Loading...
Attachment 18April 30, 20 I 8 To: Members of the Los Gatos Town Council Re: Mi sleading statistics and statements : Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms We are frustrated that the developer frequently makes statements about how impacts to the Twin Oaks side of the development have been reduced, without acknowledging that there is often a corresponding increase in adverse impacts to the Cerro Vista side. A perfect example is in the Supplemental Letter of Justification s ubmitted for your cons ideration. It states, "the Alternate Plan [with an access on Cerro Vista Court] reduce s traffic using Twin Oaks and Longmeadow by 40%." That sounds great, except that 100% of the 40% is now going to the tiny Cerro Vista neighborhood. Once again , this is a disproportionate impact that is glossed over by a half-truth. Also troubling is the fact that the new traffic study evaluates impacts to the Kennedy Road area, while virtually ignoring Cerro Vista and Shannon Road . The trips are considered too few to impact Cerro Vista because it is so small (except, of course, to the residents whose street is being almost doubled). The increase on Shannon Road is considered insignificant because it is already so busy that a few additional trips make no difference. The traffic volume on Shannon Road is already problem. Shannon Road is very different from Kennedy Road. In the morning, it is full of children walking on the sidewalk or biking to Blossom Hill School and Fisher Middle School. Children wait for the Hillbrook shuttle at Blossom Hill Park. There is a church, a synagogue with a preschool , and a fire station. All day long people are walking their dogs or taking babies for a ride in their strollers. This is all taking place in the 8/10 of a mile stretch between Los Gatos Boulevard and Short Road, with a sidewalk on only a portion of the north side of the street. There are only two designated crosswalks. Nine residential streets feed into Shannon Road on the south side, and seven more are on the north side. Maybe a few additional trips on a busy street make no difference to a traffic analyst. Nevertheless , it is disheartening that the developer and his consultants so easily dismiss impacts to Shannon Road (and Cerro Vista Court), which will absorb 44% of the traffic (4of9 lots) from the proposed development. Thank you for considering thi s input. Cindy and Philip Shanker 15949 Cerro Vista Court imTACHMENT 1 3 To: Los Gatos Town Council: TOWN OF LOS GATOS ~ ~iV?red :LERK DEPARTME NT RECEIV ED The Town Council will be considering a proposal to devmw A'PRej()1 0 1~f w~~vision on rura l hillside located in Los Gatos, bordered by the Surrey Farms, Cerro Vista and Brooke Acres neighborhoods . Firs t. I \Vant to state th at I agree and support numerou s recommendations to th e Council that the pro pert y shoul d stay as Resource Conservation spa<.:e in a Williamson Act contract and rezoning should not be perm itted. There a re no b enefits, only detrimental impact, to the Los G atos community and envircmner.t. In add iti on, I wan t to point out tha t the past development s in our area with s ign ifi cant hillsides had more than 50% of their overall acreage donated to th e open space . It is totally unac ceptable to allow the owner and dev eloper to assign about 10% of the property to t he open space (tha t is un buildable anyway) and permi t de velopmen t of the hill s id e lots with the slope close to or higher tha n recommended guidelines and with many trees and signi fic ant vegetatio n. Such decision would be e nvironmenta lly irrespons ible. and it wo uld ignore !>igni lican t environmental benefits that the Lo s Gatos and Bay Area res id ents derive from such an open s pace pro vidi ng reduction of environmentall y harmful gree nh o use gases. Add itional negati ve en vironme ntal impac t from grading st eep lo ts and building the acces s roads add add itio nal reaso ns for not allowing dev elopment of thi s steep hill s ide secti o n of th e parcel (about 50 % of the property). If hillside lots would be set asi de for the ope n space, env ironmenta l imp ac t would be reduced, and the development wou ld be at least partl y consistent with establi shed pract ices a nd gu id el ines. In sum mary, hillside l ots shoul d not be allowed to be built on under any circumstances and they should become part of the open s pace , if th e la nd desi gnated currently as R esource Conser vation is allowed to be rezoned for \\Tong reasons. Thank you for co ns idering my inpu t. ~ ,/' /' -:z,...,.- ?'l r?