Item 3 - Desk ItemTo:
From:
Subject:
Date:
GPC 10/28/15
ITEM3
DESK ITEM
MEMORANDUM
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
General Plan Committee
Laurel R. Prevetti, Town Manager/C~unity
Twin Oaks: General Plan Amendment (GP-12-001) from Agriculture to Hillside
Residential.
October 28, 2015
The following correspondence was submitted after distribution of the addendum for this item. The
majority of the comments are comments that were received on the Draft Environmental Impact
Report. These comments will be included and addressed in the Final EIR .
Exhibits:
1-6 . Previously submitted with the October 28 ,2015 Memorandum
7. Previously submitted with the October 28,2015 Addendum
8. Letters from neighbors received after 5 p.m. on October 26, 2015
N :\DEV\GPC'\Twi n Oaks PD-3.des k.doc
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Darcie McNeil <darciemcneil16@gmail.com >
Monday, October 26, 2015 8:42 PM
Marni Moseley
general plan committee meeting -twin oaks
Follow up
Flagged
Please co nsider this letter that I wrote a few weeks ago regarding the Twin Oaks proposal on Wednesday night. Thank
you very much.
Dear Los Gatos Plann ing Commissio n,
I am a lifelong resident of Los Gatos and have followed in my grandparent's footsteps of going to Los Gatos High School,
graduating, and deciding to stay and raise a family in this "quaint" town . I love Los Gatos for it's beauty all around in the
open space hills that we are nestled in. My husband is also a lifelong resident and we have three children . We moved to
Surrey Farms about three years ago because we feel there are not many neighborhoods left in Lo s Gatos that are as
unique as this. We moved here for the quiet streets, the open space all around, the wildlife that roam, the minimal
traffic, and the privacy we all share . We are so disappo i nted that there is a subdivision being considered that will greatly
impact our life here. It will drastically change what we Jove about our neighborhood as now there will be homes lo oking
down in our yards, increased traffic which endangers our children that play in our yards (I h ave 3 boys right at the
beginning corner of Longmeadow where cars already zip into off of Kennedy), loud work trucks that will travel in and out
disturbing our quiet, wildlife that will be displaced, increased dust and dirt, and an overall stop to our once "quaint"
neighborhood. Unfortunately Los Gatos keeps building and building new developments, and our once small town is
overflowing. Our schools are overloaded, class sizes maxed out, hills that were once open and beautiful now spotted
with huge mansions. Please help us preserve the old Los Gatos feel. Please stop the overdeveloping! We have enough
homes in our town already ... lets keep our mind on the beauty of open space, peaceful quiet, population that
comfortably fits in our town (beach traffic or Los Gatos resident traffic?), and clean air.
Than k you for your consideration ,
Darcie McNeil and Tom McNeil
105 Longmeadow Drive
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Marjorie Cahn <artmarj@aol.com >
Monday, October 26, 2015 9:25 PM
Marni Moseley
Cc: artmarj@aol.com undefined
Subject: Fwd : Surrey Farms Planned Development
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Follow up
Flagged
Thank you for considering and presenting our concerns against the proposed Dodge Development for Twin
Oaks and Surrey Farms, Los Gatos.
Sincerely,
Edward and Marjorie Cahn
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marjorie Cahn <artmarj@aol.com >
Date: October 26, 2015 at 9:21 :03 PM PDT
To: "artmarj@aol.com undefined" <artmarj@aol.com>
Subject: Fwd: Surrey Farms Planned Development
Begin forwarded message:
From: Marjorie Cahn <artmarj@aol.com>
Date: October 7, 2015 at 5:23:31 PM PDT
To: planning@losgatosca.gov
Cc: jafordyce@aol.com, "briggszoo@gmail.com" <noreply@nextdoor.com>, Margie Cahn
<artmarj@aol.com>
Subject: Surrey Farms Planned Development
We have been homeowners in Surrey Farms in Los Gatos since September 1970. We have raised our three
children here enjoying the convenience oflocation and tranquility of the neighborhood . Frankly, the spector of
the
development of the Dodge property is disturbing for many reasons.The access through our subdivision by large
construction trucks and many workers is limited currently to the quiet streets that serve as play areas for many
small children. The increased traffic , noise and dust pollution which this large development would cause would
1
negatively impact on our safety and health. Additionally, it is totally unrealistic to imagine that the wildlife
currently living in this area would not be displaced.
The creation of the necessary infrastructure for the proposed subdivision would also adversely affect the natural
topography of Surrey Farms increasing the risk of soil erosion and flooding . The idea of creating a drainage
pond to mitigate these problems would create additional hazards to the Surrey Farms residents and nearby
Hillbrook school children from mosquitos and possible drowning.
We live on Clover Way opposite Olde Road which is a narrow less than two lane access which at times bears
the
brunt of the traffic of large trucks which use the access to the development because of GPS misdirections. This
is a narrow road as noted with a difficult approach from Kennedy Road to and from Olde Road. Large trucks
partially block Kennedy Road when they attempt to negotiate this turn. Although only approximately 300 feet
m
length, Olde Road is the home to seven children who are frequently playing in the street.
We believe that most of our neighbors for many years were totally unaware of the possibility of development
of the Dodge property which for over 50 years was evidently designated as open space through the Williamson
Act. Particularly recent residents to this area were completely blind-sided by this potential.
In recent years Los Gatos has taken the unfortunate path of increasing population density in almost all areas ,
many times to the detriment of its residents and creating a challenge to the school districts.
In considering this development please look at all the negative factors it would create for many longterm
residents
and their families .
Thank you for your consideration,
Marjorie and Edward Cahn
158 Clover Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
To whom it may concern,
George Montanari <gmontana@apr.com >
Tuesday, October 27, 2015 12 :09 PM
Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz; Marni Moseley
General Plan Committee Meeting -Twin Oaks October 28
I have two major concerns about the size and scoop of the development.
1-Saftey and values
As you know they are requesting a major lot subdivision in original pristine land. There will be developing high
end lots to be sold to individuals and/ or spec builders. Let's be realistic and look at the time line of major
interruption into our quiet neighborhood.
A-Upon approval there will be anywhere from 18-24 months of heavy equipment, earth movers and major
infrastructure work for roads, curbs, sewer, water, drainage, building pads, dirt removal etc ....
B-As a Realtor who has sold custom high end lots ($2,500,000 to $3,500,000) the buyer pool is small who can
afford and-or wish to go through the whole building process. To selllO lots at the average close of 2-3 lots per
year will take 36 months or more. Multiple trips by buyers, agents, architects, builders, the curious, the idea
stealers, Sunday drivers ..... etc.
C-Now we have multiple lots in play dealing with the building and approval process. As you know, to be realistic
once a buyer has closed it will take at least a year for the approval process through the town
With additional trips by all the town agencies, fire department and again multiple trips by buyers, agents,
architects, builders. PER LOT
D-Now we starting the high end home building process, which will have anywhere from 15-20 different sub-
contractors with multiple daily trips and again multiple trips by buyers, agents, architects, builders. This high end
building process with take 18-24 months. Main house will take 12-18 months with the additional 6 months to
finish the landscaping, pool, interior decorators, furniture delivery etc PER LOT
E-The whole process, if you approved, will take over 7-10 years before the last house is completed. We will have
constant traffic, noise and safety issues well into the next decade.
For us that means the value of our neighborhood being safe is shattered forever. We have no sidewalks, so our
children have to share the road with constant traffic by non-families. Our little neighborhood known for quiet and
safety will now be known as dangerous and high traffic. We will lose a minimum of 10% value of our homes, if not
more. For us that's over $250,000 per family. For most Los Gatos families, quiet and safety issues are a top
priority. Our special little place will be gone.
2-What was the intent of Mr. Dodee and the Town of Los Gatos?
Have you ever asked yourself... .. Why did Mr. Dodge developed only half of the property he owned and dedicated
the other half to open space? I think the intent is obvious. There was a deal between Mr . Dodge and the Town of
Los Gatos to allow his re-zoning for half the property to R110 in exchange for dedicated open space. Do you really
think that Mr. Dodge would leave millions of dollars in the 1960's undeveloped unless there was a
deal? NEVER! So I ask the town to honor its commitment.
1
Thank you for your time
George and Jill Montanari
160 Longmeadow Drive
Since 1998
George Montanari
Alain Pinel Realtors
Top producer since 1980
Presidents Club
Nationally 1 o/o per Wall Street Journal
BRE# 00780027
Geo rge@a pr.co m
408-357-8808 Direct Line
408-497-2213 Cell-Text
www .gm o ntana ri .co m
Click on this link for my website
school scores, mortgages etc ... )
The contents of this message are privilege d and confidential .
