OF 4 SUBJECT: 16466 Bonnie Lane/CD-21-001 DATE: March 4, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC Reports and Attachments\2021\03-10-21\16466 Bonnie Lane\Staff Report.16466 Bonnie Lane.docx 6. Creeks/Waterways a. Would future development impact existing creeks or waterways? b. Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams will be required if there are existing creeks or waterways on the site. c. Valley Water, Regional Water Quality Board, and other agencies may need to review a future project. 7. Wildland Urban Interface Zone a. The subject property is located in the Wildland Very High Fire Hazard Area. 8. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines a. Future development of the lots would be subject to portions of the HDS&G due to the average slope exceeding 10 percent. b. Would future development of the proposed lots require grading that would meet the HDS&G? PUBLIC COMMENTS: Staff has included all public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, March 4, 2021 as Attachment 6. Attachments: 1. Location map 2. CDAC Application 3. Project Description Letter 4. Site Photographs 5. Conceptual Plans 6. Public comments received by 11:00 am, Thursday, March 4, 2021 Distribution: Tony Jeans, PO Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Mish Chadwick, 16466 Bonnie Lane, Los Gatos, CA 95032 BONNIE LNSHANNO N R D ANN ARBOR DRPEACOCK LNSHADY VI E W L N WOLLIN W Y 16466 Bonnie Lane 0 0.250.125 Miles ° Update Notes: - Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm) - Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label - Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area - Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm) ATTACHMENT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ATTACHMENT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St Los Gatos Ca 93030 CDAC Review – 16466 Bonnie Lane February 13th, 2021 Dear Committee Members 1.We are requesting that you review the Proposed Application for consideration as a pre-cursor to an application to subdivide a large [81,166 SF], irregularly shaped lot in the R1-20 zoning district into 2 parcels – each in excess of 40,000 sq ft. 2.We are also requesting that you give consideration to an associated Lot Line Adjustment, which would modify the Right of Way access in front of the property from 50 ft in width down to 40ft. Discussion: Bonnie Lane is a 40 ft wide Right of way along its length from Shannon Road. Most of the properties along Bonnie Lane are legal non-conforming lots with typical frontages of 80-90 ft [100 ft standard] and with side setbacks of 5-10 ft [15 ft standard]. The property has a panhandle of about 20,000 sq ft with a seasonal creek in the rear, making a portion of the land suitable only for ancillary use. In attempting to design this Lot Split we are attempting to retain the existing structures on the property [Residence, Barn, Pool and Cabana, with consideration also for the sports court and bocci court]. There is a reasonably logical lot line that we are proposing for this subdivision based on the location of existing structures. Even though the overall property is irregular in shape, it is sufficiently large that our proposal would create 2 conforming lots: •Approximately equal size [over 40,000 sq ft - with 20,000 sq ft required] •Conforming frontage [138 ft and 124 ft - with 100 ft required] •Conforming depth [230 ft and 240 ft with 140 ft minimum for R1:20 zoning] •Conforming setbacks [30/15/25 ft] for front side and rear. House placement has been suggested in the Map and would conform to the homes along Bonnie Lane, except that Bonnie Lane homes have significantly reduced side setbacks. It would be desirable to reduce the frontage street RoW from a 50 ft wide access corridor to 40 ft in with to allow for more flexibility in house placement. Bonnie Lane itself is a 40ft wide RoW, and this would be in consistent. We would also like the thoughts of the committee members as to the desirability of this aspect of the project. It is not fundamental to the success of the project, but the added flexibility might help with the house design and placement to reduce neighbor impacts and privacy. Tony Jeans Attachments: Plan Set [6 sheets], Google Street View & Google 3D Aerial View ATTACHMENT 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Imagery ©2021 Google, Map data ©2021 50 ft 16466 Bonnie Ln ATTACHMENT 4 Image capture: Mar 2019 © 2021 Google 16471 Bonnie Ln ATTACHMENT 5 From: Anne Roley <anne@anne4pt.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:14 PM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: RE: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application #CD-21-00 Dear Planning Department Project Planner: Ryan Safty Regarding the application #CD-21-00 for 16466 Bonnie Lane. What is permissible to develop on the rectangular piece of property that runs along the creek behind our home at 16436 Bonnie Lane?? Can the owner build a structure on that land? Another barn? A livable structure? A shed? Can the owner put a tennis court or sports court on that land along the creek behind our home? What are the limitations to that area - setbacks from the creek etc..... What is possible? Thank you, Anne Roley 16436 Bonnie Lane Los Gatos, CA. 95032 408-410-5781 ATTACHMENT 6 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/10/2021 ITEM NO: 2 ADDENDUM DATE: March 9, 2021 TO: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-001. Project Location: 16466 Bonnie Lane. APN. 532-02-053. Property Owner: Mish Chadwick. Applicant: Tony Jeans, THIS Design. Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:20. REMARKS: Attachment 7 contains written comments received by 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments previously received with March 10, 2021 Staff Report: 1. Location map 2. CDAC Application 3. Project Description Letter 4. Site Photographs 5. Conceptual Plans 6. Public comments received by 11:00 am, Thursday, March 4, 2021 Attachment received with this Addendum: 7. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, 2021 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 From:Rebecca Guerra <rmaguerra@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 1:07 PM To:Ryan Safty Rebecca Guerra; Planning Comment Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane APN 532-02-053 Follow up Flagged Cc: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Dear Mr. Safty, Thank you for returning my call on Friday regarding the proposed/conceptual development of the parcel APN 532-02-053. I am the property owner of the parcel immediately adjacent to the parcel in question. My property address is 16500 Bonnie Lane APN 532-02-015. I wish to confirm in writing that I object specifically to the aspect of that proposal that suggests the modification of the lot line by 10 feet into my property - specifically along my driveway for ingress and egress. There are a number of reasons for my concern and rejection of that suggestion. I spent time reviewing the drawings submitted with the conceptual plan Mr. Jeans submitted to the City of Los Gatos for the planning department review. After consideration of the pros and cons of the proposal to move the lot line for 16500 Bonnie Lane inward 10 feet, I have concluded that it is not in our best interest to agree. Frankly, there are few, if any benefits to me to do so. The several factors causing us to make this conclusion include the narrowing of the ingress to my property at the top of the drive which will make it harder to access the drive on the side adjacent to the property of Mish Chadwick. I also am concerned about the impact on fire and safety vehicles who might need to service our property. Lastly, I have been looking into the potential modification/upgrade of 16500 - potentially including the addition of an ADU. The impact to the driveway easement concerns me as it may limit my ability to do so. Lastly, I wish to make it clear that do not want yet another property accessing the driveway for ingress and egress. It does not appear that the proposal includes that for the second parcel, but it does appear to include a parking pad immediately adjacent to the lot line. I anticipate that the second parcel would access that off of Bonnie Lane. The net result is that losing more than 1200 square feet of property with a lot line adjustment does not benefit me in the least and can only impair my property access, value and future potential improvement flexibility. I plan to attend the video meeting as well, but wished to submit my concerns and objections in writing in advance. Sincerely, Rebecca M.Guerra ATTACHMENT 7 1 From: Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 8:06 PM To:Ryan Safty Subject:Proposed subdivision on Bonnie Lane File #: CD-21-001 Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged To Whom It May Concern: We would like this email to be kept anonymous for the public Zoom meeting. We are opposed to the proposed development at 16466 Bonnie Lane, File #: CD-21-001, to subdivide the property into two parcels. Our main concerns are: 1) If the neighbor residing at 16500 Bonnie Lane does not want to sell or gift the 10 feet of their property line, is this subdivision proposal no longer viable? 2) The panhandle that runs along the creek, behind three homes. It seems there was a reason that nothing has been built there before, mainly due to the creek. Our concern is this will disturb the wildlife and plant life in the area. 3) If a house is zoned for the front portion of the property, what size building would be allowed? Both portions of the proposed property are very unusual shapes for a home and don't seem suited to be separated from the current, larger property. We plan to attend the Zoom meeting on Wednesday, March 10. Thank you, 1 From: Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 7:51 AM To:Ryan Safty Subject:16466 Bonnie Lane Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged 02.08.2021 Att: Ryan Safty Project Planner Dear Ryan Safty, I am writing in regard to the proposed lot line change at 16466 Bonnie Lane. It is insufficient to consider subdividing one lot into two lots because there are enough outstanding issues that have not been addressed. This area of Bonnie Lane, so close to Ross Creek, is a sensitive riparian corridor; there are foxes, quail, and screech owl who have permanent habitats. It is not uncommon to have turkey, deer, bobcat, and mountain lion pass through. Clearly, this is not an area that is suitable for infill building. I object to modifying the Right of Way access from 50 ft in width to 40 ft. It does not align or conform with any of the existing properties on Bonnie Lane with 100 ft. as standard. As you are aware, this property already is built out with 2 existing homes — the barn is a fully built single family home. The Town has failed to acknowledge this fact: there is no barn in its definition. By creating a lot split, there is now precedent for an additional lot split in a sensitive habitat corridor. Approximately 7 years ago, we lost our frog population in Ross Creek. It used to be a cacophony in the evenings of frog croaking from spring to early/mid summer. The time frame of the loss of frog population aligns with the construction of the 16466 Bonnie Lane’s soccer field; the use of Round Up to keep the grass in perfect condition and/or the pumping of Ross Creek for irrigation purposes may represent the frog die off. I chose not to make my concerns public because I don’t want to have the 16466 Bonnie Lane neighbor disgruntled because I have valid concerns and questions about this project. Thank you. 1 From:Planning Comment Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 10:38 AM To:Ryan Safty Cc:Sally Zarnowitz; Alexa Nolder Subject:FW: Public Comment Application CD-21-001 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged From: elgr1969@gmail.com <elgr1969@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 10:01 AM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Public Comment Application CD-21-001 To: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee RE: 16466 Bonnie Lane – Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-001 We received notice of the public hearing regarding the proposal to subdivide one lot into two lots at 16466 Bonnie Lane in Los Gatos. The plans show “parcel 1” and two additional areas labeled “parcel 2” and “parcel 2 panhandle”. We are opposed to any development on “parcel 2 panhandle”. By history, this section has been offered for sale to neighbors with the suggestion it could be developed for multiple housing units. “Parcel 2 panhandle” does not have street access necessary for vehicular and safety equipment if property is developed. Developers would have to consider building street access to “parcel 2 panhandle” via a bridge over Ross Creek from Peacock Lane, which is a narrow lane that eventually tapers down into a single-car-width driveway for access to the last two houses on the lane. There is no area for maneuverability on Peacock for large vehicles such as trash trucks and fire trucks. Currently, large trucks have to back up Peacock Lane over 400 ft because there is no space to turn around causing significant traffic hazards, especially for many children playing in the quiet cul-de-sac. The riparian corridor along Ross Creek between Peacock Lane and “parcel 2 panhandle” would be significantly harmed by development. Many moved to East Los Gatos because of the semi- rural atmosphere. Approving a subdivision only for profit is an injustice. For these reasons, we are asking the Town to ensure there will never be development on “parcel 2 panhandle”. There would be no benefit to the public by developing the panhandle parcel, but much harm would be done to this quiet neighborhood. From:Steve <captsteven@aol.