----7 V.Novotny / Lo s Gatos Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jill Fordyce <jafordyce@aol.com> Monday, April 30, 2018 6:38 PM Rob Rennie; Ste ven Leonardis; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marci a Jensen; Jennifer Armer craig.fordyce@colliers.com Comments After Re view of Staff Report: Proposed Twin Oaks/ Surrey Farms Development Dear Mayor Rennie , Vice Mayor Leonardis, Council Member Sayoc, Council Member Spector, and Counci l Member Jensen, Over the weekend, we reviewed the Staff Report and the 15 attachments thereto (received on Thursday evening). We are writing to you again because there are several items in the Report and the attachments that we would like to further address . I. Findings Required For Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract We acknowledge that the findings required for cancellation of the Will iamson Act contract are those listed under Government Code section 51282 (b), which are applicable specifically because there was a letter of nonrenewal submitted by the applicant (recorded on October 31 , 2017, which was subsequent to our origina l analysis in the DEIR). We believe that those findings cannot be made, in particular, with regard to the consistency with the General Plan . Cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act only if the Town Council finds (among other things) that the proposed alternative use is consistent with the applicable provisions in the Town 's General Plan . In a letter dated December 5, 2017 letter from Jennifer Armer to the Department of Conservation (Attachment 6) ("Staff letter"), the proposed development was analyzed for consistency with various land use objectives and requirements of the General Plan . This analysis is discussed below. II. Development of the Property is Restricted by Both the Williamson Act and a Zoning Ordinance Preliminarily, the Staff letter acknowledged that the site was used for orchards in the 1930's , and that the orchards had all been removed by 1948---decades before the land received its Agricultural Preserve designation . This is consistent with the premise that the Williamson Act contract was entered into to preserve agricultural lands as a cultural resource, and not because it was intended for actual agricultural use . The Staff letter states that the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Agriculture due to a 1988 General Plan Amendment that required rezoning of properties subject to Williamson Act contracts. The Staff letter contends that, prior to this designation , the project site was designated in the Town 's 1961 General Plan as Res idential. It must also be noted that, in June 1973, the Town adopted an Open Space Element for the Town of Los Gatos General Plan . In Section IV, the Town provided for a Method of Preserving Open Space. One method was by entering into Williamson Act contracts with private landowners (Section A). The section noted that the Act was designed to give ta x relief to those wishing to remove their, generally agricultural , property from the pressures of urbanization . The section noted that the Act does not guarantee a permanent open space because a party may elect to not renew the contract. The Open Space El ement, therefore, allowed for other ways to preserve open space, which included Zoning Controls (Section D). According to this section , the Resource Conservation Zone was designed and intended to be used for the express purpose of protecting open space, special land forms , sce ni c area , watershed areas , etc. In June 16, 1975 , an ordinance was passed by the Town Council to rezone the subject property from HR-1 :20 to RC (Ordinance No . 1234) (attached), hence providing the la nd three forms of protection from development: a Williamson Act contract, an RC zo ning ordinance, and an Agricu lture designation under the General Plan . It is rea sona ble that surrounding neighborhood s , and indeed the Town , would rely on this property remaining undeve loped . The Appli cant has failed to demonstrate why the Town would forego a ny of these protections for this development. Ill. The Proposed Alte rn ative Use is Not Consistent With the General Plan, and Therefore, Findings For Cance llation Cannot Be Made The Staff letter cites the DE I R's analysis of General Plan Policies and Project Consistency. With regard to consistency with Goal LU-1 [To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small-town character and quality of life within Los Gatos], LU 1.2, 6 .5 , 6 .7, 6 .8 , 7.3 , and 7.4 (relative to infill projects), staff reiterates the claim that prior to entering into a Williamson Act contract, the project site was designed for residential use . This is largely a claim of consistency with a General Plan from over 50 years ago, long before most of our homes were even constructed . It also disregards the 2020 General Plan, which takes into effect the neighborhoods that exist in Los Gatos today, and the zoning designation as RC space . The Staff letter contends that that "the project would protect the quality of life for surrounding residences and blend with the established character of the area ." There are few (if any) 6 ,000 