 |
|
|
|
|
Francis Oaks development is delayed for CEQA study
By Nathan R. Huff
The planning commission changed tack and took a whole new direction on June 28, pleasing hillside residents and infuriating Francis Oaks Way developers.
Commissioners, who had seen the three homes by local designer Tony Jeans once before, surprised everyone by continuing the application to allow for a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) report on the cumulative effect of the three homes, as well as potential future developments in the area. As individual projects, the three 5,000-square-foot homes were exempt from CEQA.
When the commission returned the application to the development review committee in May, the developers were asked to make a number of changes, including reducing the size of the homes, providing proof of legal access, showing a drainage plan, and reducing hardscape. Jeans and the property owner's attorney presented their revised plans on June 28, which they said satisfied all the commissioners concerns.
But when questions of a missing CEQA report from lot line adjustments on the property were raised, the commission changed course from looking at the houses' architectural and site merits and turned its focus on to the cumulative effect of the proposed development.
"In order that we protect the town character that has existed for many, many years on into the future," Paul Bruno said, explaining his motion to continue the application, "one of the things we have to do is examine the cumulative effect of development on the town--when it can be examined."
A shocked Jeans responded by asking the commission to issue an outright denial of the three projects so the property owners could appeal to the council. The commission denied his request. "You gave us a list of things to do; we've done every one of them," Jeans said. "What more can an applicant do?"
Eric Mogensen was less shocked and more frustrated. He questioned the authenticity of neighbors' objections, saying they supported much bigger developments in the area because those developers had promised improvements to residents. He also questioned why the commission was considering the applications as three new homes, since one of the properties already had a house on it.
"You've effectively managed to delay this project two years," Mogensen said, which drew a murmurs of "thank you" from the audience. "That you would now go back and make this kind of requirement, I just find astounding."
Property owner Gray Beyler followed suit, saying he found the whole process an "ongoing contradiction." Speaking to the commission and Francis Oaks residents, Beyler said, "Obviously they'd like to have a park up there. The park's for sale if they would like to buy it."
Commissioners stuck to their guns, acknowledging that while Jeans may have answered the commission's original concerns over the project, the question of cumulative environmental impact--traffic, erosion, drainage--needed to be addressed.
Even with the direction of the commission's decisions already clear, residents still took the time to denounce what they said was an oversized trio of houses, two of which did not have legal access. While staff reports stated that Alliance Title had provided proof of access, neighbors challenged whether access existed for the whole length of the road.
Neighbors also complained that one of the houses jutted above the ridge line, a violation of the Hillside Specific Plan. Others said the reduction in house sizes were "token" at best.
"It is obvious that the applicants are playing the old game of 'let's initially go for broke and hope that we'll get what we really want in the end,'" Francis Oaks resident Gary Harwin said.
Jeans responded by saying he did not consider 1,200-square-foot reductions token, and that the houses were no bigger than surrounding homes and were set back farther from the road.
All the debate was for naught in the end, as the commission voted 4-1 to continue all three applications to September 27, to receive a CEQA cumulative impact report.
|
|
|
|
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