This message should not be forwarded or distributed without permission .
2
October 2, 2015
Los Gatos Planning Commission
11 0 E . Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030.
RE : Draft EIR for proposed Development of Surrey Farms
To Whom Tt May Concern,
RECEIVED
OCT 2 7 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIV ISION
I have lived in Los Gatos most of my life and distinctly remember the Town from my childhood-
Chrislow's for back to school clothes, Peak 's Dairy (milk delivery and touring the last working
dairy farm in Silicon Valley), Auto Row at Los Gatos Boulevard and Quito Little League. All
these things gave residents a "valued small-town character" (INT -5), with a large sense of
community, because "what makes Los Gatos special is its small-town atmosphere" (VIS-I).
"Residents are adamant in their desire to maintain a high quality of life and preserve the
character of the Town" (VIS-1) and although times change and small department stores cannot
compete with national chains, local farmers cannot make a living, car dealers have larger
building requirements, and baseball fields give way to developers seeking flat land , we can "not
compromise the choices and quality of life of future generations" (INT -2) and ignore the over-
arching principles of a "town" as opposed to a city.
The Draft EIR although seemingly comprehensive fails to "use the General Plan to understand
the Town's long-range plans" (INT -1) and I would submit that neither the developer nor the
consultant that prepared the Draft EIR reviewed the General Plan or they did read it and chose to
ignore the over-arching principles, since "the General Plan explains how our natural resources
and physical features are to be maintained and enhanced and directs how we incorporate them in
to infill pr~jects ... a project must not only be consistent with the Land Use Plan, but it must also
further the goals of all elements of the General Plan and met the intent of its policies."(INT-1)
Additionally, "The Role of the General Plan in Achieving the Vision" states "The overall role of
the 2020 General Plan is to provide a framework to ensure that the Town ... Maintains and
expands existing park and open space land to maintain and enhance quality of life and promote
sustainability." (VIS-2) The Draft EIR contemplates a I 0 property subdivision on 17 acres of
land that has been general planned open space (or resource conservation), zoned agriculture and
never planned as a large development-since I am confident that the builder who developed
Surrey Farms in the 1960 's, lived in the house at 170 Twin Oaks Drive for decades and owned
the 17 acre property would have found a time in the 40+ years he lived in Los Gatos to pull it
out of the Williamson Act, subdivide it or start a subdivision process. Disturbing Ross Creek,
displacing a group of wildlife (coyotes, bobcats, frogs, deer, etc), installing 2 vector sites (one
adjacent to a school), and replacing the 17 acres of open space with 3 acres that is visible to no
one does not appear to be a well-thought plan, nor one with a sense of community in mind .
Traffic has been a painful fact of life in Los Gatos over the past I 0 years and, although, there
have been measures to mitigate traffic, it will likely continue as long as we continue to endorse
more development without greater infrastructure. Essentially, the 10 home subdivision will not
have an insignificant effect on traffic within our small community (the percentage increase in
trips starting at Longmeadow Drive will increase by 15%). With the proposed development, the
streets are private, theoretically to bypass the town ordinance for public streets in order to
maximize numbers . The repair and maintenance of the streets is not contemplated and therefore,
would be inconsistent with the existing communities. Finally, there are multiple alternatives that
were not contemplated in the Draft EIR (fewer homes, direct access via Brook Acres or Cerro
Vista as opposed to a single access point at Twin Oaks Drive, greater setbacks from existing
homes, or a set of areas to offset the development (larger open space, community park, greater
pedestrian access , etc). The Draft EIR , instead, was simply focused on maximizing the number
of homes and profit for the developer/owner.
"Los Gatos is a truly special place, and residents want to protect their community from the
increasing development pressures of the region . Residents expect all new development to fit into
the fabric of the community and they expect that new businesses will enhance their high quality
oflife. Residents hold proposed development projects to a higher stand because what is
approved in other communities may not be acceptable in Los Gatos." (VIS -3). This quote from
the General Plan Vision is the best example of how so many Los Gatans feel. As a long-term
resident, who read his title report, researched the surrounding properties to assure himself of
what would/could affect the area, and a proponent ofkeeping Los Gatos a small town, I would
urge the Town Council and/or Planning Commission to reject the Draft EIR and uphold the
desires of the Surrey Farms community by denying any future development of the 17 acre open
space outside of the current parameters.
If "input from surrounding residents and property owns is a major considers during any
development review process" (VIS-3), and "Preserving the small-town character of Los Gatos
requires attention to ... open space, views of the hills, ... protection of the Town 's various
neighborhoods,"(VIS-3) I believe the continued outpouring of opposition to the proposed
development speaks for itself.
Thank you for your service and attention to this matter.
Bob Steinbock
126 Twin Oaks Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
*All references and quotations are from the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan .
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear General Plan Committee,
kmurphy2912@gmail.com
Tuesday, October 27, 2015 10:37 AM
Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz
General Plan Committee Meeting -Twin Oaks
Please consider these comments at the October 28 , 2015 General Plan Committee Meeting.
I am writing in regard to the proposed housing development on the Dodge property above the Surrey Farm
neighborhood . Los Gatos is a wonderful town of natural beauty and charm with a strong sense of
community. While downtown is a fabulous destination , it is the neighborhoods that make up the character of
the town. Large houses looming above our neighborhood will adversely alter Surrey Farm by negatively
impacting the natural aesthetic of the hillside, creating additional traffic on Longmeadow and Twin Oaks, and
imposing years of construction traffic and dust.
We moved here in 2007 shortly after the birth of our first son. We fell in love with the neighborhood and the
gorgeous view of the adjacent hills and the Sierra Azul Open Space Preserve. We remodeled our home in 2011
and added many large windows in the front of the house to enhance the view of the hillside. We enjoy
entertaining in our backyard, and the barbecue/dining area has a lovely view of the Dodge hillside. Adding
large houses there will ruin this view. The more we build on the hillside the more we slowly erode the beauty
that makes Los Gatos a special place to live.
This development will increase neighborhood traffic considerably with multiple drivers for each home,
domestic services, yard maintenance, and delivery services (Google, Amazon, FedEx, UPS , etc.). Having more
drivers pass by our house was something we never thought we had to worry about considering it was a
contained neighborhood. We plan to spend the rest of our lives here and the thought of more cars going up and
down the street is distressing.
We now have two boys (Grant 8 years, Colin 6 years) both attending Blossom Hill Elementary. They are now
at the age where they are playing with other kids in the neighborhood -they ride bikes, play tag, play
basketball, etc. They are at the perfect age to explore and play in their neighborhood, but if this proposed
development goes forward we will worry about their safety. Large trucks during the grading process will be
going up and down Longmeadow for a long time, and the building/construction traffic will go on for even
longer. It is a very big concern because generally no one parks in the street giving drivers the feeling that this is
a country road rather than a neighborhood. I see many people who do not live here driving dangerously fast.
At what point does the interest of one party outweigh the interest and concerns of dozens of neighbors? This
plan is not to improve a neighborhood or remove blight (like the nicely done development at Los Gatos Blvd
and Caldwell Ave). Rather this is a move that will diminish the character of our neighborhood and enrich a
party that once enjoyed this same neighborhood but is now abandoning it.
I am appealing to you as individuals to consider how this will impact my family and the many other families of
this special neighborhood .
Please do not approve this proposal. Thank you for your time and concern.
1
Best regards ,
Victoria and Kevin Murphy
153 Longmeadow Drive
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Jill Fordyce <jafordyce@aol.com >
Tuesday, October 27, 2015 11 :32 AM
Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz
briggszoo@gmail .com ; wmeleyco@comcast.net; craig .fordyce@colliers.com ;
j w itkin@tru lite.co m; Bo b.St einbock@c bre.co m; mark@we iner-fa m il y.net;
dbmooney@dcn .org
Subject: General Plan Committee Meeti ng October 28 -Twin Oaks
planningcommDEIRl.docx; Sa ve Surrey Farms Petition.pdf Attachments:
Dear Members of the General Plan Comm ittee ,
The developer of the proposed "Twin Oaks Planned Development" is asking this committee to make a blanket
recommendation that placing ten new houses on a vacant h illside, currently zoned as Resource Conservation Space, is
consistent with the General Plan . This hill s ide is home to a multitude of biological resources and sits literally on top of an
old , established Los Gatos neighborhood-Surrey Farms. This is not an issue that can be decided based on the Draft
EIR, a document that is grossly inadequate. This is also not an issue that can be decided in a one-hour meeting, and
without benefit of input from the community. Indeed, the proposal is so inconsistent with the current land use and vision
for the Town of Los Gatos that the developer has asked for the following i n order to proceed :
-a General Plan amendment from Agriculture to Hillside Residential ;
-Rezoning from Resource Conservation Space to Hillside Residential
-Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract
This committee has met twice before on this issue, and both times has asked for additional information (detailed
below). The memorandum provided by staff in advance of this meeting does not include the requested information. We
have also been advised that. although the Draft EIR was made available to this committee, the comments to the Draft
EIR. submitted on or before October 9 , were not made available to this committee . Reviewing these comments is crit ical
to understanding the impacts of th is project.