square foot houses in the Surrey Farms neighborhood . The vast majority of homes, as called for in the CC&R's, are single-story ranch style homes. The 6,000 square foot homes on the hill above Surrey Farms would be completely out of character. LU-1 .3, Goal CD-4 and CD-4.3 call for the preservation of trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors , and wildlife habitats. In its consistency analysis , the letter confirms that 100 trees will be removed or impacted; that a half-acre of mixed oak woodland would be removed ; that project implementation would "directly impact the swale and its associated oak riparian habitat"; that grading, filling or trenching within the drip line or tree protection zone of native riparian trees would be deemed a direct impact on trees within the riparian zone ; that project implementation has the potential to adversely affect riparian habitat associated with Ross Creek and the swale. None of these impacts are consistent with the objective of preservation of trees, vegetation , topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats . LU-4 .2 and LU-4.4 address adequate infrastructure and impacts on services . The Staff letter states that the project would include an extension of roadways and utilities onto and throughout the site pursuant to Town requirements and agency regulations . This is inconsistent with an objective that there be infrastructure available, given that, there are no existing roadways, utilities, and drainage systems . It should also be noted that none of the infrastructure is being constructed by the Town (in fact, the Town is being indemnified relative to infrastructure), so the development and the surrounding areas are at the mercy of an unknown HOA to both develop and maintain the infrastructure (including roads, utilities, and the drainage pond). This is inconsistent with a Land Use requirement to allow development only with adequate physical infrastructure. The Staff letter proposes that the project would enhance secondary emergency access to residents on Twin Oaks Drive and Brook Acres Drive. Where would the access go? Residents of Twin Oaks Drive exit the neighborhood via Longmeadow Drive. The emergency access appears to only go toward the hillside, to a dead end private road. This does not provide a benefit to residents of Twin Oaks. Goal CD-5 .1 requires streets to have the existing character of the neighborhood, safety and maintenance . We are concerned that the HOA cannot provide this assurance . Goal CD-3, CD 3.1, 3 .2 , and 3 .3 discuss the necessity for landscapes and streetscapes to be high quality and for lighting to be minimized . The only consistency analysis here is that there will be an A&S review of each project site. This is a completely natural , dark hillside at night, and due to the elevation of the hill , all lighting from homes will have an impact on the surrounding homes and neighborhoods. Goal CD-6, CD-6 .1, CD-6 .2, and CD-6.4 discuss protecting residential neighborhoods relative to visual impact, density, privacy, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and migration corridors . Siting of homes "should not create significant ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces , public places. or other properties." Again , the assurance provided for compliance is that the homes are subject to A&S review. The size of lots are said to be "within the range of lot sizes that surround the project site." However, the proposed Ordinance calls for 6 ,000 square foot homes (maximum density), which is wholly inconsistent with the Surrey Farms neighborhood below it. The Staff letter states that the project "would not substantially degrade the visual character of the sites or its surroundings " and that "provision of landscape trees and shrubs along project boundaries and roads , as well as maximizing setbacks of proposed potential building envelopes from existing adjacent residences , would help to maximize privacy of adjacent residences and screen view of future homes from these residences ." According to the Ordinance , the majority of trees being planted are 24 inches. It will take years for them to actually provide a shield . The Ordinance also only requires minimum setback requirements, so this is also not consistent with these General Plan provisions . The plans submitted by the applicant show very little landscaping along the fence line of the Surrey Farms neighborhood, and there is nothing other than minimum setback requirements from houses being constructed directly behind our homes . Goal CD-7 is to preserve the quality of the private open space throughout Los Gatos and CD-7 .1 is to maximize quality usable open space in all new developments . The Staff letter contends that the elimination of the 17.5 acres of RC land meets this requirement because approximately 3 .6 acres would be preserved as open