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 11:25 AM To:Ryan Safty Subject:Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Hi Ryan, Thank you for help Friday. Below are my concerns regarding 16466 Bonnie lane: More studies need to be conducted before a lot split is talked about- 1. Will the property owner continue to rent out her barn for events 2. Is water being pumped out of Ross creek to water the soccer field that they installed 3. Has a environmental impact report been completed as the land is next to a waterway. 4. Has any study been down regarding the soccer field, chemicals used on the lawn and the yellow leg frog die off in the creek 5. What is the owner providing to the neighborhood by wanting to split this land? I.e.- trees, street lighting etc. 6. Since the owner converted the barn to a different usage without a permit- got caught- then went back and tried to pass it. Why should we trust there word on this lot split. Thank you, Steve werner Sent from my iPhone 1 From: Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 11:46 AM To:Planning Comment; Ryan Safty Subject:Objection to 16466 Bonnie Lane Proposed Development Plan Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear Conceptual Development Advisory Committee, We are reaching out to you regarding the proposed development plan at 16466 Bonnie Lane and the grave concerns we have about it. We would like to express our vehement and complete objection to it for the following reasons: 1. The proposed plan will materially and permanently damage the character of Bonnie Lane that was carefully and very meticulously defined and agreed on between the town and the residents decades ago. Throughout the history of Bonnie Lane being part of Los Gatos, the town made sure the strict definitions are kept and residents adhered to them in order to maintain the understandings. The proposed plan shutters the status quo that has always been central to the street’s character. 2. The proposed plan completely ignores the wellbeing, quality of life, privacy, and property value of its neighboring properties. We purchased our house for the feel of the street, the privacy of the lot, the open lines of sights around it, the quiet surroundings and the importance of blending in nature and supporting its habitat. We made our decisions based on the fact that the land use around it is not subject to change, as was clarified by both the original owners of 16466 Bonnie Lane and the town. 3. The proposed plan is designed to accommodate one need only – maximizing profitability for its current owners while completely ignoring its material adverse impact on others. Its whole purpose is to leave the main house of 16466 Bonnie Lane and the adjacent barn structure, that was completely rebuilt and repurposed by the current owners recently, on the same lot while creating a second, oddly shaped, and completely unviable lot. Future development on the front part of that lot facing Bonnie lane will force somehow “shoving” a house against the neighbors’ fence in a way that will severely violate the neighbor’s privacy, block light, increase noise, and significantly and materially change their quality of life beyond repair. We strongly believe it’s the town’s duty to protect its residents and prefer the life quality of many over the profit of one. 4. The 16466 Bonnie Lane lot already has two dwellings on it. While we categorically object the plan to subdivide the plot for the reasons mentioned above, it is very clear that if there was any subdivision possible it would leave the main house on one lot and the very large 3,000sf “barn”, that is really being used as a business, on the second, allowing the development of a second house to be based on the "barn” structure or replace it. This will also allow a more reasonable lot shapes, setbacks, and a more limited impact on the street, nature and the immediate neighbors. Again, it seems like the only reason the current owner chose not to pursue this type of plan is a desire to maximize profit, which shouldn’t be a legitimate basis for support by the town when so many problems, exemptions, and permanent alteration of residents’ lives are involved. 5. It is our desire to keep our objections and concerns independent of any personal grievances and past incidents but it is very hard to ignore the fact that this development plan is a direct continuation of a never-ending pattern of behavior that violates any basic decency or consideration to others. From building and remodeling violations to high-traffic business operation in a quiet residential street, it will be a complete shame if on their way out of the neighborhood the owners of 16466 will also be rewarded with the support of the town for a development work that will forever change what this part of the neighborhood has always been – a quiet, rural-like, and open enclave. 2 We put our trust in the hands of the planners and the advisory committee with the hope they will protect the families and residents of Bonnie Lane and around it from this intrusive, aggressive, and unviable development plan. It is this sense of community and quality of life that brought us to Los Gatos to begin with, and we truly hope the town will come through in defending us against a plan that threatens to eliminate it. We will object any plan that ignores our concerns with every means available and insist that any possible development that benefits one resident is not detrimental in any way to another. Last, we will appreciate it if you keep these comments anonymous as it is not our desire to get into personal confrontations. Best Regards, 1 From: Scott Trobbe <strobbe@southbay.us> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:15 PM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Cc: Mish Chadwick (mishdesigns@me.com) <mishdesigns@me.com>; Mattb7@me.com Subject: 16466 Bonnie Lane - Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-001 Good Afternoon, My Name is Scott Trobbe and I reside at 16433 Peacock Lane, Los Gatos and I received the “Notice of a Public Meeting” for the above referenced property. I live directly adjacent to the subject property where I have been an owner for over 22 years. I have reviewed the materials online, as well as having either met or spoken directly with the property owners. I recognize that this is a conceptual advisory meeting and therefore, a lot of material as it relates to design, site placement, etc., is still basically undetermined. While not opposed to “Lot Splits” in general, I do reserve the right to have more comments as this project moves forward. For the moment, I do have some questions regarding the suggested lot split. Specifically, what will the overall coverage be for the proposed Lot containing the existing house, cabana and “Barn”? Also, is the Town considering or allowing the “Barn” to become another legal residence or an ADU of that size? Thank you for your assistance and I will be participating in the “Zoom” hearing on the 10 th of March. SCOTT TROBBE 16433 Peacock Lane Los Gatos, CA. 95032 c 408 499.0357 Dear Conceptual Development Advisory Committee: We are writing in opposition to the proposed subdivision of the property at 16466 Bonnie Lane. There are many significant reasons why this proposal should be rejected, and we hope that you will take a stand against approval. My mother and brother have lived in our house on Bonnie Lane since 1963, longer than anyone else on the street. I grew up on Bonnie Lane and my wife and I have lived next door, with frontage onto Shannon Road, since 1983. As such, we perhaps have the strongest sense of attachment to this wonderful neighborhood. We would like to share a few of the reasons we feel that this proposed project should not move forward. From an historical perspective, Bonnie Lane was a rural private road when we moved in. The lots are large, with many mature trees and a country feeling. Nearby Ross Creek parallels Bonnie Lane as well as Peacock Lane, and borders the property subject to subdivision. In 1982 we residents, in negotiation with the town council and Jim van Houten at the public works department, agreed to deed our private road to the town (paying for half of the improvement costs), and annex our properties into the town limits. In order to retain the rural feel of the neighborhood, the town planners acquiesced to keeping our street narrow and without sidewalks or street lights. While my recollection is that there was an agreement that no new lots could be split off with less than one acre, specifically to keep the 1.8 acre lot at 16466 from being subdivided, since the zoning is now listed as R1-20, this apparently is not a legal element. Nevertheless, most of the neighbors, both then and now, hope to preserve this rural open atmosphere. Environmentally, this property is very sensitive, with almost a third of the total acreage in the riparian exclusion zone. This property has many hundreds of feet of stream bed and is partly bisected by Ross Creek. While the 50’ exclusion zone for development has not of yet been subjected to the same level of development as the rest of the property, it appears that this owner’s continuous development in the watershed, coupled with the pesticides and fertilizers used on the half acre of lawn, has had a negative impact on the area’s wildlife. The proposed new home would be built in this watershed as well, putting further stress on the riparian habitat. And although the proposal notes only “ancillary” use of the panhandle part of the new property, this sensitive area should have no development at all. I believe that an environmental impact report should be required in advance of further action for this development. Finally, there is the question of the management and future of the subdivision itself. This space was not ever going to be a logical spot for a new home, and assuming special exceptions are granted for this development to take place, it would not be in the best interest of the rest of the neighborhood. This homeowner has a history of blatantly ignoring town regulations, and as a licensed contractor in the Town of Los Gatos for the last 44 years, I have seen homeowners such as this one forge ahead with unsanctioned additional work after receiving a final inspection. The Town, unfortunately, seems to have little enforcement leverage in these cases, and I worry that whatever assurances are written into the conditions of approval, we can have little faith that these would be adhered to. In summary, it is our opinion that this is a misguided and short-sighted proposal that is entirely about profits for one person, at the expense and to the detriment of the entire neighborhood. We strongly oppose it, and while we look forward to hearing your findings and the opinions of others, we will do what we can to keep this project from moving forward. Sincerely, Dan and Mary-Lynne Bainbridge 1 From: Patti van der Burg <pvanderburg@siestamedical.com> Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 3:29 PM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: comment Dear Conceptual Development Advisory Committee, We received your notice regarding your consideration of the 16466 Bonnie Lane proposed subdivision into 2 lots. We are opposed to the development for the following reasons. 