On September 12, 2012 , this committee met for the first time on this subject. Although we had been in regular
communication with Marni Moseley regarding all aspects of this development and had formally requested that we be
notified of all activity, we were told of this meeting on the morning of September 12, 2012 . Nonetheless , approx imately
fourteen Surrey Farms neighbors appeared on a few hours notice to state our concerns about the project and it's
inconsistency with the General Plan . At that time, the Committee made a motion to continue the item until a Draft EIR was
available. In addition , Barbara Spector requested information on criteria for W ill iamson Act Contract, General Plan
Amendment and Zone Change, and the required findings for the proposed project. Todd Jarvis requested information
regarding the background on last two hillside planned developments that were approved and background on the last time
the town cancelled a Williamson Act contract. Joe P irzynski noted the ne xt meeting should be held in a larger room in
order to better accommodate neighbors. A motion was made to postpone the meeting until such information was
available. and that it be a noticed meeting in a larger venue . The motion passed unanimously.
On October 22, 2014 , this comm ittee met for the second time on this subject. This time , the neighbors were not
told at all , and the meeting went forward with only representation from the developer. I should note t hat we were not
notified of the meeting despite the fact that we were in regular email contact with Ms. Moseley at that t ime . According to
the meeting minutes , the members of the Committee commented that most of the General Plan policies could not be
determined without the in f ormation contained in the EIR. A mot ion was passed to continue the item to when the Draft EIR
is available.
On August 26 , 2015, the Draft EIR becam e avai lable for review.
The ne ighbors were give n ten-day not ice to attend a hearing on the Draft EIR , to be held on September 9 , 2015.
We asked for a postponement of the he aring , as notice was provided just before Labor Day weekend , th e document was
1
over 700 pages long , and we were given essentially five working days to review it. Ms. Moseley advised that the Planning
Commission would have to make a motion at the hearing for a continuance to occur. Our request for postponement was
never addressed by the Planning Commission, and the hearing went forward. Many Surrey Farms neighbors appeared
and expressed their deep concerns about the project, the Draft EIR, and the inconsistency of the project with the General
Plan at this hearing . We ask that this Committee be provided with and review the video of this heari ng, prior to making a
recommendation as to consistency with the General Plan .
On October 9 , 2015 , the comment period on the Draft EIR ended . Many neighbors spent a great deal of time
reviewing the Draft EIR and prov id ing comments . Many of these comments also addressed the inconsistency of the
project with the General Plan . We ask that the Committee be provided with and review these comments prior to making a
recommendation as to consistency with the General Plan .
Last week, after I sent an email "checking in " with Ms. Moseley, I was advised that there was a General Plan
Committee meeting scheduled for October 28. I reminded Ms. Moseley of the prior commitment to hold a noticed meeting .
I also wrote to Laurel Prevetti, asking that the commitment to hold a noticed meeting be honored . No one has responded
to my request.
We have attached hereto our comments to the Draft EIR, which provide a necessary context for this committee to
see the vast complexity involved in making this recommendation. For ease of reference, the following is a guide to our
comments :
Part One . Why Surrey Farms Matters to Us
Part Two . Why the DEIR is Inadequate
The Project Objectives Are Inconsistent With the General Plan
and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
The Project Objectives Are Inconsistent With Current Land
Use Objectives
Zoning
Williamson Act Cancellation
The Proposed Development Will Destroy the Aesthetics of the
Surrounding Area
The Project Will Irrevocably Harm Biological Resources
White Tailed Kites and Other Special Status and
Migratory Birds
San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
California Red-legged Frogs and Foothill
Yellow-legged Frogs
Ross Creek
Protected Trees
Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife
Other Affected Species
The Project Will Have a Detrimental Affect on the Site Geology
and Soils
The Project Will Add to Already-Existing Transportation
and Traffic Problems
2
1
4
5
8
8
9
10
11
11
12
12
13
15
15
15
16
18
The Project Will Significantly Increase Noise in the
Surrounding Areas
The Project Will Adversely Affect the Air Quality in the Area
The Project Will Create a Fire Hazard for the Surrounding
Neighborhoods and School
The Public Services, Utilities and Service Systems of the Town
of Los Gatos Will be Adversely Impacted b the Project
Surrey Farms Will be Adversely Affected by the Cumulative
Impacts of Both the Hillbrook Expansion and the Proposed
Development
The DEIR Inadequately Considers all Appropriate Alternatives
Part Three . Surrey Farms Neighbors Involvement Since 2010
Part Four. Photographs of the Hill and Surrey Farms
Attachment: Petition Signed by Surrey Farms Residents December 2010
19
20
20
22
22
22
24
29
It should be noted that, aside from the Draft EIR, none of the information requested in the September 12, 2012
meeting has been provided in the Memorandum from Staff-and none of it is included in the Draft EIR. We ask this
committee to either postpone this meeting until all of the information gathering is complete and a noticed meeting can be
held; or alternatively, that it make a recommendation that this project is inconsistent with goals and objectives of the
General Plan .
Thank you for your time, service, and consideration .
Jill & Craig Fordyce
191 Longmeadow Drive
3
This Page
lntentional(y
Left Blank
-.
Mr. Tom Dodge
851 McGlincy Lane
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Mr. Dodge,
Save Surrey Farms
P. 0. Box 2058
Los Gatos, CA 95031
December 15, 2010
We are aware of your intent to develop a new residential subdivision on the
open space and hillside adjacent to our neighborhood. Although only some of us _
received your letter stating this intent, we, as a neighborhood, are deeply
concerned and are writing to urge you to reconsider and to let you know that we
are strongly opposed to any development of the property.
-Surrey Farms retains a rural character due to the open space adjacent
to it. We understand that this was the intent when developing the neighborhood -
to maintain the open space and rural character of the land adjacent to our homes,
recognizing that this land, which is currently occupied only by oak trees and
wildlife, has public value as an important social, environmental, aesthetic and
economic asset.
-For those of us who immediately abut your proposed development, the
consequences to our property and way of life cannot be summed up in this letter.
Where we currently have yards backed by open space, we will be backed by a
neighborhood filled with noise, lights, cars, people and pollution. We are
concerned about the complete lack of privacy and public access to our yards. A
major existing problem is drainage and any development will further increase the
water flow onto our homes. In short, your proposal will completely alter the
nature of our properties.
-Surrey Farms has remained a uniquely family-friendly, old-fashioned
neighborhood because there is no pass-through. We enter and exit through the
old ranch gates at the top of Longmeadow, which enables our children and
grandchildren to be on foot and bikes on our streets every day. It is our
understanding that your development would add a new street through Twin Oaks,
significantly changing the nature of our neighborhood streets.
._
Some of us have lived here for 50 years and some of us are new to the
neighborhood, but we all appreciate the uniqueness and beauty of Surrey Fanns.
It is what brought all of us here to raise our families -the quiet streets below a
natural landscape of hillside and open space. We believe that your proposal
would irrevocably alter the character of the neighborhood that is home to us all.
We urge you to reconsider development of the property, as we are prepared to
defend and support our beliefs through all appropriate means.
~ic.wr.Jcf;~
Jill & Craig Fordyce
191 Longmeadow Drive
~~f~&a~ 'Kal; & Bill Meleyco
189 Longmeadow Drive
Kathleen & Craig Leclair
110 Blueberry Hill
cc: Town of Los Gatos
Encl.: Signatures of Surrey Farms residents
~f~~~
Sue & Mark Weiner
130 Twin Oaks
_ .. /] (')
/.· · ~~ ~-/cVv~-~ ~ixn (_ lfJf{_{J,gv-( r{ U (j
Catherine & Gary Briggs
106 Longmeadow Drive
-Long meadow Drlve-We Oppose any New SuR'ey Farm Sub-Developmenb
-
----
100 longmeadow Dr.
