Attachment 12Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hi Jennifer,
Josine <josinesmits@msn.com>
Thursday, March 23, 2017 9:52 PM
Jennifer Armer
15215 Shannon Road
Mudflows-from-the-Highlands-2.jpg; Mudflows-from-the-Highlands-3.jpg; Mudflows-
from-the-Highlands-4.jpg; Flood Control Hillside Development Impact .pdf; Sahadi Topo
Map _0001.pdf
Please forward this letter with new information and attachments to the Town Council, in preparation for the
next hearing on April 4th.
To the Town Council,
I hope you will review my letter of March 15th before the next hearing and that you will also watch the
previously submitted videos. I would like to add the following images and map to the visual evidence.
Mr.Sadahi's team has stated that there is no run-off impact from the proposed development. This is false . Please
see the pictures of the creek below the Highlands of Los Gatos, taken from just within the gate . How will the
effect ofMr.Sahadi 's proposed five lot subdivision--of 2 Yi acres each--be any different? For 30 years we have
seen exactly such flows of mud come down through the creeks on our property from developments above. We
have brought this to the attention of Town staff and the Town Council repeatedly! As you can see in the pictures
there is a direct connection between construction in the hills and destructive torrents cascading off the natural
slopes. The hydrological impact downstream is tangible; it is not negligible. The issue of run-off from building
and paving should no longer be neglected by the Town.
The map with dots and circles in red shows just some of the properties below the proposed development that are
in danger of flooding . The citizens in the lowlands of Los Gatos and beyond do not need more mud flows.
Responding to my pictures of flooding on Shannon Road and Short Road one of the engineers indicated that it
was the result of exceptionally heavy storms. In reality, the storms were not that intense compared to what we
experienced in previous El Nifio's. As the Stanford meteorologist Daniel Swain noted on March 18th:
"Interestingly, none of the individual storms so far this season have been particu larly destructive by
Californ ia's historical standards. Instead, most of the widespread flooding, mudslides, and other
infrastructure disruptions that have occurred stemmed primarily from the cumulative effect of
unusually frequent moderate to strong storm events." http://weatherwest.com/archives /562 1
ATTACHMENT 1 2
These moderate to strong storms are exactly the kind of events that could (purportedly) be mitigated by peak
flow reduction measures such as the proposed infiltration trenches. Changing climate or not, it is the cumulative
run-off from building and paving that has overtaxed the existing infrastructure. Nature cannot be out-
engineered.
Finally, please consider the precedent of allowing a high density, semi-suburban hillside development of 2 Yi
acre lots in a zone of 15 to 20 acre properties. It is the larger properties, such as our own, that safeguard the
natural beauty and environmental integrity of the hills. If Mr.Sahadi's re-zoning is approved, the (future)
owners of the contiguous properties will be next to apply for a rezoning into 2 Yi acre lots. That would mean 20
more mansions. Please imagine for a moment what the approval of Mr.Sahadi's re-zoning application would
unleash on people like us in the watershed below.
Sincerely,
Dirk and Josine Smits
P. S. The Los Gatos parcel map is out of date. It does not reflect the 11 acre lot line adjustment by means of
which we acquired a portion of the Murphy orchard in 1995. It was on this 11 acre strip from the ridge to
Shannon Road that we placed an Open Space and Conservation Easement, which was accepted by the Town in
2003. Please ensure that Los Gatos staff is aware of the natural resources of the Town and also of its
stewardship responsibilities.
-\:Yood Cgrl:ndl lX\ ~ ~°'-~ UWl_O--u~
Scuj.0-CJ00>°'-~ ~ \J~J-
-----41
,,,
Slow Absorbtion
Groundwater Recharge
Natural Cleaning
More and Faster Runoff
No Recharge/Absorbtion
.Pollutant Washoff
UNDEVELOPED Land development can affectffooding. DEVELOPED
~·· u~a ~o;cr-\Q _c;~
...
• .J
0 G s ernc tcry
D
lLJ
~).. :!
-t
R -~ Nf
<\ _,.,
~..., • Q:
::i
T
\ c ,., -.
~ ...
~ .
8 • oss -,\1 ~A £Y R
<
..r
VI
';:;; >
:l'J .~
~ .
t..J ..
:::::..
._.
I-~ ·.:..
'.;?: ~ I ~ -'•
2:
"-' '.:::> ">< -------
FR~/\/( I S ,_)
~ Blossom
Hill
<D ~a.d.i h~
Q:> Sm~~"'·~ o.rvA kw.ti..
@ \ b~~\ ~~ ~ooA . ~n ~
~l.-~~~
ltocJ.l""\ ( ~ ~ m<m~V:i)
To : TC, for meeting of 4/4/2017
From Dave Wei ssman, 3/30/2017
Re : 15215 Shannon Road, PD -15-001
I have a proposal for a win-win-win situation for both the applicant, the neighbors, the Town's
hillsides, and the citizens of this Town. I present this in writing since the public testimony part
of the hearing is now closed.
If this 13-acre property continues to be pre-zoned HR-5, as it has for the last 37 years , then Mr.
Sahadi gets to build no more houses other than the one he already ha s on proposed Lot 2.
Here's how everyone wins:
1. Rezone this parcel to HR-2.5PD and reduce the number of permitted parcels to 2.
Additionally, a Performance Standard should be added to the PD prohibiting further
subdivi sion of the approved number of lots.
2. Mr. Sahadi wins because he can now build 1 new house, probably most suitably on
proposed Lot 5, and make a nice return on hi s 1970 purchase of this property. Under either
the current County zoning of A20, or the Town's pre-zoning of HR -5, he is only permitted 1
house on his 13 acres.
3. Mr. Sahadi win s because, as Mr. Paulson told the PC on 12/14/2016, the applicant may be
able to go to 2 houses and exclusively utilize the exi sting driveway off Shannon Road . Mr.
Sahadi would not have to make any more improvements to that road, according to Mr.
Paul son, and could still satisfy Fire Department requirements. No new easements would
have to be obtained from the neighbors. Fourteen (14) or more trees would be saved .
4 . Mr . Sahadi win s because he would not have to expend significant funds to con struct a new
driveway off of Santella Drive. Almost no grading would need to occur if just proposed Lot 5
was developed . A Supplemental Initial Study, comparing the benefit s/problems of the
current driveway versu s a new access road, would not be necessary, a comparison that
clearly should have been done in the first go-around to make the IS complete .
5. The neighbors win because the applicant would not need several exceptions, under his
current application, for too narrow access road widths, too steep grades, lack of sidewalks,
excessive cut and fill, and too tall retaining walls . Plus, surface storm water runoff to the
south should be decreased . Environmental impacts would be minimized .
6. The Town wins because the PC visibility concerns, especially for the proposed house on Lot
1, would become moot.
7. The Town wins because a major goal of the HDS&G, PD overlay, is upheld : "The intent is to
significantly reduce the amount of grading, roads, and other alterations to the existing
environment, to minimize the visual impact of the development, and to retain the
maximum amount of continuous open space in its natural state ."
8 . This is a fair, fiscally and environmentally responsible compromise between the PC's
unanimous denial and the 5-lot subdivision that the applicant is requesting .