1.We wish to maintain the rural and natural feel of the neighborhood, as it is along Ross Creek and is a riparian zone. 2.We are concerned it may be promised to the buyers of the new lot that they can build in the “Parcel 2 Panhandle” as shown in the proposal. This is a concern because the applicant Tony Jeans suggested building will be allowed when he discussed the desire to sell the Panhandle zone to us. We don’t want this property sold with the promise of building in this zone. 3.Frogs along this section of Ross Creek have disappeared over the last few years, possibly due to drought and possibly to fertilizer and pesticide runoff from the existing soccer field. More development will surely negatively affect frog species in the area, as well as local bee hives, deer, hawks, owls, bobcats, coyotes, wild turkeys, etc. 4.We would like the town to assure that there never will be development, ADU’s, or large paved areas in the “Parcel 2 Panhandle” zone. 5.We would like the town to assure that there never will be an access road built from Peacock Lane to the ”Parcel 2 Panhandle” This would damage the creek and add traffic to the quiet Peacock cul-de-sac. 6.We are concerned the Owner, who has used the property for un-sanctioned weddings and rental events despite the town’s objections, will not follow town protocols with this change, as there is history. 7.There may not be building legally allowed as this low zone is flooded in heavy rains, and may be a flood zone. 8.There may not be subdivision allowed as there is not enough Bonnie Lane fronted space to allow a new parcel. 9.There may be town planning history involving the building of Bonnie Lane as a narrow street to not allow further parcels. Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Patti and Erik van der Burg 16417 Peacock Lane PS I understand the deadline for submitting written correspondence is 3/10 11:00am, per the green notice we received. Please confirm your receipt of the above comments by the deadline to be considered at the meeting 3/10 4:30. Thanks. 1 From: Amanda Kerlee <amandakerlee@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:50 AM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Regarding the application #CD-21-00 for 16466 Bonnie Lane Dear Planning Department Project Planner: Ryan Safty, Regarding the application #CD-21-00 for 16466 Bonnie Lane. We have three main concerns. First, given that both ourselves and 16513 have had major plumbing issues stemming from the street’s sewage line within the past year, we are concerned about the ability for the existing infrastructure to absorb additional stresses from a property and structures it was not designed for given that it already seems to be at capacity. Second, we believe that the ten foot easement is both unnecessary and disruptive. We have often seen delivery trucks struggle to make that turn when going downhill on Bonnie and believe narrowing the space for them to correct their turns would be unwise. We are also wondering where the new driveway would be compared to Bonnie Ln to get a better idea of what would happen on trash collection days since trash is currently collected at the base of the easement directly in front of where the new structure has been proposed. Also, that ten feet currently provides a place for Ms. Chadwick’s guests to park during her large gatherings as parking is legal only in front 16503, ourselves, and 16513 and many times Bonnie Ln has been overwhelmed on both sides of the street far beyond the front of these three houses even with people parked where the new lot line would be. When this happens the width of the street is narrowed to a very narrow single lane that is quite a tight squeeze in a larger car as well as being a major safety concern. Third, we would like a better understanding of what the environmental impacts of constructing the new structures would be in both the ecological sense and for the neighborhood. As stated previously, Bonnie has very limited street parking and there would be very little space for contractors and deliveries to park without disrupting the neighborhood. Finally, we are pleased to see that the land remains zoned for residential use rather than commercial as past events had left us uncertain. Thank you. Pamela Kee Amanda Kerlee Alexandra Kerlee 16509 Bonnie Ln Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 358-6958 PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT MEETING DATE: 03/10/2021 ITEM NO: 2 DESK ITEM DATE: March 10, 2021 TO: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-001. Project Location: 16466 Bonnie Lane. APN. 532-02-053. Property Owner: Mish Chadwick. Applicant: Tony Jeans, THIS Design. Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:20. REMARKS: Attachment 8 contains written comments received by 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, 2021. ATTACHMENTS: Attachments previously received with March 10, 2021 Staff Report: 1. Location map 2. CDAC Application 3. Project Description Letter 4. Site Photographs 5. Conceptual Plans 6. Public comments received by 11:00 am, Thursday, March 4, 2021 Attachment previously received with March 10, 2021 Addendum Report: 7. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, 2021 Attachment received with this Desk Item Report: 8. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, March 10, 2021 This Page Intentionally Left Blank 1 From: slkishler <slkishler@aol.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:00 PM To: Planning Comment <PlanningComment@losgatosca.gov> Subject: CDAC Application CD-21-001, 16466 Bonnie Lane As owners of an adjacent property, we wish to register our concerns about the proposed development at 16466 Bonnie Lane. We have viewed all the provided materials and we would like to know if the owners are requesting to split the parcel only, or if they actually intend to build the house shown in a specific location on the plan. We would like to know what uses are intended for he proposed parcel 2 which borders on Ross Creek. This area is currently a play field, was once a successful vineyard, and could be planted as an orchard/garden. Our strong preference is that the riparian corridor, which is environmentally sensitive and extremely important to local bird life and other native animal species, be preserved as much as possible with no structures. We feel all existing protective restrictions should be strictly upheld. We will be following the proposal as it development and appreciate notification of relevant meetings. Sincerely, Claude and Susan Kishler, 16420 Bonnie Lane ATTACHMENT 8 Dear Conceptual Development Advisory Committee: Regarding the proposed subdivision of the property at 16466 Bonnie Lane, the following neighbors on Bonnie and Peacock Lanes would like to object to this project in its present form. Concerns about this development range from a desire by some neighbors to see more stringent conditions of approval built into the proposal, and by other neighbors who are firmly opposed to this development ever taking place. We hope that individual disagreements with this plan can be articulated in separate letters, calls, or meetings. We encourage this committee to reject this proposal until neighborhood concerns can be fully addressed. Thank you. Residents of Bonnie Lane and adjacent properties (a partial list): Segev 16450 Bonnie Kishler 16420 Bonnie (owner's information redacted) Bainbridge (E., R., D.) 16380 Bonnie Hammers 16230 Shannon Road (X Bonnie) Hayashi 16250 Shannon Road (X Bonnie) Ettinger 16375 Bonnie Georges 16421 Bonnie Romano 16439 Bonnie Fleming 16451Bonnie Baunach 16488 Bonnie Bainbridge (D., ML) 16200 Shannon Cook 16369 Peacock Orsi-Hartigan 16428 Peacock Van der Burg 16417 Peacock 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT MINUTES OF THE CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MARCH 10, 2021 The Conceptual Development Advisory Committee of the Town of Los Gatos conducted a Regular Meeting on March 10, 2021, at 4:30 p.m. This meeting was conducted utilizing teleconferencing and electronic means consistent with State of California Executive Order N-29-20 dated March 17, 2020, regarding the COVID-19 pandemic and was conducted via Zoom. All committee members and staff participated from remote locations and all voting was conducted via roll call vote. In accordance with Executive Order N-29-20, the public could only view the meeting online and not in the Council Chamber. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 4:30 PM ROLL CALL Present: Vice Chair Jeffrey Barnett, Council Member Mary Badame, Council Member Matthew Hudes, Planning Commissioner Melanie Hanssen, and Planning Commissioner Reza Tavana. Absent: None VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS None. CONSENT ITEMS (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION) 1.Approval of Minutes – January 13, 2020 MOTION: Motion by Council Member Matthew Hudes to approve the consent calendar. Seconded by Planning Commissioner Reza Tavana. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS 3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair (CONDUCTED OUT OF ORDER) MOTION: Motion by Council Member Matthew Hudes to appoint Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett as Chair. Seconded by Council Member Mary Badame. EXHIBIT 5 PAGE 2 OF 5 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\03-10-21 Minutes - CDAC.docx VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. MOTION: Motion by Planning Commissioner Jeffrey Barnett to appoint Council Member Mary Badame as Vice Chair. Seconded by Council Member Matthew Hudes. VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. 16466 Bonnie Lane Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Application CD-21-001 Requesting preliminary review of a proposal for subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:20. APN 532-02-053. PROPERTY OWNER: Mish Chadwick APPLICANT: Tony Jeans PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty Chair Jeffrey Barnett recused himself from this item. Ryan Safty, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Applicant presented the proposed project. Committee members asked the following questions of the applicant: • Are there alternative locations for the new home? Applicant: Other configurations, but not locations were considered. Did not consider using the panhandle. Considered rotating the house, but that would not be consistent with the other homes along Bonnie Lane. • Why request a reduction of the easement for egress and ingress? Applicant: The extra room in front would make it easier to manipulate the placement of the house and easier to work with the neighbor on left. However, he spoke with the owner of the right-of-way. She wants to keep it, so that request has been removed. • Where is the driveway for the house? Applicant: There is an existing driveway on the left side along the fence on Bonnie Lane that goes all the way back to the barn. Exact placement depends on the final house layout. The existing house’s driveway would not change. Additional parking could be added in the front. PAGE 3 OF 5 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\03-10-21 Minutes - CDAC.docx • Are there plans to build additional structures near the creek? Applicant: Not at this time. Need to first determine if the lot can be split. • Any plans to build any structures near the soccer field? Applicant: Not at this time. • Any plans for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)? Applicant: Not at this time. State law probably allows it, but it has not been researched. • The entire lot has an average slope of 13.1 percent. How will the Hillside Design and Guideline (HDS&G) be applied? Applicant: They will comply with any grading and retaining wall requirements. However, if the lot is split, parcel two will have an average slope of eight percent and not be subject to the HDS&G. This needs to be confirmed with staff. • Why request a lot line adjustment? Applicant: There is an existing 50-foot wide right-of-way that was proposed to be reduced to 40 feet to allow additional flexibility with the future home placement on Parcel 2. However, the owner does not want to sell that property and this