105 Longmeadow Dr.
106 Longmeadow Dr.
112 Longmeadow Dr.
115 Longmeadow Dr.
120 Longmeadow Dr.
125 Longmeadow Dr.
130 Longmeadow Dr.
131 Longmeadow Dr.
135 Longmeadow Dr.
139 Longmeadow Dr.
140 Longmeadow Dr.
143 Longmeadow Dr.
149 Longmeadow Dr.
150 Longmeadow Dr.
153 Longmeadow Dr.
159 Longmeadow Dr.
160 Longmeadow Dr.
163 Longmeadow Dr.
169 Longmeadow Dr.
1 70 Longmeadow Dr.
--
Longmeadow Drive -We Oppose any New Surrey Farm Sub-Developments
~~-f'-::'
1 00 Longmeadow Dr.
1 05 Longmeadow Dr. . . . . ..
• 1 06 Longmeadow Dr.
.... 112 Longmeadow Dr.
... -1 15 Longmeadow Dr. (.()y,· ~ i -6~ .IA.j b 'I rfl-" ..._ .L
-120 Longmeadow Dr. --
-125 Longmeadow Dr.
-130 Longmeadow Dr.
-"' 131 Longmeadow Dr.
-"' 135 Longmeadow Dr.
1--139 Longmeadow Dr.
... ~-<140 Longmeadow Dr.
-f-143 Longmeadow Dr.
-~ 149 Longmeadow Dr.
150 Lon~meadow Dr. .k'!' t:/~ ,_._
.
vJ u Cy')"" ./2'~ ;:Jq ~/?_ ...,
153 Longmeadow Dr.
'l.u\'1\.J.-V\<*or"w.. ·1~ ~~ ---·
v 159 Longmeadow Dr. ~~ l.J..tJc... '{'(\OIIV.. A \ ~
160 Longmeadow Dr. ·fJ\A~~
163 Longmea:w Dr. \.)
\'""~C/(C.,
169 Long\\:.adow Dr.
j(l)'v-.M U \ (,-y-:{h,
v 170 Longmeadow Dr.
V \~u... .._ (.,\CI-v<-il!J~LiltA(' !if4t7z:bt~~ ... ~
178 Longmeadow Dr.
179 Longmeadow Dr.
183 Longmeadow Dr.
185 Longmeadow Dr.
187 Longmeadow Dr.
189 Longmeadow Dr.
191 Longmeadow Dr.
173 Longmeadow Dr.
178 Longmeadow Dr .
1 79 Longmeadow Dr.
183 Longmeadow Dr.
185 Longmeadow Dr.
187 Longmeadow Dr.
189 Longmeadow Dr.
191 Longmeadow Dr.
-.
Longmeadow Drive -We Oppose any New Surrey Farm Sub-Developments
~
1 00 Longmeadow Dr.
1 05 Longmeadow Dr.
1 06 Longmeadow Dr.
112 Longmeadow Dr.
115 Longmeadow Dr.
120 Longmeadow Dr. -
125 Longmeadow Dr.
130 Longmeadow Dr.
131 Longmeadow Dr.
135 Longmeadow Dr.
139 Longmeadow Dr.
140 Longmeadow Dr.
149 Longmeadow Dr. (O£,mfl&1 ,a, A/\ h / ~/J_
149 Longmeadow Dr. / /
~~!.. }~
150 Longmeadow Dr. tJ
153 Longmeadow Dr.
1 59 Longmeadow Dr.
160 Longmeadow Dr.
163 Longmeadow Dr.
169 Longmeadow Dr.
170 Longmeadow Dr.
·. .
173 Longmeadow Dr.
178 Longmeadow Dr.
1 79 Longmeadow Dr.
/""\
183 Longmeadow Dr. ~(J 4--t.A,.-zJ~ -·
..... -"ZJ'
185 Longmeadow Dr .
187 Longmeadow Dr.
189 Longmeadow Dr.
191 Longmeadow Dr. .
rWtn Oaks Drive-We Oppose any New Surrey Farm Sub -Developments
104 Twin Oaks Dr.
11 0 Twin Oaks Dr.
11 6 Twin O aks Dr.
120 Twin Oaks Dr.
126 Twin Oaks Dr.
130 Twin Oaks Dr.
136 Twin Oaks Dr.
140 Twin Oaks Dr.
146 Twin Oaks Dr.
152 Twin Oaks Dr.
158 Twin Oaks Dr.
162 Twin Oaks Dr.
1 70 Twin Oaks Dr.
180 Twin Oaks Dr.
188 Twin Oaks Dr.
Twin Oaks Drive -We Oppose any New Surrey Farm SubMDevelopments
S1 ,,_,_ll'.:...!i:
100 Twin Oaks Dr.
104 Twin Oaks Dr.
110 Twin Oaks Dr.
116 Twin Oaks Dr.
120 Twin Oaks Dr.
126 Twin Oaks Dr.
130 Twin Oaks Dr.
.
136 Twin Oaks Dr.
140 Twin Oaks Dr.
146 Twin Oaks Dr.
152 Twin Oaks Dr.
158 Twin Oaks Dr.
162 Twin Oaks Dr .
170 Twin Oaks Dr.
180 Twin Oaks Dr. "71!~ t/f.tl~
188 Twin Oaks Dr . "!~~d)~._:_
Blueberry Hill-We Oppose any New Surrey Farm Sub-Developments
11 0 Blueberry Hill
118 Blueberry Hill
126 Blueberry Hill
132 Blueberry Hill
138 Bluet:?erry Hill
1 44 Blueberry Hill
150 Blueberry Hill
~ 156 Blueberry Hill
-.
Clover Way-We Oppose any New Surrey farm Sub-Developments
1 04 Clover Way
11 0 Clover Way
.j 168 Clover Way
172 Clover Way
-. . .
Clover Way-We Oppose any New S"rrey Farm Sub-Developments
110 Clover Way
116 Clover Way
120 Clover Way
126 Clover Way
130 Clover Way
136 Clover Way
140 Clover Way
146 Clover Way
152 Clover Way
158 Clover Way
162 Clover Way
168 Clover Way
172 Clover Way
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
We are writing to you regarding the proposed "S urrey Farms Estates"
development. We have divided this correspondence into four parts, as follows:
PART ONE. Why Surrey Farms Matters to Us
PART TWO. Why the Draft EIR is Inadequate
PART THREE.
PART FOUR.
Surrey Farms Neighbors Involvement Since 2010
Photographs of the Hill and Surrey Farms (via Dropbox)
We wish that this letter could be short and to the point, but there is too much at
stake, and the Draft EIR is too poorly written . We appreciate the time you are taking to
read and consider our concerns, articulated below.
PART ONE. Why Surrey Farms Matters to Us
We bought the property at 191 Longmeadow Drive in February 1999. At the time,
we couldn 't believe the beauty of both the property and the neighborhood . It had the best
of everything. It was close to town, in an old-fashioned enclosed neighborhood, past the
white farm fences . The property itself backed to a beautiful , green hill dotted with oak
trees and grazing deer. The setting of our home, including the view of the hill and the
serenity it provides, was a very important component of the property, so before we
purchased it, we went to the Town Planning Department and asked about the likelihood
that it would ever be developed. The clerk walked us to the map on the wall, showed us
that it was zoned Resource Conservation Space, and told us that it was not likely to be
developed "in our lifetime." We bought the home, and the first night we slept there, the
only thing we could hear was the loud chirping of the frogs enjoying their breeding
season along Ross Creek, which runs across and beneath the hillside.
In 2002, we undertook an extensive remodel , believing that this place, where we
were raising our five children, would be our forever home. We were not concerned about
the possibility of development because of what we 'd been told at the Planning
Department, and also by what we'd heard in the neighborhood-that part of the original
plan when Surrey Farms was developed, was that it remain backed by this open space.
This seemed reasonable to us, since we knew the property was owned by Bob Dodge, the
1
original developer of Surrey Farms, who lived around the corner from us on Twin Oaks,
and because a prime feature of the neighborhood is its serenity and proximity to open
space.
Then, in June 2010, Mr. Dodge passed away. Just a few months later, we received
a notice that his son, Tom Dodge, was proposing to build a subdivision on the hillside.
Because there is no access to the site by existing roads, the plan proposed a new street,
off of Twin Oaks, using a current portion of the home still owned by the Dodge family to
provide access . All traffic to the new subdivision would be via Longmeadow Drive and
Twin Oaks Drive. (Originally there was also talk of access via Brooke Acres Court, but
this idea has apparently been abandoned).
