Applicants applaud study, but neighbors are critical
By Nathan R. Huff
Developers of three Francis Oaks Way homes showed up at the Sept. 27 planning commission meeting in a positive mood, eager to present the results of a town-mandated environmental study. But neighbors, several of whom have attended as many meetings as commissioners lately, criticized the study and pledged to continue fighting the developments.
Because the public comment period on the initial study doesn't expire until Oct. 9, the commission could only deny the project or continue the public hearing. After hearing testimony from the applicants, their legal council and a handful of unhappy neighbors, the commission chose to continue the matter to its Oct. 11 meeting.
Commission chairman Paul Bruno also encouraged speakers to forward their comments to the environmental consultant who conducted the initial study. By state law, any question or comment on an initial study must be answered by the consultant.
The three homes in question are located on the upper portion of Francis Oaks Way, a small, hillside lane off Blossom Hill Road. Property owners Gary Beyler and David Feece, working with developer Tony Jeans, are attempting to build three homes, each in the 5,000-square-foot range.
The applicants were shocked in June, when the planning commission asked that an environmental study be done to examine the cumulative impacts of the three proposed homes and additional development now planned for the area. Individually, the homes were categorically exempt from the state's environmental study requirements.
The subsequent study--an initial study rather than a full -blown environmental impact report--determined that while the projects could have a significant impact on the environment, if all mitigation measures were followed, impacts could be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Virginia Fanelli, a representative for the applicants, said the study answered all the environmental concerns, and the applicants were prepared to adhere to all the mitigation measures. "It is our intention to remove the pertinent issues raised at prior hearings so that you will be able to approve these applications, hopefully at your Oct. 11 meeting," Fanelli said.
Neighbors, however, said the report was flawed and the proposal continued to violate numerous hillside standards. Residents of Francis Oaks Way reiterated their concerns over traffic safety, hazardous materials on one of the sites, damage to trees and issues of visibility.
Many of their concerns centered on the placement of one of the three houses on what neighbors describe as a ridgeline. Diane McLaughlin said that, regardless of what the initial study said, the Hillside Specific Plan forbids building on ridgelines.
"Nothing should be built here," she told the commission. "It's on a ridgeline." Jeans has repeatedly stated that the home is not on a ridgeline, since there are a number of higher elevations behind the property.
Other residents complained of possible traffic impacts. The initial study said traffic volume would increase by 13 percent on all of Francis Oaks, and by 40 percent on the uppermost portion of the road. Recommended mitigation measures included providing turnouts, directing construction traffic and repairing any possible damage to the road.
But residents said turnouts were not enough to ease safety and congestion concerns. Neighbor James Dunly quoted the Hillside Specific Plan, which he said mandated new hillside roads to be 24-feet wide, with two- to three-foot shoulders. Since Francis Oaks did not meet these requirements, Dunly said, the commission could not approve the development of new homes.
Attorney Andrew Faber, representing the applicants, disagreed with Dunly's interpretation. "The Hillside Specific Plan applies, in my opinion, if you're building roads--if you're subdividing land," Faber said. "These are legal buildable lots that are entitled to have a house on them by law."
Town attorney Orry Korb later said that, while it was up to the commission to interpret the ordinance, his own interpretation was closer to Faber's. He added that the wording in the specific plan does not mandate road widths, but rather recommends them.
Francis Oaks resident Dr. Dave Weissman, speaking against the projects, said the town needed to be firmer with its regulations. "I have mentioned in the past that it's not so much that the town's ordinances are lacking, but it's the enforcement of those ordinances that have come up short," Weissman said. "I think these projects are a perfect time to uphold hillside ordinances."
The three projects will appear on the commission's Oct. 11 agenda. Responses to questions and comments regarding the initial study will be available at that time.
|
Los Gatos, California Since 1881