request has been removed. • Have you communicated with neighbors? Applicant: They have spoken to a couple, but not all. They thought that the CDAC was an informal review. Once a formal application is submitted, they will communicate with all the neighbors. • Is there any issue with adding another driveway on the existing access easement? Applicant: The primary access point is Bonnie Lane. If more of the frontage is needed, the owner can offer the neighbor who owns the right-of-way an additional incremental payment for road maintenance. Opened Public Comment. Amir Sagev - Neighbor across the fence on the left side. He urges the Committee to not look at the proposal as a conceptual sketch, but as a real structure. A two-story, 4,000 square-foot home will lessen the quality of life for him and make his backyard unenjoyable. It completely changes the street and life of the neighboring families. The lot already has two dwellings. Rebecca Guerra - Neighbor at 16500 Bonnie Lane. Three homes share the driveway that she owns. Reducing the driveway affects safety and her ability to improve her property. She is concerned about increased home density when building another home. She is concerned that the rural residential feel of the street will be lost due to the additional house. PAGE 4 OF 5 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\03-10-21 Minutes - CDAC.docx Patti and Erik Van der Burg - Neighbor at 16417 Peacock Lane which is adjacent to the panhandle. Their property looks over the panhandle. The previous vineyard on the panhandle has been converted to a soccer field. Their yard is just on the other side and this will affect the enjoyment of their yard. They are opposed to further development in the panhandle. Les Kishler - Neighbor at 16420 Bonnie Lane. He agrees with prior comments and doesn’t want further development of the property. Applicant Comments: - Applicant apologizes to Amir Seghev for not speaking to him earlier. He thought CDAC was an informal hearing. He intends to meet and talk with him. - The owner offered to sell the back panhandle portion of the lot to adjacent neighbors, but there was no interest. - Parcel two has a screen of mature trees along the left side providing a partial buffer of privacy for both houses. - This is a nearly two acre property proposed to be split into separate one-acre properties. Neighboring properties are ½ acre lots. All structures are legal. The project is consistent with the General Plan and all zoning rules. Public Comment Closed. Committee members asked the following questions of staff: • Has there been any consultation with County Fire about the proposed egress for the two properties and are the dimensions adequate? Staff: Fire does not look at CDAC applications, only when a formal application is submitted. Fire has approved past projects with far more reduced access points, so no issues are anticipated with this plan. • The soccer field is close to the Ross Creek riparian corridor, if the applicant wanted to build something there, what would staff need to consider? Are there additional setbacks required for riparian corridors? Is an EIR required? Staff: The Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams requires additional setbacks. The plans show a 50-foot Santa Clara County Flood Control right-of-way on both sides of the creek. Once a formal application is submitted, it will be reviewed for conformance with Town standards. • What are the constraints about building an ADU on either or both properties? Will the HSD&G apply? Staff: If the new parcels have an average slope under 10%, the HSD&G would not apply. Every residentially zoned lot in Town is allowed an ADU and a Junior ADU. This is a State law that the Town adopted. PAGE 5 OF 5 MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2021 N:\DEV\CDAC\CDAC MINUTES\2021\03-10-21 Minutes - CDAC.docx • Is there any difference in ADU allowances between a hillside lot and a non-hillside lot? Staff: There is no difference for the number of units, but there is a difference for the placement of units. Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following comments: • Concerned about fire danger and safety as the property is within a Wildfire Urban Interface zone. • Questioned whether the site is physically suitable for the development. • Although there is enough room to meet the subdivision requirements, the proposal needs more work as evident by the neighborhood outcry and public comments. There are potential concerns related to fire safety and the riparian corridor. The applicant needs to meet with the neighbors. There may be another way to divide the property to retain one existing structure on each lot . • The lot is a unique shape. Questioned whether this was the best way to divide the land. Ingress and egress were a concern until removed from the plan. • This plan is at a very conceptual level with few details, so it is hard to give specific feedback. The plans need to address potential flood plains and identify the footprint and driveway locations. The lot appears to be quite large and the proposal appears to comply with zoning requirements. There is the potential for issues with neighbor privacy and neighborhood compatibility. Lot two is quite large, but the actual building site is small. The fact that there was nothing in this area before doesn’t mean that the owner can’t construct something in the future as is their right. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 5:34 p.m. This is to certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes of the March 10, 2021 meeting as approved by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee. /s/Joel Paulson, Community Development Director This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS OFFICE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEY PHONE (408) 354-6818 June 22, 2021 Sent by Email Only Thomas N. Lippe, APC Lippelaw@sonic.net 201 Mission Street 12th Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 Dear Mr. Lippe, This correspondence is in response to your correspondence dated June 8, 2021 directed to Town employee Ryan Safty. Please direct any further communications to my attention. Initially, it is important to recognize that the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC) that reviewed the above reference project advises a prospective applicant on the overall consistency of a project with Town policies prior to submitting a formal application and investing in the development review process. The Committee also endeavors to identify the potential issues that will need to be addressed during the development review process should the applicant wish to submit an application. The issues identified by the Committee are not intended to be all-inclusive and other additional issues may be identified during the formal development review process. In addition, the Staff Technical Review Comments dated May 26 is not a report. All development applications of any type are required to go through a process. This process begins with a technical review of the application by staff representatives of Town departments, which include Community Development (Planning and Building Divisions), Fire, and Parks and Public Works (Engineering Division) to determine whether the project applicant is complete, meets all code and policy requirements; and meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Applications that do not meet all of these requirements are continued at this level until the application is complete. At this time, the above reference project is not complete. In regard to the specific points set forth in your correspondence, the Town responds as follows: 1.Town Code requires a minimum of 100’ frontage for interior lots in the R-1:20 zone. The proposed frontage for the parcels would be 142’ and 121’ along the existing ingress/egress easement. Per Town Code, “lot frontage” is defined as, “the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other than the sideline of a corner lot.” “Street” is then defined as, “any thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including public and private rights-of-way and easements.” CIVIC CENTER 110 E. MAIN STREET LOS GATOS, CA 95031 EXHIBIT 6 INCORPORATED AUGUST 10, 1887 Thomas N. Lippe, APC Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 Page 2 2. The CDAC staff report states, “An arborist report will be required during development review to evaluate the potential impact to trees.” No development is proposed with this subdivision application, and therefore, no tree impacts would occur. Any future proposed development (construction activities, grading, etc.) would be reviewed for compliance with the Town Code regarding protected trees. The applicant has chosen not to submit development applications at this time. The driveways and home footprints shown are conceptual. 3. No construction is proposed as a part of this subdivision application. Potential house footprints and driveways are shown to demonstrate that the proposed parcels could accommodate development in a manner consistent with the Zoning Code and General Plan. Pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and Town Code, any subdivision that results in four or fewer parcels (referred to as a “minor subdivision”) requires a “parcel map.” This project appears to meet all of the criteria and is eligible for a Class 15 Categorical Exemption per Section 15315 of the State CEQA Guidelines as it involves a minor land division. 4. A large portion of the Town is within a Wildland Very High Fire Hazard Area. The future development applications will be reviewed by the Fire Department and Building Official for compliance with applicable Fire and Building Codes. 5. Average slope is requested to determine the allowable building size on each parcel and to confirm that the existing structures on proposed Parcel 1 would comply with maximum FAR allowances with reductions for lots over 10% slope. Additionally, if the lots are over 10% slope, they will be subject to portions of the HDS&G during construction, not subdivision. 6. Previous code enforcement cases on this property are irrelevant to the minimum requirements to subdivide the property and current code enforcement compliance is also not a basis for denial findings under the Subdivision Map Act. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me by calling (408) 354-6880. Thank you. Sincerely, ROBERT SCHULTZ Town Attorney T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St Los Gatos Ca 93030 Subdivision – 16466 Bonnie Lane Rev: July 22nd, 2021 16466 Bonnie Lane, Los Gatos Letter of Justification The Property and the Request: The Property [APN: 532- 02-053] is an irregular shaped parcel comprising almost 2 acres, at the edge of the R1:20 zoning district on Bonnie Lane, with R1:8 zoning directly across the road and a seasonal creek at the rear [a tributary to Ross creek]. We are requesting to subdivide it into 2 large parcels [>40,000 each], in a manner consistent with R1:20 Zoning regulations and the Town of Los Gatos General Plan. CDAC Consideration: We asked CDAC to look at this application in the light of the irregular shape of the parcel. Questions and Comments from CDAC Members included the following points, which we felt were helpful and have taken them into account for this submission: •What is the Fire Impact for this? •Is the slope of the [new] Parcel over 10% [HS&DG implications]? •What impact will there be on the Riparian corridor [by the creek]? •Are there any Flood-plain issues? •Is the proposed lot-line the best option? •Make the proposed Driveway location more clear. •Work on Neighborhood Compatibility. •Overall space seems OK. Neighbors cannot expect “nothing” forever. •Meet with the neighbors to discuss concerns. Please also see a separate attachment showing how the various issues, which were discussed at the CDAC hearing 3-10-21, have been addressed with this application: The Proposed Configuration: We are proposing to split the property into 2 roughly equal parcels – each over 40,000 sq ft. In designing this Lot Split we are attempting to retain the existing structures on the property [Residence, Barn, Pool and Cabana, with consideration also for the sports court and bocce court]. The primary parcel [Parcel 1] will retain the main structures while the owner will design and build a new home on Parcel 2. Parcel 2 has a panhandle of about 20,000 sq ft with a seasonal creek [East Ross Creek] in the rear, making a portion of the land suitable only for ancillary use, but the front portion is in itself 20,000 sq ft and is entirely suitable for development. EXHIBIT 7 There is a logical lot line that we proposed for this subdivision based on the location of existing structures. We have modified it slightly after listening to CDAC and visiting with neighbors in order to improve privacy, but it still remains the most sensible option. Access to the Property: The existing property is accessed from a 50 ft wide easement described “for Road Purposes” which provides access to 3 homes including the existing home on Parcel 1 and is additionally accessible by a fourth. The ‘shared access driveway’ paved road to these homes is 20 ft in width and satisfies Fire regulations. The proposed new Parcel 2 will also use a portion of this easement, but not the physical pavement of the ‘shared access driveway’ to the other properties, as the new driveway will access Bonnie Lane directly. Setbacks at New Property Line: The newly created setbacks to the proposed Property Line are as follows: •53 ft – House. Complies •15 ft – Barn. Complies •6 ft - Pool Equipment shed <120sq ft enclosed for sound purposes. Exempt. •15 ft - Open Pergola adjacent to pool. This will be relocated for compliance. •27 ft – Pool. Complies •24 ft – Spa. Complies It is believed that the pool equipment is exempt and can remain in the side setback area. The pergola will be relocated 3 ft. This is a condition of the Approval. The primary residence setback to the southern side property line exists at 13’ 6” and will not change. It conforms to other side setbacks along Bonnie Lane in this zoning district. Considerations Addressed in this Proposal: Compliance with General Plan and R1-20 Zoning: Despite their irregular shape, the 2 Parcels would be in substantial compliance with the General Plan and Zoning regulations – so California Code 66474 and Town of Los Gatos Code 24.20.020(b) would not be applicable in a denial of this Subdivision Application. •Approximately equal sizes: [over 40,000 sq ft] would be Low Density Residential. •Conforming frontage [142 ft and 121 ft - with 100 ft required] •Conforming depth [265 ft and 250 ft with 140 ft minimum for R1:20 zoning] •Conforming setbacks are [30/15/25 ft] for front side and rear. No non-conforming setbacks are created as a result of this proposed Lot Split. Parking/Circulation: House placement has been suggested in the Map and a proposed driveway shown. It would allow adequate parking and turnaround for both parcels. Driveway slope would be minimal for the new parcel and the driveway would be at about a 5% grade to the street. The driveway is 20 ft wide and has been positioned for direct ingress/egress to Bonnie Lane. Tree Impacts: At this time there are no tree impacts. For the development of Parcel 2 an Arborist would evaluate the impact of any development on trees. No impact is anticipated for any significant trees, based on the probable house location. However, based on discussions with the immediate neighbor to the north [Segev] we would anticipate requesting the removal of one of the two 30” pine trees at the common Property Line for Fire Safety concerns. This approval cannot be guaranteed, so the new driveway has been designed to be sufficiently far from the pine trees to allow them adequate root zone clearance. Creek/Riparian Corridor: No development in or near this location is proposed with this application or from any subsequent follow-on project. A Private Open Space Easement has been offered along the Creek to further protect the riparian corridor. The owner developed the area as a soccer field and a bocce court. A preliminary site visit would indicate that the Panhandle Area could anticipate long-term future ancillary use such as a tennis court or ADU and still remain outside any water easement. Or it could be left as it is. Flooding from the creek is unlikely to impact any development at the front of the property, which is above the creek high bank & 150 feet away, It is also above the level of most of the surrounding homes. Private Open Space: At the CDAC hearing, concern was noted as to the possible impact of future development on the riparian zone along Ross Creek. With this Application, the owner is proposing a 10,000 sq ft Private Open Space dedication along 500 linear ft of the creek, encompassing both properties. This zone would provide an additional buffer adjacent to the creek. Fire Hazard Area [WUI]: This entire area of Los Gatos is in the Wildland/Urban Interface and requires fire sprinklers, compliant roofing & exterior cladding, defensible space landscaping and other measures dictated by Central Fire. State and local codes have been updated to address WUI and any future new construction will be conditioned by strong safety measures. HS&DG: The development of Parcel 2 would not be subject to HS&DG as the slope is under 10%. Compatibility with neighboring Properties: The two properties would be larger than their neighbors, with frontages and side setbacks greater than others along Bonnie Lane. However, the overall street presence that might result from a new single family home on Parcel 2 would be similar to that of other homes. We have had discussions with several neighbors already, whose concerns have revolved primarily around Privacy + the Panhandle. This dialogue is continuing. Thank you for your consideration. Tony Jeans Attachments: Plan Set [6 sheets], Google Street View & Google 3D Aerial View This Page Intentionally Left Blank T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St Los Gatos Ca 93030 Subdivision – 16466 Bonnie Lane July 22nd, 2021 16466 Bonnie Lane, Los Gatos CDAC 3-10-21 Considerations The CDAC Minutes Synopsis [Attached] shows the general thrust of the Committee Members in their questions, both to “the Applicant” and to Staff, as well as some voiced concerns of neighbors. In conclusion the Committee provided useful comments for consideration. Based on these concerns/comments we have responded with a revised set of plans, which addresses most of the items and gives better consideration to neighborhood compatibility: •We provided a 10,000 sq ft Private Open Space dedication along the riparian corridor at the rear of the property in conjunction with the Lot Split to mitigate neighbor concern about what might happen immediately adjacent to Ross Creek. •There are no flood-plain issues. The proposed building site on Parcel 2 is at a higher elevation than neighboring homes along Bonnie Lane and is over 150 ft from Ross Creek. •The Access Corridor is no longer under consideration for a reduction in width. •We have adjusted the Proposed Lot Line to provide for greater privacy with the neighbor to the North when any future house is designed. •We located the new driveway to have ingress/egress directly onto Bonnie Lane. •We have shown on the plans the slope of the new Parcel 2. It is under 10% - so this reasonably flat lot does not require HS&DG for future house design. There are a number of questions, which relate more to the future development of the property [after a Lot Split] that we can touch on, but are not really relevant at this time. When an A&S application is submitted for the new lot, these can be discussed in detail. •The owner has no plans to further develop the “Panhandle” at this time. I have not been asked to design an ADU in that location, but it might be permitted by code. •The WUI designation for this lot, and in fact for this entire area, requires that any new home be designed/built with very high fire risk accommodations in mind. Hydrant Proximity, Fire Sprinklers, non-combustible Walls and Roof, Defensible Space and other Fire Dept imposed conditions are mandatory. In their other comments the CDAC noted that the proposal complied with zoning rules, but asked us to review whether this was the best way to split the lot. We examined other options, but none was legally compliant with the Subdivision Map Act or the Town Zoning Code. We designed this subdivision explicitly so as not to ask for any variances, nor to require any zoning changes. In fact the lots being created are still 2 x the size of other similarly zoned lots on Bonnie Lane. EXHIBIT 8 We have modified the original proposal to improve compatibility with neighboring lots and to provide better privacy opportunities during house design with neighboring homes. More specifically we have ensured that we are not creating any new inconsistencies that would allow this application to be denied pursuant to Gov’t Code § 66474(a), (b) or Town Code § 24.20.020(b). [Below] With this in mind, we respectfully request that the Planning Commission reviews the revisions that we have made to our original application to the CDAC in the context of the questions asked & comments made and determine that it should be approved as an opportunity to add to the Town housing stock in a responsible manner, consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Rules. Thank you for your consideration. Tony Jeans California: 66474. A legislative body of a city or county shall deny approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, if it makes any of the following findings: (a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Town Code: 24.20.020 (b): If the design of a proposed subdivision or the intended use of the land included in a proposed subdivision does not comply with all rules of the applicable zone, the tentative subdivision map shall not be accepted for filing or be deemed to have been filed unless the subdivider concurrently prosecutes proceedings under chapter 29 of this Code to change the zone or to obtain a variance from the provisions thereof, and the change or variance would, if granted, allow the subdivision or intended use. FROM THE MINUTES OF CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING OF MARCH 10, 2021: 16466 Bonnie Lane CD-21-001 Committee members initially asked the following questions of the applicant: • Are there alternative locations for the new home? • Why request a reduction of the easement for egress and ingress? • Where is the driveway for the house? • Are there plans to build additional structures near the creek? • Any plans to build any structures near the soccer field? • Any plans for Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)? • The entire lot has an average slope of 13.1 percent. How will the Hillside Design and Guideline (HDS&G) be applied? • Why request a lot line adjustment? • Have you communicated with neighbors? • Is there any issue with adding another driveway on the existing access easement? Neighbors Spoke and addressed the Following Possible Issues: • Privacy for the immediate neighbor at 16450 if a home were to be built. • Concern from the owner of 16500 about reducing the Access Corridor width & increased traffic on the common access driveway currently serving 3 homes. • Owner of 16417 Peacock has Privacy concerns if Panhandle were to be built on. • Neighbor at 16420 would prefer to see no more development on the property. Committee members asked the following questions of staff: • Has there been any consultation with County Fire about the proposed egress for the two properties and are the dimensions adequate? • The soccer field is close to the Ross Creek riparian corridor, if the applicant wanted to build something there, what would staff need to consider? Are there additional setbacks required for riparian corridors? Is an EIR required? • What are the constraints about building an ADU on either or both properties? • Is there any difference in ADU allowances between a hillside lot and a non-hillside lot? Committee members discussed the matter and provided the following comments: • Concerned about fire danger and safety as the property is within a Wildfire Urban Interface zone. • Questioned whether the site is physically suitable for the development. • Although there is enough room to meet the subdivision requirements, the proposal needs more work as evident by the neighborhood outcry and public comments. There are potential concerns related to fire safety and the riparian corridor. The applicant needs to meet with the neighbors. There may be another way to divide the property to retain one existing structure on each lot. • The lot is a unique shape. Questioned whether this was the best way to divide the land. Ingress and egress were a concern until removed from the plan. • This plan