We wrote back to Tom Dodge in December 2010, and gave him a Petition signed
by approximately 70 households in Surrey Farms, asking that he reconsider. The Petition
specifically described how a development on the property behind Surrey Farms would
destroy the quiet beauty of the neighborhood built by his father. That Petition was also
submitted to the Town Council at the time, and should have been included as part of the
Draft EIR. (It was surprising to see that this Petition as well as all of the other
correspondence neighbors had with the Town, specifically Marni Mosely, over the past
five years was not included or even mentioned in the Draft EIR. The interested parties are
listed on page 1-2 ofEIR as Dr. & Mrs. Markman, Mr. & Mrs. Briggs and our former
counsel, John Hickey. Since 2010, we, as well as other neighbors, have been in regular
contact with Marni Moseley regarding our concern about this proposed subdivision.
Many of us even attended a General Plan meeting on September 12, 2012 to voice our
concerns. None of us, however, were listed as interested parties.) Included in Part Three,
is a detailed listing of our neighborhood involvement since 2010.
As many of our neighbors have noted, Surrey Farms neighborhood is unique in
Los Gatos. It is a beautifully developed and fully enclosed neighborhood. It is quiet and
scenic. It is backed by a hillside where we see the deer graze almost every day. As one
local real estate blog states :
"What makes the Surrey Farm or Surrey Farms n e ig hborhood so specia l?
Part of what is unique about Surrey Farm is the more rura l .feeling that th e
n eighborhood has. Here you don '!find s idewalks or s treet lamps. But you do find that a
2
number of th e yards con tinue to use the horse fenc e as at leas t part of the landscaping.
That 's very r e.fi·eshing in Silicon Valley, where so many of t he residential areasjustfeel
like suburban sprawl. You can look around and imagine it be ing horse country not so
long ago. Also special is the fact that this area is actually close to downtown Los Gatos
but only feels fa rther away. It 's incredibly quiet in most of th e neighborhood. On e area
does back up to Hill brook School, so of course th e sounds of kids at play or school be lls
ringing will not reinforce the "out in the country " feel. Overall, though, you look around
and see open space and the hills nearby -so you do not feel/ike this is any kind of urban
selling. " http :Ill i ve inlosgatosblog. com/surrey-farm-neighborhood/
Another si te states: "What is the mys tique of this much sought-after area ?
Part of it may be that th e re is just one main e ntrance to the neighborhood ... so th e re is n o
"through traffic ". The streets are fa irly quiet and it's a n easy p lace to let J..:ids ride bikes
and walk dogs, or to push strollers a nd talk with n e ig hbors while walking. Anothe r
e lement is th e modes t nature of it. Where as many neighborhoods in Ca l ifornia seem to
cram large homes on small l ots, this area is more fu ll of trees and yard than structure. It
seems to b e a less hurrie d pace. Additiona lly , Surrey Farm is "close to t own ", has the
prized Los Gatos Schools, but fee ls m ore countrifi ed. It feels away without being away. "
https://www.realtown.com/LivelnLosGatos/blog/los-gatos-neighborhoods/surrey-:farms
The DEIR does not adequately articulate how this proposed development will
affect our neighborhood. In fact , in broad sweeps, it concludes that it won 't affect our
neighborhood in any way. Surrey Farms neighbors faced a similar threat to their
neighborhood in the 1970 's, and their concerns then echoed the concerns we have now,
more than forty years later. There was a proposal to create a pass-through from
Longmeadow Drive to Kennedy and Shannon, and the neighb ors petitioned the Town
Council, asking that the integrity of the neighborhood be protected.
A letter accompanying that petition stated: "There are three areas of concern the
resident s would like to speak to regarding thi s matter: (I) the possible destruction of
Surrey Farm as we now enjoy it and as we were assured it would remain ; (2) the potential
increase in pedestrian and traffic hazard ; (3) A thought that the termination of
Longmeadow Drive at Ross Creek might be a wholesome, intelligent and most logical
place to call a halt to this never ending maze of interlocking roadway, and to this
3
checkerboard square mentality we seem to be facing." (Letter dated September 4, 1974
signed by Mrs. Allen McGrath).
We urge you, as the Planning Conunission, to spend some time in Surrey Farms,
walk to the end of Longmeadow and see what we see, so that you can assess this project
from the perspective of the neighborhood.
PART TWO. Why the Draft EIR is Inadequate
Two things inunediately jumped out at us when reading the Draft EIR. First,
although the project proposes to take an empty hillside replete with wildlife and ancient
oak trees sitting above an established neighborhood, and tum it into an entire new
neighborhood, almost everything in the Draft EIR is listed as having a "less than
significant impact." The development of this subdivision will require a change in zoning
from Resource Conservation space to a Planned Development, an amendment to the
Town General Plan, and cancellation of a Williamson Act contract. Most certainly, there
will be impacts, as this is not the use of land envisioned by either the Town or the
neighborhood.
Second, there were no other alternatives to development discussed in the Draft
EIR. The no-development alternative and the less-development alternative are not
discussed because of an allegation that to do so would be contrary to CEQA. This
statement, like much of the Draft EIR, is not accurate, misleading, and unreliable.
Everything in this Draft EIR-from studies that are too old, to conclusions that are not
supported by the facts, to the "mitigation" measures that, for example, propose putting
an enormous pond adjacent to a school and several homes-needs to be carefully
examined.
Below we have addressed the key problems that we see with the Draft EIR.
1. The project objectives are inconsistent with the General Plan and the
Hillside Development Standards.
2 . The project objectives are inconsistent with Current Land Use
Objectives (Zoning, Williamson Act cancellation)
4
3. The proposed development will destroy the aesthetics of the
surrounding area.
4. The project will irrevocably harm biological resources (White-tailed
Kites and other special status and migratory birds; San Francisco
Dusky-Footed Woodrat; California Red-legged Frogs and Foothill
Yellow-legged Frogs ; Ross Creek; Protected trees; Loss ofHabitat for
Native Wildlife; Other affected species)
5. The project will have a detrimental affect on the site geology and soils .
6. The project wil1 add to already-existing transportation and traffic
problems.
7. The project will significantly increase the noise in the surrounding
areas.
8 . The project will adversely affect the air quality in the area.
9. The project will create a fire hazard for the surrounding neighborhoods
and school.
10. The public services, utilities and service systems of the town of Los
Gatos will be adversely impacted by the project.
11 . Surrey Farms will be adversely affected by the cumulative impacts of
both the Hillbrook expansion and the proposed development.
12. The DEIR inadequately considers all appropriate alternatives.
THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN AND THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
The DEIR claims that this project is consistent with the 2020 General Plan
because, prior to Mr. and Mrs. Dodge putting it into the Williamson Act in 196 I , the
property was zoned for residential use. The claim is then made that this property is zoned
as Resource Conservation Space only because of the Williamson Act, and that, without it,
the use ofland envisioned by the Town (in the 1960's) was to develop it as residential
lots. First, this reasoning is entirely circular, i .e., the reason land is put into the
Williamson Act is to preserve it and prevent development. Second , the fact that prior to
th e d evelopment of our neighborhood, some prior zoning allowed for residential use on
5
the hill is largely irrelevant and actually supports the neighbors belief; namely that at the
time our neighborhood was developed, Mr. and Mrs. Dodge put the land in the
Williamson Act as part of the original deal to achieve the density ofhomes in our
neighborhood. It should also be noted that at no time during Mr. Dodge's life did he
make any request that the Williamson Act contract not be renewed ; instead, it renewed
annually for more than forty years. It should also be noted that, while we asked the Town
for any documents related to the original development of Surrey Farms, we received only
eleven pages of handwritten notes and a site plan.
The proposed development requires an amendment to the General Plan precisely
because it is in conflict with the goals and direction ofthe General Plan. This project
would clearly violate the following General Plan Goals and Policies:
Goal OSP-2: To preserve open space in hillside areas as natural open
space.
Goal OSP-2.1: Preserve the natural open space character of hillside lands,
including natural topography, natural vegetation, wildlife habitats and migration
corridors, and view sheds .
Goal OSP-5: To create and maintain open space areas and parks that
enhance and blend into existing natural habitats, residential neighborhoods, and
other Town features .
Policy OSP-5.1 Maintain the Town's high standards for landscaping and
tree preservation, helping to maintain cohesiveness between existing
neighborhoods and surrounding open space areas and reducing disturbances to
adjacent natural habitats.
The project would utilize roughly 81% of the site, destroying the beauty of the
hillside area. Leaving only 3.32 acres as open space on a 17 .55 acre site clearly violates
the General Plan mandate to preserve open space on our hillsides. It will take away from
the "unique sense of place" that the Town General Plan is supposed to protect. It clearly
damages the Surrey Farms neighborhood, which was built with the understanding that the
Open Space it backs up to would remain untouched . And it harms the Town in general,
which needs to retain its current, dwindling open space areas.