space, and a trail will be provided connecting Shannon and Kennedy. While the idea of the trail and permanently preserved open space is desirable, it is inconsistent with the General Plan to attain those goals by eliminating RC space; degrading 81 % of a natural hillside; violating cut and fill requirements and riparian setback requirements; and building the maximum allowable density on the site . IV. Evidence of Proximate. Non-Contracted Land In order for the Williamson Act contract to be cancelled, the applicant also must show that there is no proximate, non - contracted land that is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed. Staff concluded that "the applicant has done a reasonable search to find a non-contracted parcel" and references a map that applicant provided identifying similar-sized parcels within a three-mile radius. It is unclear whether this satisfies the requirements of the Government Code. We also don't know when this search was conducted , when the map was provided, and how the research was conducted . V . Los Gatos Has Only Cancelled One Williamson Act Contract Williamson Act cancellation provisions were included in Government Code section 51280 to deal with emergency situations where cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act. The last time (and only time we are aware of) that the Town of Los Gatos has cancelled a Williamson Act contract was 20 years ago in conjunction with a development on Blossom Hill Road (Resolution 1998-196). VI . The Project Violates Hillside Development Standards The Staff Report notes the proposal would require exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for construction outside the LRDA and cut and fill depths, exceeding the maximum allowed, for the roadway and a future driveway. Construction of the private streets would include cut, up to eight feet in depth , and fill , up to seven feet in depth at the centerline. Portions of Street B would be outside the LRDA. VII. The Applicant Did Not Submit a Plan in Accordance with Planning Commission Recommendation The Planning Commission motion, although not entirely clear, indicates that the development should have no more than eight lots and that lots 6 and 7 should be removed . The applicant's response retains both lots 6 and 7 and proposes nine lots . It also does not appear to take into account specific comments from the Planning Commission to protect the neighborhood and locate new houses away from existing homes. In fact, the proposed Ordinance allows for minimum setbacks and maximum density. From the transcript of the Planning Commission: Commissioner Hanssen: "I'm in the same position as Commissioner Janoff. I feel like we can 't actually make a decision tonight, because we're only making a recommendations, and so we have the opportunity to add whatever items of consideration we want to recommended terms and conditions or other things that the Council should look at, so unless we don 't even know what they are , I don 't know what we would do by continuing it since we're only making a recommendation ." p. 134-35: Commissioner Badame: "I would like to put a range in their, so even a further reduction in addition to Lots 6 and 7, but Lots 1, 2, and 3 , they're in direct conflict with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regarding mandatory standards, so I would like some consideration for a further reduction, not just eight, but maybe giving the Council a range allowing not ten lots, but between five and eight, with emphasis given to Lots 1,2, 3, and in particular Lots 6 and 7." p. 135: Commissioner Kane: "But I would add when we talk about those houses to pull them away from exiting houses as far as practical." p. 136: Commissioner Badame: " ... you 've got different performance standards that are really going to impact the Surrey Farms neighborhood, and that's why we put a lot of protection into even developing our hillsides for the impacts that it has on a neighborhood, and that's where we go with that General Plan with neighborhood preservation and protection ." p. 137: Commissioner O'Donnell attempts to withdraw his motion. Robert Schultz: " ... the motion was to make all the findings into your beginning , and then I have ... reducing the trees to the maximum extent possible, public easement in the open space , making sure those requirements are in there ; the size of the units to comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the cut and fill will be no more than the development plans .... fencing requirements to allow for wildlife, and right now at least. .. reduce it to eight, with six and seven being the emphasis, but then there was by Commissioner Badame to make it between five and eight and include Lots 1,2, and 3." p. 138: Commissioner O'Donnell does not agree with Commissioner Badame 's suggestion . Commissioner Kane : "Get it away from existing