is at a very conceptual level with few details, so it is hard to give specific feedback. The plans need to address potential flood plains and identify the footprint and driveway locations. The lot appears to be quite large and the proposal appears to comply with zoning requirements. There is the potential for issues with neighbor privacy and neighborhood compatibility. Lot two is quite large, but the actual building site is small. The fact that there was nothing in this area before doesn’t mean that the owner can’t construct something in the future, as is their right. This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 9 16466 BONNIE LANE – ACCESSORY STRUCTURES POOL EQUIPMENT SHED [108 SF] INTERIOR OF SHED PERGOLA AT POOL [OPEN 3 SIDES] This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 10 T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1833 Fax: 408.354.1823 Date: March, 2021 To: All Neighbors and nearby Residents. From: Tony Jeans of T.H.I.S. Design and Development. Subject: Proposed Lot Split at 16466 Bonnie Lane Nearby Residents: I am writing to introduce myself and to let you know that the owner of 16466 Bonnie Lane has asked me to undertake some design/development work for her. As some of you already know, the initial plan is to take the existing 1.8 acre property and split it into 2 parcels – each just under on acre. They would be fully in compliance with the zoning ordinances for this zoning district [R1:20] and with the Town of Los Gatos General Plan. Because this property is an irregular shaped lot, we decided to ask the CDAC [Conceptual Development and Advisory Committee] to consider if we were going in the right direction. Several residents also spoke at the meeting – many expressing surprise in that they had not heard anything about the plan, some wondering about the impact on Bonnie Lane of an additional home and others asking what might happen at the rear of the property [the ‘panhandle’]. I am taking the feedback and incorporating it into the plans to address comments and will continually revising my thoughts as I speak to more neighbors. The first application we will submit to the Town will be to split the lot in half - no house design will be proposed, although consideration of the placement of a future home is always in my mind as I develop a Site Plan. The owner plans to sell the main parcel and build a home on the empty lot and I have tried to ensure that any home that might be designed to fit the proposed lot split will be in keeping with the neighborhood and character of Bonnie Lane. It will be well separated from neighboring homes, set back from the street a good way, and not be a privacy concern to neighbors. Yes – it will be a change! But if it is designed well, I think that it become a natural part of the streetscape and fit in well. For those of you who are interested to discuss in more detail what I have put together, please contact me and we can talk on the phone or I can come by and we can have a socially distanced conversation and you can review the plans. I understand that disruption and privacy will be of concern to those close by, but I have tried to be considerate of neighbor sensibilities with what we have planned. I have been developing properties, designing new homes, additions and remodels in Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga and beyond for over 35 years and my wife, Carol and I are long-time local residents ourselves. If you have any questions, please call me at (408)354- 1833 or email me at Tony@thisdesign.com . I would be happy to discuss them with you. Tony Jeans EXHIBIT 11 1 Ryan Safty Tony Jeans <tony@thisdesign.com> Friday, March 26, 2021 11:58 AM Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane Lot Split Adjusted PL.pdf Flag for follow up Flagged From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: It was good to meet with you on Monday. Thanks for spending some time letting me visit with you and look at everything ‘from your side of the fence’. Because you are immediately adjacent to where any house would potentially be built I felt that it was important to talk to you first. I have since spoken to Mish and explained what could work to make this a better project and she agrees. Per our discussion - what would be an improvement - and help with privacy issues for both you and Mish is: 1. Adjusting the proposed ‘lot split line’ in such a way as to allow a future house to be moved further away from your property line. Any final determination of house placement would come at the time the house is designed, but the provision would be made with the lot split. 2. Considering lowering the grade where the house is, so as to reduce the overall elevations of each floor. Again a house-design issue. 3. Planting a row of evergreen trees that grow to a height of about 18-20 ft along the area adjacent to your outside dining area. I suggested ‘podocarpus’ as a possible choice - but that could be changed. This would provide a double row of screening as you already have a row of privets along your side of the fence, but they are deciduous. 4. Not placing any second floor windows [other than bathrooms or other non-significant windows] on the side facing your property. 5. Removing or Pruning the Pine Tree as a fire hazard - we agreed would be a good idea. We also touched base on the ‘panhandle’ area at the end of your yard, but it would appear that is less of a concern for you than a good privacy solution for your outside entertaining area. I understand that you still want to register your opposition to the project as “no house is your preferred solution”. Assuming that the Planning Commission agrees that there is plenty of room for a home here I would hope that you will voice your support the adjusted lot split line so that we can at least keep any privacy issues to a minimum as discussed. Thanks. Let me know if I have missed anything - or if you think of anything else. See the marked up Property Line solution we discussed. 1 Ryan Safty From:Tony Jeans <tony@thisdesign.com> Sent:Monday, March 29, 2021 8:46 AM Mish Chadwick Fwd: 16466 Bonnie Lane Lot Split Flag for follow up Flagged To: Subject: Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: From ____ next door, Mish. It looks like I will not be able to convince him that this is a reasonable plan. He is concerned solely about his own privacy , even though we can ensure that. He wants a bridge over the creek at Peacock and the barn as the other house. This would cause more opposition than support and the CDAC members also showed concern about the panhandle area. I have sent a letter to all neighbors, Bonnie and Peacock residents [23 total] and will see who responds. I will also talk to the other immediate neighbors. Tony Hi Tony, I hope you are well. I would like to emphasize and make it clear again that we will object, resist, and fight with all means any plan that puts a house at the front part next to our fence. It will dramatically change our quality of life and we won’t allow it. As I suggested when we met - there is only one plan that we will support, and it is the one that subdivides the lot right between the main house and the barn and attaches the panhandle to the barn as it becomes the basis for the new dwelling. You dismissed it because of the 100ft requirement for no good reason. I believe you already know it, but there is already a proper easement on the Peacock side, there is an address designated, and all you need to do is to claim it. If you haven’t gone to the bottom of what’s going on at the peacock side you should try harder, the solution is there. This is the one and only viable plan, one that also follows the original intention of this lot. T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St Los Gatos Ca 93030 April 19th, 2021 16466 Bonnie Lane, Los Gatos Neighborhood Outreach From early neighbor discussions and from the CDAC meeting it was clear that there were several areas of neighbor concern/interest in this proposal. This is in part because there are a dozen neighbors who either abut the property or are directly across the street, but also because this is a large property that has been underdeveloped for years and is seen by many as part of the rural aspect of the neighborhood. In March, I sent a letter to nearby residents [30 or so in all – copy attached]. I was also able to email some, because of the CDAC hearing communications. As a result I have been able to meet with several neighbors and correspond with others. The outreach that I am undertaking now revolves around three areas of neighbor interest: 1. The rural aspect of this part of Bonnie Lane. A number of neighbors are concerned that any development by means of adding an additional lot will change the rural aspect of this part of Bonnie Lane. Yes it will be a change, but this is a 2-acre property, where most others on this side of Bonnie Lane are ½ acre. But there is no reason to penalize property owners by prohibiting development because the property was under-developed historically. The resulting subdivision will be more in keeping with the overall neighborhood parcel layout. 2. The Panhandle and Riparian Corridor at the rear of the Property. The rear of the property is riparian in nature, bordering East Ross Creek and the Panhandle portion has provided a visual ‘open space’ buffer for 5 or 6 immediate neighbors to enjoy over the years. They do not want to lose a valuable asset to their properties. There is, however, not sufficient interest for them to want to purchase portions of the panhandle for a realistic sum to increase their parcel-sizes, nor to ensure continued privacy. Current laws would allow only ancillary development in this location in any event. 3. Privacy concerns for future development of Parcel 2 of the Property. From a privacy standpoint Amir Segev [16450 Bonnnie Lane] stands to be the most impacted by any development that might be proposed on Parcel 2. In conversations with him we discussed how this might best be mitigated. As a result I have adjusted the Proposed Lot Split Property Line so as to allow for a future home to be located further away from his fence line [15 ft is the standard setback]. He is still concerned – so we will have to wait until a home is designed to address this further. Tony Jeans [I will update this as communication continues]. T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1833 Fax: 408.354.1823 Date: August, 2021 To: All Neighbors and nearby Residents. From: Tony Jeans of T.H.I.S. Design and Development. Subject: Proposed Lot Split at 16466 Bonnie Lane Nearby Residents: This is a follow-up letter to the one I sent in March and subsequent to the CDAC hearing, which several of you attended. I have met with several of you in person and would welcome the opportunity to talk to those of you who still have questions about what is now planned. Since the CDAC hearing, in which a number of important questions were raised, we have taken the opportunity to make some significant changes to the proposal in order that any eventual home that might be built would allow more privacy to all concerned and create less of an impact in the neighborhood. I am also clarifying here that this proposal is to split approximately 2 acres into 2 separate parcels, each over 40,000 sq ft. It is not proposing a specific house design, nor any ADU at this time [which would be a separate, rather it is simply asking the Town to consider whether the lot split proposed is in compliance with the General Plan and Applicable Zoning Laws for this site. The changes we have made since the CDAC hearing, amongst other things, have been: • to modify the proposed lot line so that it will be possible to achieve greater privacy in relation to the Segev residence next door • to remove from consideration any reduction in width of the 50 ft wide access corridor at the front of the property • to locate the driveway to the new property so that it accesses Bonnie Lane directly, rather than the privately owned access corridor • to dedicate 10,000 sq ft of Private Open Space along the creek at the rear of the property to encourage restrictions as to what can be placed there • to ensure, through a series of meetings with the Town, that the Town of Los Gatos General Plan and Zoning regulations would not be contravened with this proposal For those of you who are interested, please contact me and we can talk on the phone or I can come by and we can have