6
On September 12, 2012 , many concerned Surrey Farms residents attended the
meeting of the General Plan Committee (which we were notified ofby the Town that
morning), where the following was requested: Approval of a General Plan Amendment
from Agriculture to Hillside Residential and to rezone the property from RC to HR: 1 :PD
for a ten-lot single-family subdivision." We submitted a letter from council, John Hickey.
At the meeting, after hearing from many concerned neighbors, and realizing that asking
them to make a recommendation at this point was extremely premature, the committee
made a motion to continue until there was the following: a Draft EIR, a noticed meeting
with a larger venue, criteria on Williamson Act cancellation, input on the General Plan
amendment and zoning, required findings on the General Plan amendment and zoning, an
understanding of the historical perspective with Hillside developments, and whether or
not they are providing an opinion on the PD, by providing an opinion on the zoning.
Many of these land use issues remain unaddressed by the Draft EIR.
According to the Town Project Objectives (p. 5-18), the project site is lo cated in
the part of town subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG)
and Hillside Specific Plan (HSP), as well as the Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. The
Town's objectives are listed in the DEIR as follows:
1. Preserve the natural beauty and ecological integrity of the Santa Cruz Mountains
and surrounding hillsides by regulating new homes.
2. Preserve the natural topography and ecosystems within the hillside area by
regulating grading, landscaping, and lighting.
3. Maintain the natural appearance of the hillsides from all vantage points including
the valley floor.
4 . Protect ridgelines from development.
5. Maintain the rural, natural, open space character of the hillsides.
6. Ensure that development does not dominate, but rather visually blends and
achieves harmony between the natural and build environment.
7. Conserve the natural features of the site such as topography, natural drainage,
vegetation, wildlife habitat, movement corridors, and other physical features.
8. Cluster dwelling units to preserve the scenic nature of the hillsides and allow for
economies in the construction of required public and private facilities.
7
9. Site new homes to maximize privacy, livability, protection of natural plan and
wildlife habitats, and migration corridors, and adequate solar access and wind conditions,
taking advantage of scenic view but not creating significant ecological or visual impacts
affecting open spaces, public places, or other properties.
Reading the various effects on wildlife, aesthetics, biological resources , the Ross
Creek, scenic vistas, habitat, vegetation, and open space below, we are unable to see how
a project to construct ten homes on a natural hillside can in any way be consistent with
the specified objectives of the Town according to both the HDSG, the HSP, and the
General Plan. The DEIR does not adequately specify this , or provide appropriate
mitigation.
THE PROJECT OBJECTWES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT LAND
USE OBJECTIVES
Zoning
With regard to zoning, the project was found to have a "less than significant
impact" with no mitigation measure required . The project, however, requires a change in
zoning from Resource Conservation Space to a Planned Development. It is unclear why
this is not, in and of itself, a significant "land use" impact.
Section 4 .1-2 of the DEIR states that the project "would not conflict with any
applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the
project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect."
Section 4.1-3 of the DEIR states that the project "would conflict with the site's
current zoning designation (Agriculture) and Williamson Act Contract, and would require
rezoning and contract cancellation as proposed."
First, as articulated above, the project conflicts with both the General Plan and the
Hillside Plan. Second, the DEIR incorrectly states that the current zoning is
"Agriculture." The current zoning, however, is "Resource Conservation Space."
Pursuant to the Town Code ofLos Gatos section 29.40.155: "The Resource
Conservation Zone (RC) is intended to enhance the quality oflife in the town of Los
Gatos . The RC zone pro vides a means to protect open space, special landforms, scenic
areas , watershed , wildlife and vegetation. The RC zone also restricts access to and within
8
designated areas, restricts the intensity of development, limits residential density, reduces
fire hazards in the hillside areas, and provides for open space in the form of parks,
playgrounds, and other community facilities."
Property zoned as Resource Conservation space is zoned that way to protect open
space, scenic areas, watershed, wildlife and vegetation. It is also designed to restrict
development. It is not merely an agricultural zone as indicated in the DEIR.
Williamson Act Cancellation
Cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract is appropriate only in "emergency
situations," not where the objectives could be served instead by non-renewal. (See Sierra
Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal. 3d 840, 852-53). For example, the State of
California Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is impermissible
"except upon extremely stringent conditions." (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233 , 240 (1979).
The procedures for cancelling a Williamson Act contract, outlined in Govenunent
Code secti on 51282 , require that a board or council may only approve a cancellation if it
makes certain findings. The requisite findings include either that the cancel1ation is
cons istent with the purpose of the Williamson Act (Gov .Code, § 51282 , s ubd. (a)( I)), or
that the cancellation is in the public interest (id. subd. (a)(2)). "For purposes of paragraph
(2) of subdivision (a) cancell ation of a contract shall be in the public interes t only ifthe
council or board makes the following findings: ( 1) that other public concerns
substantially outweigh the objectives of thi s chapter; and (2) that there is no proximate
noncontracted land which is both avai labl e and suitable for the use to which it is
proposed the contracted land be put, or that development of the contracted land would
provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate
noncontracted land." (!d. subd. (c).)
None of the criteria for cancellation of a Williamson Act contract is stated or
analyzed as part of the DEIR. At a minimum, the applicant and the town would need to
set forth findings, with appropriate documentation, that either cancellation is consistent
with the purpose of the Williamson Act, or that it is in the public interest. The oft-used
conclusion that the land is not being u sed for Agriculture, or that Agricultural u ses could
cause pollution are inadequate and misleading. The intent of the original Land
Conservation Contract was to preserve the rural quality of the land, recognizing that the
9
maintenance of open space and land of rural character h o lds s ign ificant value.
T hi s property has never b een used for agricultural purposes. It was put in th e
Williamson Act pursuant to a Land Co nservation Contract entered in to between the Town
and Bob and D oroth y Dodge in 197 5. The Land Conservati on Co ntract states: "The
owners and th e town wish to limi t the u se of the property to agticultu ra l uses and uses
compatibl e wi th agricu ltural uses in order to preserve the limited supply of agricultural
land, to discourage the premature or unnecessary conversion of agricultura l/and to
urban uses and to permit th e maintenance of open space and land of rural character. The
Owners and the Town recognize that agricultural land has public va lue as open space and
that agricultural land constitutes an important social , aesthetic and economic asset to the
people of the Town and the State of C aliforni a." Exhibit A of the Contr act provides a li st
ofland conservation contract compatible uses, which includes agriculture, nurseries, open
space, forest preserves, outdoor recreation , public utility and service, tiding and hiking
ttials, stables, and the residence of the owner.
The DEIR did not endeavor to set forth an y of the criteria necessary for
Williamson Act cancellation.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL DESTROY THE AESTHETICS OF THE
SURROUNDING AREA
According to section 4.2-1, the project would "not substantially affect scenic
vistas." According to section 4 .2 -3 , the project would "not substantially degrade the
visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings." According to section 4 .2-4,
the project would "not create new sources of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime view in the area."
None of these conclusions are grounded by any facts . The entire backdrop to
Surrey Farms would be changed from an open, grassy hill , to a neighborhood with ten
homes, or possibly, an infrastructure of streets and house pads that never get sold, or that
get sold and developed one by one over many years. The backdrop to our neighborhood
becomes a constant construction zone, a busy neighborhood, or even a ghost town if the
lots are not sold as expected.
10
The hillside does not contain any current unnatural source of light. The
construction of a neighborhood on the hill will create multiple new sources of substantial
light and glare. There will be house lights, street lights, car lights, security lights . None of
these currently exist, so it is untenable to conclude that there will not be any new sources
of substantial light or glare. We, personally, will he dramatically affected by the lights,
because our property backs to the hillside, and the lights will shine directly into our
backyard and our home.
The DEIR finds no aesthetic issues with the Planned Development. We believe
most Los Gatos residents and Surrey Farms neighbors would strongly disagree. The
findings under Aesthetics are subjective, ungrounded, and don't align with our
experience. The development would in fact: substantially impact scenic vistas, damage
scenic resources, and degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. It is
interesting that the DEIR concludes: "Views from Longmeadow Drive would change from
an undeveloped, grass-covered hill to a developed hillside, " as if that is of no
consequence to the aesthetics of the neighborhood. As in much of the DEIR, the true
consequences of taking a rural hillside and putting an entire neighborhood on it, are
grossl y understated. We ask that you tum to the Dropbox to get a better vis ual idea of
how dramatic the impact this development would be on our neighborhood and the land
itself.