houses to the extent possible. That's what I want Town Council to know ." p. 139: Commissioner O 'Donnell : 'The way you state it is fine ; it's as far as possible ." Commissioner Janoff: "I would say, 'redistribute the remaining lots so that they are preserving as much of the neighborhood compatibility consistent with the General Plan and the Hillside Specific Plan ." p. 140: Commissioner O'Donnell : "Oh , to move this along , if it's eight lots, that's fine with me. The Council will ultimately decide whether it's eight lots, or ten lots , or two lots, or whatever they're going to decide. But to move this thing along , yes, I would support that." These comments suggest that the applicant, at a minimum should reduce the number of lots , make efforts to preserve neighborhood views and privacy, and maximize setbacks to protect the existing neighborhoods . VIII. Traffic Analysis The Project Information sheet dated February 23, 2018 (Attachment 10) estimates a net increase of 95 average daily trips down our quiet neighborhood street. IX . Property Value The estimated assessed value for this property (in its current zoning and General Plan designation) is $11,000,000 . (Attachment 7). The RC designation, as well as the Williamson Act contract, allow this property to have one residence . The applicant could sell this property to someone to build one home for this significant sum of money. X. Problems With the Ordinance Although we believe this development as a whole should be rejected, should this Council consider the Ordinance, it should be noted that the Ordinance does not preserve the hillside or protect the neighborhood . It also does not account for some of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, including: protect trees , reduce density, and increase setbacks. It also includes some alarming provisions , such as allowing for construction twelve hours a day and watering for dust daily, which will directly impact those of us on the perimeter of the property to receive daily doses of both dust and water. Because so much is left to A&S , there are many things this Ordinance doesn't define that will greatly affect aesthetics ; for example, placement of homes and the constructing of retaining walls. Below are some of the problematic provisions : The Ordinance allows for a minimum of 24-inch trees to be planted . (Section VI (6)). The Ordinance provides for "minimum" setbacks . (Section VI (8)). The Ordinance provides for "maximum height" of residences under HDSG . (Section VI (10)). The Ordinance provides for the "maximum floor area " of new residences under HDSG . (Section VI (11 )). The Ordinance allows for cut and fill depths in excess of the HDSG. (Section VI (12)). The Ordinance allows for tree removal according to an arborist recommendation. (Section VI (19)). The Ordinance allows for interference with approximately 5,400 square feet, totaling 0 .12 acres of protected ephemeral stream and associated riparian vegetation. (Section VI (32)). The Ordinance allows for grading and culvert construction to accommodate the construction of Street B, resulting in impacts on the portions of the ephemeral swale that are incised and situated directly beneath the canopy of mature oak woodland . (Section VI (34)(b)). The Ordinance provides an exception to the riparian setback guidelines to permit construction of Streets A and B . (Section VI (35(a)). The Ordinance provides for the planting of 178 24-inch box size, 93 36-inch box size , and 8 48-inch box size to compensate for the loss of approximately 70 mature , fully grown trees . (Section VI (36)). The Ordinance allows for construction to occur within the hours of 8 :00 a.m. and 8 :00 p.m. on weekdays and 9 :00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. (Section VI (41), (Section VI (126), (Section VI (127)). The Ordinance provides for retaining walls to be installed at unknown locations on the property. (Section VI (92)). The Ordinance places the future owners of the proposed lots in charge of a Maintenance agreement responsible for the maintenance of all private utilities, wildland fire and buffer areas, storm water treatment facilities , other common/areas facilities, and private roadways. (Section VI (129)). The Ordinance allows for street-cleaning and watering associated with on-site construction to occur every day. The Ordinance does not protect the land or the neighborhood. It requires multiple exceptions and mitigation measures that, according to Staff, cannot be avoided. It begs the question , once again, as to why this land is an appropriate place at all for a Planned Development. We urge the Town Council to decline cancellation of the Williamson Act, amendment of the General Plan , rezoning of the property, and adoption of the PD Ordinance. Thank you for your time and service to our town. Kind regards, Jill & Craig Fordyce 191 Longmeadow Drive