a socially distanced conversation and you can review the plans. I understand that disruption and privacy will be of concern to those close by, but we have tried to be considerate of neighbor sensibilities with what we have planned. I have been developing properties, designing new homes, additions and remodels in Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga and beyond for over 35 years and my wife, Carol and I are long-time local residents ourselves. If you have any questions, please call me at (408)354- 1833 or email me at Tony@thisdesign.com . Tony Jeans T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St Los Gatos Ca 93030 Subdivision – 16466 Bonnie Lane August 10th, 2021 16466 Bonnie Lane, Los Gatos Rebuttal/Lippe Law Ltr 8.9.21 Commissioners This rebuttal addresses the letter I just received from Lippe Law. It is a technical letter concerning “Frontage at Bonnie Lane”. Lippe Law is representing a neighbor on Peacock Lane on the other side of the property who has no interest in street frontage at Bonnie Lane, but would rather just stop the Project from happening. The real question to them should be – “What is it about this project that concerns you personally?” The 2 relevant paragraphs, taken from the Lippe Law Letter, which run counter to the argument that the proposed new Parcel lacks the necessary 100 ft of Frontage are: “Lot Frontage, means the property line of a lot abutting on a Street, which affords access to a lot ” Town Code § 29.10.020. “Street means any thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including public and private rights-of-way and easements.” If we analyze the Parcel in question, it has 7.65 ft of Frontage on Bonnie Lane and an additional 134.42 ft on “a private right-of-way easement” specifically dedicated for “Road Purposes” for a total of 142 ft of legal frontage. Thus – per Town Code, Planning and Engineering departments and the Lippe Law Letter itself, the street frontage is adequate for R1:20 Zoning purposes. Furthermore, there are 3 other properties calling this Private Easement “frontage” – two are R1:20 and one is in the R1:8 Zoning district. If there are any questions, I will answer them at the Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you Tony Jeans EXHIBIT 12 1 Ryan Safty Tony Jeans <tony@thisdesign.com> Wednesday, August 11, 2021 12:49 PM Ryan Safty Robert Schultz Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 2739OR558.pdf From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: On Aug 11, 2021, at 11:22 AM, Tony Jeans <tony@thisdesign.com> wrote: Ryan: So that the Town can feel more comfortable in its response, I am providing a copy of the grant deed [2739OR559] that created Lands of Guerra [16500 Bonnie Lane] and the Road Easement in question in the Lippe Law Letter: In this Grant Deed: Parcel One is the Legal description of Guerra Property at the end of theRoad Easement. Parcel Two is the Legal Description of the Road Easement Area. Parcel Three is Legal Description of the access along Bonnie Lane to Shannon Road. The “Reservation” at the end retains for “Road Purposes over the entire Parcel [2]”. Hope this helps. Tony On Aug 10, 2021, at 2:23 PM, Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> wrote: T.H.I.S. DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT P.O.Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031 Tel: 408.354.1863 Fax: 408.354.1823 Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St Los Gatos Ca 93030 Subdivision – 16466 Bonnie Lane September 10th, 2021 16466 Bonnie Lane, Los Gatos Rebuttal – Anon Neighbor Ltr 8.18.21 Commissioners This rebuttal addresses the letter I received – anon: dated 8.18.21 There is a structure on the property, which I have consistently referred to as ‘The Barn’. After reading the anonymous letter I am clarifying my use of the term: By ‘The Barn’, I am referring to the old barn-like structure at the rear of the property, which was built in the early 1970’s and remodeled by the current owner in 2016. In Town records it is considered a “Legal Detached Accessory Structure permitted as Detached Living Space” but is not considered a “Dwelling Unit” per se. The owners have used this space for parties and family gatherings as well as overflow bedroom space for family visiting from Australia. Periodically, since being told that permits were required, she has obtained permits for Film Shoots to be carried out there. A stove had been installed in the unit to help facilitate at parties, but this was removed with permits, as it is not allowed in a Detached Living Space. The side setback for a Detached Living Space is the same as a Main Residence and so we have configured a 15 ft side setback from the New Property Line for ‘The Barn’ with the proposed Lot Split. If there are any questions, I will answer them at the Planning Commission Meeting. Thank you Tony Jeans This Page Intentionally Left Blank Law Offices of THOMAS N. LIPPE, APC 201 Mission Street Telephone: 415-777-5604 12th Floor Facsimile: 415-777-5606 San Francisco, California 94105 Email: Lippelaw@sonic.net June 8, 2021 By Email Only: RSafty@losgatosca.gov Mr. Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Planning Division 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 Dear Mr. Safty: This office represents Patti and Erik van der Burg, owners and residents of Los Gatos, regarding Subdivision Application M-21-003. I note that your to May 26, 2021, Staff Technical Review Comments (May 26 report) does not address a number of items listed in the March 4, 2021, Staff report to the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC Staff report). 1. The Town cannot accept the subdivision application as complete or approve it because the frontage of the proposed new parcel on Bonnie Lane is not sufficient for the proposed residence to comply with the zoning code. The R1:20 zone requires 100 feet of frontage for an interior lot. The proposed new parcel has only 7.65 feet of frontage, which is not nearly enough.1 2. The CDAC Staff report states: “5. Tree Impacts. a. An arborist report will be required during development review to evaluate the potential impact to trees. b. Will driveways be located to avoid tree impacts? c. Will underground water, sewer, electrical, and telephone utility lines impact trees?” The May 26 report does not appear to require an arborist’s report or answers to the other questions posed regarding tree impacts. Can you explain why? 1Town Code § 24.20.020(b) [“If the design of a proposed subdivision or the intended use of the land included in a proposed subdivision does not comply with all rules of the applicable zone, the tentative subdivision map shall not be accepted for filing or be deemed to have been filed unless the subdivider concurrently prosecutes proceedings under chapter 29 of this Code to change the zone or to obtain a variance from the provisions thereof, and the change or variance would, if granted, allow the subdivision or intended use”]. June 8, 2021 Ryan Safty, Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 Page 2 The project plans show two 30” pines located on-site near the property line with 16450 Bonnie Lane. The trees are “protected trees” pursuant to Town Code § 29.10.0960(4) [“All trees which have a four-inch or greater diameter (twelve and one half-inch circumference) of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required”]. The applicant has expressed his intention to remove at least one of these trees in connection with construction of the proposed residence, due to concerns about increased fire safety risks associated with the new construction. (See Applicant’s April 19, 2021, Letter of Justification, p. 2.) Therefore, approval of a tree removal permit pursuant to Town Code § 29.10.0980 is required in order to comply with Town Zoning and an arborist’ report is required for this permit. Unless and until this is done, the Town of Los Gatos cannot approve the subdivision application.2 3. The CDAC Staff report states: “6. Creeks/Waterways. a. Would future development impact existing creeks or waterways? b. Compliance with the Standards and Guidelines for Land Use Near Streams will be required if there are existing creeks or waterways on the site. c. Valley Water, Regional Water Quality Board, and other agencies may need to review a future project.” The property borders Ross Creek, which has many documented biological resources that the project may impact. Despite this, the May 26 report does not further mention potential impacts on Ross Creek or its biological resources. I note that the May 26 report indicates a tentative determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA review pursuant to the Class 15 categorical exemption at CEQA Guideline 13315. The applicant’s intention to build a new residence on the proposed new parcel is a matter of public record.3 Therefore, the Town cannot make a CEQA determination regarding the subdivision application considered in isolation from the proposed new residence. Doing so would unlawfully “piecemeal” the CEQA determination. Indeed, depending on its design and construction materials, the new residence could have significant impacts on wildlife in the area. For example, large areas of glass are known to cause substantial bird mortality. Also, CEQA Guideline 15300.2(b) prohibits the use of a categorical exemption “when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is 2See Gov’t Code § 66474(a), (b); Town Code § 24.20.020(b). 3See e.g., February 13, 2021, letter from Tony Jean to neighbors, stating: “The owner plans to sell the main parcel and build a home on the empty lot;” April 19th, 2021, Letter of Justification, stating: “The primary parcel [Parcel 1] will retain the main structures while the owner will design and build a new home on Parcel 2.” June 8, 2021 Ryan Safty, Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 Page 3 significant.” Given the history of significant impacts from development in the area on Ross Creek and its biological resources, the Town must require the applicant to provide complete details regarding proposed new residential development on the proposed new parcel and to investigate the potential impacts of the total development project on Ross Creek and its biological resources. 4. The CDAC Staff report states: “7. Wildland Urban Interface Zone. a. The subject property is located in the Wildland Very High Fire Hazard Area.” The May 26 report does not mention any consideration of whether the total project may exacerbate fire risks in the area. Again, to comply with CEQA, the applicant and Town must investigate this issue before the Town makes a CEQA determination. 5. The CDAC Staff report states: “8. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. a. Future development of the lots would be subject to portions of the HDS&G due to the average slope exceeding 10 percent. b. Would future development of the proposed lots require grading that would meet the HDS&G?” The May 26 report does not mention consideration of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, but does require that the applicant “Provide the average slope of existing property, and each proposed parcel.” Since the CDAC Staff report finds that the “average slope of the project site is 13.1 percent,” can you explain why the applicant is required to further document the slope and which Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines apply to the total project (i.e., the subdivision and new residence). 6. The owners of the existing parcel have a long and well-documented history of using the property for commercial uses. These illegal uses can be expected to continue on the new parcel. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to approve this subdivision application.4 Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, Thomas N. Lippe cc: Tony Jeans [By Email: Tony@thisdesign.com] T:\TL\Los Gatos\Administrative Proceedings\LOTNL Docs\CL001d to Town Planner 20210608.wpd 4See Gov’t Code § 66474 (a), (b); Town Code § 24.20.020(b). Law Offices of THOMAS N. LIPPE, APC 201 Mission Street Telephone: 415-777-5604 12th Floor Facsimile: 415-777-5606 San Francisco, California 94105 Email: Lippelaw@sonic.net August 9, 2021 By Email Only: RSafty@losgatosca.gov Mr. Ryan Safty Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Planning Division 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 Dear Mr. Safty: This office represents , owners and residents of , Los Gatos, regarding Subdivision Application M-21-003. As stated in my June 8, 2021, letter, the Town cannot accept the subdivision application as complete or approve it because the street frontage of the proposed new parcel is not sufficient for the proposed residence to comply with the zoning code. The R1:20 zone requires 100 feet of frontage for an interior lot. The proposed new parcel has only 7.65 feet of frontage on Bonnie Lane, which is not enough.1 The applicant apparently contends that the boundary line between proposed Parcel 2 and the adjacent property at 16500 Bonnie Lane constitutes “frontage” for purposes of the zoning code. This contention is incorrect. “Lot, frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other than the side line of a corner lot.” Town Code § 29.10.020. “Street means any thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including public and private rights-of-way and easements.” 1See Town Code § 29.24.400. See also, Town Code § 24.20.020(b) [“If the design of a proposed subdivision or the intended use of the land included in a proposed subdivision does not comply with all rules of the applicable zone, the tentative subdivision map shall not be accepted for filing or be deemed to have been filed unless the subdivider concurrently prosecutes proceedings under chapter 29 of this Code to change the zone or to obtain a variance from the provisions thereof, and the change or variance would, if granted, allow the subdivision or intended use”]. August 9, 2021 Ryan Safty, Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department Re: 16466 Bonnie Lane; Subdivision Application M-21-003 Page 2 Town Code § 29.10.020. Applying the definition of “lot frontage,” the term “lot abutting on a street” refers to proposed Parcel 2. Similarly, applying the definition of “street,” the term “abutting property “ also refers to proposed Parcel 2. There is no “thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to” Parcel 2 that abuts proposed Parcel 2 for at least 100 feet. Instead, as shown on the new project plans, the only “thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to” Parcel 2 that abuts proposed Parcel 2 is Bonnie Lane. That is where the new plans show access to a street, i.e., Bonnie Lane, by way of the proposed new driveway. The fact that the definition of “street” can include “public and private rights-of-way and easements” is not pertinent here, because the easement that the owner of 16466 Bonnie Lane claims on the property at 16500 Bonnie Lane is not a “thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to” Parcel 2. The fact that the driveway located within that easement “affords the principal means of access to” 16466 Bonnie Lane is irrelevant because that driveway does not “afford the principal means of access to” Parcel 2. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very Truly Yours, Thomas N. Lippe cc: Tony Jeans [By Email: Tony@thisdesign.com] T:\TL\Los Gatos\Administrative Proceedings\LOTNL Docs\CL005a to Town Planner 20210809.wpd From: To: Subject: Date: Planning; Ryan Safty 16466 Bonnie Lane lot split application Thursday, October 7, 2021 12:31:26 PM EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town Planning Commission, Regarding the lot split application for 16466 Bonnie Lane, we have been disappointed to date that the town has asked for neighbor input, but seems undeterred in granting lot split approval despite dozens of neighbors objecting, and none supporting. I’m curious why neighbor input is requested, if it is dismissed. If the town disregards neighbor input, it seems they may be required to at least consider the legal issue of frontage road requirements, which are clearly not met. Per attorney Tom Lippe’s letter dated Aug 9,2021 to Mr. Safty, in part, “the Town cannot accept the subdivision application as complete or approve it because the street frontage of the proposed new parcel is not sufficient for the proposed residence to comply with the zoning code. The R1:20 zone requires 100 feet of frontage for an interior lot. The proposed new parcel has only 7.65 feet of frontage on Bonnie Lane, which is not enough. The applicant apparently contends that the boundary line between proposed Parcel 2 and the adjacent property at 16500 Bonnie Lane constitutes “frontage” for purposes of the zoning code. This contention is incorrect. “Lot, frontage means the property line of a lot abutting on a street, which affords access to a lot other than the side line of a corner lot.” Town Code § 29.10.020. “Street means any thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to abutting property, including public and private rights-of-way and easements.” Applying the definition of “lot frontage,” the term “lot abutting on a street” refers to proposed Parcel 2. Similarly, applying the definition of “street,” the term “abutting property “ also refers to proposed Parcel 2. There is no “thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to” Parcel 2 that abuts proposed Parcel 2 for at least 100 feet. Instead, as shown on the new project plans, the only “thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to” Parcel 2 that abuts proposed Parcel 2 is Bonnie Lane. That is where the new plans show access to a street, i.e., Bonnie Lane, by way of the proposed new driveway. The fact that the definition of “street” can include “public and private rights-of-way and easements” is not pertinent here, because the easement that the owner of 16466 Bonnie Lane claims on the property at 16500 Bonnie Lane is not a “thoroughfare for the motor vehicle travel which affords the principal means of access to” Parcel 2. The fact that the driveway located within that easement “affords the principal means of access to” 16466 Bonnie Lane is irrelevant because that driveway does not “afford the principal means of access to” Parcel 2. We are opposed to the development for the following reasons. 1.We wish to maintain the rural and natural feel of the neighborhood, as it is along Ross Creek and is a riparian zone. 2.We are concerned it may be promised to the buyers of the new lot that they can build in the “Parcel 2 Panhandle” as shown in the proposal. This is a concern because the applicant Tony Jeans suggested building will be allowed when he discussed the desire to sell the Panhandle zone to us. We don’t want this property sold with the promise of building in this zone. 3.Frogs along this section of Ross Creek have disappeared over the last few years, possibly due to drought and possibly to fertilizer and pesticide runoff from the existing soccer field. More development will surely negatively affect frog species in the area, as well as local bee hives, deer, hawks, owls, bobcats, coyotes, wild turkeys, etc. 4.We would like the town to assure that there never will be development, ADU’s, or large paved areas in the “Parcel 2 Panhandle” zone. 5.We would like the town to assure that there never will be an access road built from Peacock Lane to the ”Parcel 2 Panhandle” This would damage the creek and add traffic to the quiet Peacock cul-de-sac. 6.We are concerned the Owner, who has used the property for un-permitted weddings and rental events despite the town’s zoning objections, will not follow town protocols with this change, as there is history. 7.There may not be building legally allowed as this low zone is flooded in heavy rains, and may be a flood zone. 8.There may not be subdivision allowed as there is not enough Bonnie Lane fronted space to allow a new parcel. If despite the legal and other issues raised above, the town grants the lot split, and it survives further legal actions, we request the following: the town clarify in writing that no development of any kind, including parking lots and ADU’s, be allowed in the panhandle section, and no bridge or road be built across Ross Creek. We feel given the documented history of the owner disregarding zoning and permit laws, this un- approved development will occur with irreversible damage to the riparian corridor. Regards, From: To:Planning; Ryan Safty Subject:16466 Bonnie Ln. lot split application Date:Friday, October 8, 2021 8:28:48 AM EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Town Planning Commission, As residents of Bonnie Lane for 50+ years, we have serious concerns about the proposed lot split and development of the property at 16466 Bonnie Ln. Bonnie Lane is a somewhat unique area in this part of Los Gatos as it has a charming rural ambience. This property in question borders Ross Creek, which in this stretch is unrestrained by concrete walls and provides a riparian environment that is extremely beneficial to birds and other wildlife. It provides an open vista of the hills that is available to residents and visitors to our neighborhood. It appears that recent changes to zoning requirements could result in a level of development that could be extremely destructive to peaceful atmosphere that is so dear to us. In addition, the developer claims there is adequate frontage the new parcel and we fail to understand this argument after looking at the maps provided. Also, Bonnie lane is a narrow road with restricted parking. The access it provides to residents currently is sufficient but it could be become problematic if future development is too dense. I know we are not alone in our objections to the proposal under consideration. We do hope that the feelings of the neighbors are given due consideration by representatives of the Town. Regards, Susan and Les From:Rebecca Guerra To:Ryan Safty Cc:Rebecca Guerra Subject:Application for subdivision of APN 532-02-053 Date:Thursday, October 7, 2021 7:47:15 PM EXTERNAL SENDER Dear Mr. Safty, I am the owner of , the property adjacent to 16466 Bonnie Lane. I received the notice regarding the application #M-21-003 for subdivision of the 16466 Bonnie Lane property and the scheduled hearing date of October 13, 2021. As the documents attached in your files indicate, I did have a conversation with Mr. Tony Jeans regarding the revised plans and most particularly, the creation of a new driveway crossing the lower portion of my property which today hosts a shared driveway for 16466, Bonnie Lane. While there is an easement granted to the properties at 16466 and , it is based upon a common driveway. In conversation with Mr. Jeans, he indicated that in the proposal for the subdivision, a new driveway would be created and would cross my property at the lower portion of the current easement. I would like to point out that there has been no indication that I would receive any consideration for this. Moreover, in the entire time that Mish Chadwick has occupied her property and used the shared driveway, no support for upkeep or maintenance has been offered or provided. In fact, I have had to notify her repeatedly not to allow her visitors to park off the margins of the drive as it causes breakdown of the edges and creates deep ruts in the turf, making it impossible to mow. In summary, I have no confidence that the further access to the easement by a fourth home would not offer anything but greater upkeep for me. And, as indicated above, I have not been approached with any offer of consideration for the land which would be utilized for that new driveway as proposed by the application M-21-003. I plan to participate in the meeting on October 13 but if you have any questions regarding my comments, please feel free to contact me at this e-mail address, or my mobile . Thank you, Rebecca Guerra, owner Regarding 16466 Bonnie Lane - Subdivision Application M-21-003. Requesting approval for subdivision of one lot into two lots on property zoned R-1:20. APN 532-02-053. PROPERTY OWNER: Mish Chadwick. APPLICANT: Tony Jeans. PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty. To the Planning Commission: As a resident of Bonnie Lane in Los Gatos, I’d like to submit my opposition to the referenced application to split lots. Bonnie Lane is a very narrow street that already carries a surprising volume of traffic. The Lane narrows as it approaches Shannon Road, to the point where it is dangerous for two cars and pedestrians to cross each other, and where it is impossible for a car and a large truck to pass at the same time. Traffic is already a problem, even with no street parking allowed, and speeding is also a problem. I am concerned that a lot split could exacerbate the traffic problem on Bonnie Lane. Please redact my name regarding this letter.