THE PROJECT WILL IRREVOCABLY HARM BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
White Tailed Kites and Other Special Status and Migratory Birds
According to section 4.3-2, project development could have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or though habitat modification, to nesting white-tailed kites and
other special status and migratory birds. The DEIR concludes that there would, however,
be a "less than significant impact" if mitigation measures are required. The mitigation
measures include: a pre-construction nesting bird survey and buffers to be put in place if
construction takes place during breeding season, that allow the young birds to fledge.
Nothing is required if the activities are schedul ed to occur outside of the breeding season.
Essentially, the mitigation measure provides that it is okay to take out the trees that would
house the birds as long as the birds are not breeding there at the time. There 's even a
11
provision for if project activities "must occur within the non-disturbance buffer, that a
biologist shall monitor the nests." This mitigation measure essentially allows habitat
modification, with no effort to make sure the birds have a spot to r eturn to when it is time
to breed again. The white-tailed kite is a protected species and this is an insufficient way
of ensuring its habitat is preserved.
San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
According to section 4 .3 -3 , project development could have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or though habitat modification, to the special status species San
Francisco dusky-footed woodrat, which is present on site. Again, a detailed mitigation
measure is proposed, requiring a biologist to perform a ground survey to locate and mark
all woodrat nests in the proposed construction site. Nests that "can be avoided " will be
marked . Nests that "cannot be avoided" shall be manually disassembled to give the
woodrats the opportunity to disperse to adjoining undisturbed habitat. Nest building
materials shall be immediately removed off site and disposed of to prevent woodrats from
reassembling nest on site. The mitigation measure calls for weekly disassembling of
nests. Again, this "mitigation " measure does nothing to preserve the habitat. Instead, it
disassembles nests and moves them to the next place, and then the next, which will b e
hard to come by on this fully developed hill that us ed to be their habitat. The Dusky
footed woodrat is a protected species.
California Red-legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs
According to section 4.3-5, the project development could have a substantial
· adverse effect, either directly or though habitat modification, to California red-legged
frogs and Foothill yellow-legged frogs. The mitigation measure that is offered is as
follows: construction activities shall be timed to occur outside the wet season when the
frogs are "less likely to venture into uplands." No work shall occur during or within 24
hours following a rain event exceeding 0.2 inches. Prior to start of construction, wildlife
exclusion fencing shall be installed along Ross Creek and the associated riparian corridor,
where the frogs could enter the project site. The location is to be scouted daily for the
frogs and the frogs can be relocated. A qualified biologist is to be onsite at all times.
What kind of wildlife exclusion fencing can exclude a frog? Where are the frogs going to
be relocated ? What if the frogs venture into the uplands outside ofthe wet season? Is
12
there really going to be a biologist onsite 12 hours a day, when construction is planned to
occur? With all of these various attempts at mitigation, the habitat is still being
irrevocably modified and limited, and th er e is no mitigation measure for that.
Ross Creek
According to section 4 .3-7 ofthe DEIR, the project development would adversely
affect a surface tributary presumed to fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE, CDFG,
and/or RWQBC pursuant to Federal and State law. The only mitigation measure is to
conform with applicable regulations . There is also the placement of fill into the
ephemeral swale, and the effect of this mitigation measure is not discussed .
According to section 4.3-8 , the project development would adversely affect the
riparian habitat of Ross Creek and an unnamed tributary to Ross Creek located within the
project site. The mitigation measure is to conform with the Guidelines and Standards for
Land Use Near Streams. These guidelines require "setbacks to appropriately protect the
habitat and water quality associated with Ross Creek." It is noted that placement of fill
into the swale is necessary to construct Streets A and B. The grading and culvert
construction to accommodate the co nstru ction of Street B would result in impacts on the
portions of the ephemeral swale that are incised and situated "directly beneath the canopy
of mature oak woodland." It is noted that such grading wo uld not "necessarily" conflict
with the Guidelines.
According to section 4.3-9 , the project implementation would also require an
exception to the Guidelines by encroaching into the recommended riparian setback. The
"mitigation" measure is for the Town to "allow an exception to the Guidelines to permit
construction of Streets A and B." There is no explanation given for this, no impact
assessed; instead, as in much of this DEIR, the statement is made that there is an adverse
affect, but the Town can just grant an exception.
A primary objective of the Guidelines is to "enhance water and watershed
resource protection through local agency land use planning and permitting." The
Guidelines note that "there is a significant physical linkage between the in-stream and
near-stream biological communities that is c1itical to protect and restore where possible.
The riparian systems that border many streams in Santa Clara County provide important
habitat for aquatic invertebrates, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. A number of
13
species are dependent on a healthy riparian system to survive." Granting an exception to
the Guidelines and making a finding that construction does not "necessarily conflict "
with the Guide lines offers insufficient protection to th ese important riparian resources
and systems.
According to the Town of Los Gatos Summary Handout of Guidelines and
Standards for Land Use Near Streams , minimum setbacks are required to minimize
impacts to streams. The setbacks for the slope stability protection area are to be
considered minimums and greater setbacks may be required based on site specific
conditions through the CEQA and permitting process. Exceptions may be granted to
allow a structure to be located within the slope stability protection area where a slope
stability analysis is provided and maintenance or repair of the stream will be
provided. The study will be required to assess the geotechnical soil and slope stability
conditions and determine: whether or not the location of a proposed structure may
threaten bank stability; and whether or not the bank instability may threaten and/or
potentially cause a health and safety hazard.
The Geotechnical Survey provided by the developer is from 2010. It is unclear
whether it even did this analysis to qualify for an exception to the setback. This is a
critical Biological Resource and yet, the DEIR fails to appropriately analyze the
damaging effects, instead envisions granting exceptions to the law to allow construction
in the sensitive riparian corridor.
In a "Memo to The Planning Commission from Jack Schenk, Assistant Planning
Director January 17, 1975 (regarding proposed 4 lot subdivision at end of
Longmeadow)," the issue of differing sizes of homes proposed at the end of
Longmeadow was discussed. The "reason for the great difference between the smallest
lot (11 ,300) feet and the largest (15,600 feet)," was explained by Mr. Schenk as being
"due to the flood plain area required by Ross Creek.'' While deference was given to the
Ross Creek and it's surrounding habitat back then, this project asks for exceptions and
exemptions. Construction within the protected area of Ross Creek should not be
permitted.
14
Protected Trees
According to section 4 .3-10, project implementation would remove about 70
protected trees and transpl ant approximately 30 protected trees on the project site, which
would directly or indirectly affect approximately 0.52 acres of mixed oak woodland . The
only mitigation offered is to hire an arborist and plant some replacements. The
replacement of these giant oaks that are hundreds of years old is to be with 24-48 inch
oaks. These trees are in no way comparable and will not compensate for the removal of
these generations-old oaks. It will take hundreds of years for the new trees to grow, and
there are less of them being planted than are being removed. The protected white-tailed
kites (as well as other birds and small animals) live in these trees, and their habitat will
forever be gone.
It should also be noted that the Plant and Tree studies are old. The inventory of
Vascular Plant Species Detected in Study Area is dated April2013, and the Evaluation of
Trees is dated December 201 0, with a "letter update" in January 2013.
Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife
According to section 4.3-11 of the DEIR, the project development would result in
the "loss of habitat for native wildlife." In Part Four, we 've submitted photos via
Dropbox of some of the native wildlife. We see this wildlife every day. The hill is home
to deer, coyotes, wild turkeys , bobcats, owls, mountain lions, tarantulas, foxes , and other
native wildlife. We have an owl that has resided in the eaves of our home for over four
years. This is their home, and no one in this DEIR is advocating for them. Indeed, the
statement that they will lose habitat stands alone, with no possible mitigation offered.
After reading the DEIR, we are left with the question: Why is this not more important? It
receives a small amount of attention, yet is a critical issue. The project development will
result in the loss ofhabitat for native wildlife forever.
Other Affected Species
According to the Draft EIR, the potential for occurrence of a total of 66 special
status animal species on the subject property was evaluated . The presence of two special-
status species on site, the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat and the oak titmouse, were
determined during the 2012 surveys . Another ten target species were determined to have
the potential to occur within the study area. These include one federally listed species
15
(California red-legged frog), one State fully protected species (white-tailed kite), and
eight other special-status species (foothill yellow legged frog, Cooper's hawk, sharp
shined hawk, Bell's sage sparrow, loggerhead shrike, Nuttall 's woodpecker, Allen's
hummingbird, pallid bat). During the June 2012 survey, one large stick nest was observed
on the project site, potentially belonging to a great-homed owl and two bam owls were
also observed. Both are protected raptor species. Although they are not expected to occur
on site, the presence of an additional 16 target species could not be entirely ruled out.
THE PROJECT WILL HAVE A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON THE SITE
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
According to section 4.4-4 of the DEIR, the proposed project could cause a
geologic unit to become unstable as a result of project construction. The mitigation is to
provide debris flow protection to protect lots 8 and 9.
According to section 4 .5-3 , project implementation could substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the site or area by altering the course of a stream or
incrementally increasing surface runoff from impervious surfaces in such a manner that
could result in substantial erosion, siltation, or flooding on or off site. The mitigation
measures are listed as follows: 4.3-7, conformance with applicable state and federal
regulations; 4.3 -8, Creek & Swale protection; and 4 .3-9 Riparian Encroachment Offsets.
According to section 4.5-4, project implementation would not create or contribute
runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage
systems or introduce new sources of polluted runoff.
Drainage is a pre-existing problem in Surrey Farms. Water naturally runs from the
hillside into the neighborhoods . A local realtor even warns of the water in Surrey Farms
on her website as follows:
'"Th e one issue I wou ld advis e fo lks to pay attention to, though, is water.
B ecause this de ligh~ful spot is locat ed next to hills, water rushing down off o.f th em can be
an issue, just as it can in Almaden Vall ey, Saratoga, Los Altos, etc. Water plus our clay
soil makes.for a pretty bad co mbinalion .... To complicate things, though, there are places
in Surrey Farms where th ere are some naturally occ urring undergrou nd springs."
https ://www .realto~n.com/LivelnLosGatos/blog/los-gatos-neighborhoods/surrey-farm s
16
We have video of the extreme water runoff from the hill , which we would be
happy to share with the Planning Commission. Additionally, o ur neighbor, Jon Witkin ,
has several photographs from a 1981 storm, where the overflow from Ross Creek actua ll y
knocked over walls, created "havoc", and water drainage from th e hillside put mud in th e
pool. (These are being submitted separately.) We have also ended up with muddy water
on top of our pool cover during a stmm, and even during "regular weather," we still have
water passing through and over o ur property from the hillside.
The Geoteclmicallnvestigation is from December 2010. The Review of Project
Submittals for Co mpliance with Stonnwater Requirements is from 20 12 . We are
expecting a weather event in the coming months that we are told will be more significant
than the El Nino in 1997-98-the most significant weather event in California in
decades-that caused flooding, mudslides , landslides, hundreds of millions of dollars in
damages, and deaths. We believe that no accurate assessment of thi s project can be
conducted prior to the El Nino expected this Winter and Spring.
Not only will the removal of topsoil and the grading ofthe hill subject the
neighborhood below to flooding, the fact that we are expecting an El Nino this winter
will add to this problem . Mike Halpert, Deputy Director of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Climate Prediction Center, recently stated that the
combination of the California drought, combined with the El Nino could have devastating
effects. Commenting on the expected E l Nino, he stated: "Droug ht can h e lp to make
th ese things wo rse in that the d ry g round just do es n't really absorb th e water and it all
e nds up running off" The San Jose Mercury News details the dramati c effects an E l N ino
of this volume expected thi s year can have in California.
http://www.mercurynews .com/drought/ci 28777823 /el-nino-threatening-turn-californias -
drought-into-drenching
The mitigation measures recommend construction of debri s fl ow barriers to
protect two of the lots on the project. What will protect the rest of us below, in Surrey
fanns ?
The mitigation mea s ur es also call for th e construction of an enormous drainage
pond at th e base of the hill be hind our propetiy and the Meleyco 's propert y, and directly
adjacent to the athletic field at Hillbrook School. No stud y has been undertaken to
17
analyze the potential health and safety effects of placing this large body of water behind
our homes and next to a sch oo l. We believe this presents safety, mosquito, and disease
issues. If the only way to protect our neighborhood from flooding, erosion, and other
drainage issues is to construct a hazardous body of water adjacent to our property, it is a
significant reason to reject this development as a whole. The fact that this mitigation
measure is not even studied is a reason to reject the DEIR.
THE PROJECT WILL ADD TO ALREADY-EXISTING TRANSPORTATION AND
TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
According to section 4 .6-1 , the project would not conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system. According to section 4.6-4, the project would not result in inadequate
emergency access.
It appears that all traffic and emergency access will be via Kennedy Road to
Longmeadow Drive to Twin Oaks. Currently, Longmeadow Drive and Twin Oaks have
only neighborhood traffic. It is not a pass-through neighborhood. It is not connected to
any other streets or neighborhoods. It is safe for our children to ride bikes and play ball in
the street. This proposal will change the nature of the streets in our neighborhood
dramatically. It will now allow homes to be accessed beyond Longmeadow and Twin
Oaks, and will create a whole new set of traffic concerns in our area. Ten homes may
seem insignificant, but each of these homes will likely come with multiple drivers,
gardeners , housekeepers, landscapers, other staff, and guests. Each of these homes will
only have one way into and out of their neighborhood-through Longmeadow and Twin
Oaks.
The construction traffic also must be assessed . We would have to endure years,
may be even dec ades of trucks, dust, pollution, and traffic up and down Longmeadow all
day everyday (even, apparently on weekends according to the DEIR). It would change the
landscape of our neighborhood for this g eneration of reside nts and beyond. Our children
would not be allowed out in the streets. We'd have to plan our trips out according to the
construction traffic. It is conceivable that the backup at Longmeadow and Kennedy could
become another place we sit in our cars in the morning, like the stoplight at Kennedy and
18
Los Gatos Boulevard, where often we have to sit through 3 or 4 lights to turn onto Los
Gatos Boulevard between 7:30 and 8 :00a.m.
THE PROJECT WILL SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NOISE IN THE
SURROUNDING AREAS
According to section 4 . 7-1, the project construction could cause a "substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels
existing without the project due to operation of heavy equipment during construction."
The mitigation is to limit the work hours to: 8 am to 8 pm on weekdays ; 9 am to 7 pm on
weekends and holidays. Mitigation also includes compliance with the town noise
ordinance and the appointment of a noise disturbance coordinator.
According to section 4.7-3 , occupation of proposed residences "would not result
in a permanent increase in ambient noise levels" in the project site vicinity or along local
roadways.
First, the project will absolutely cause a permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project site vicinity. How could it not? How was this conclusion reached?
Instead·ofhearing birds, frogs , coyotes, and the wind in the trees, we will hear car doors,
alarms, cars, people, phones, radios, televisions, parties. This is never even discussed, yet
will be a huge difference to the Surrey Farms neighbors. We live in a quiet, rural, serene
place surrounded by nature; it is why many of us chose this neighborhood. This
development will dramatically alter the noise in our neighborhood. It will no doubt cause
a permanent increase in the ambient noise level.
The construction of the project will absolutely, according to the DEIR, affect our
way of life. It 's important to note that the construction won 't affect our way of life for a
few months or even a few years, but indefinitely-first as infrastructure is built, and then
homes, one after the other. The mitigation measures provide no relief We are supposed
to listen to construction (and get the accompanying dirt, dust, pollution) for twelve hours
a day? And then on weekends for ten hours a day? This is not a mitigation; it seems more
like a terrible warning.
19
THE PROJECT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT THE AIR QUALITY IN THE AREA
According to section 4.8-2, the project construction would not violate any air
quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation . Mitigation is proposed as follows: watering exposed surfaces two times per
day; construct roadways, streets and pads ASAP; appoint a dust compliance coordinator.
Again, this is a situation where the mitigation measures may be as bad or worse
than the harm that is being caused. Do we want constant dust and dirt and pollution in our
yard, situated directly at the base of the hill? Or do we want a constant run off of water
onto our property? Do we want the infrastructure and pads built on the hill ASAP, so that
we can look at all of these streets and roadways and pads, long before anyone buys them?
What if no one does? What if money runs out or the project runs aground for some reason
and we are left with essentially a ghost town on the hill above Surrey Farms, in full view
of our entire neighborhood and beyond? And the appointment of a dust compliance
coordinator, along with a noise level manager, along with a biologist, and an arborist , and
all of the other people who have to be appointed to try to mitigate harm seems to beg the
question: why would the Town allow this when so many are adversely affected?
According to section 4.8-4, the project implementation could expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. There is shockingly no suggested
mitigation for this potentially dangerous effect.
According to section 4 .8-5 , the project implementation would not create
objectionable odors affecting a "substantial" number of people. There is no suggested
mitigation for this either. I imagine that our family of seven may not be considered a
"substantial" number of people, and I imagine that we would be the first, because of our
location at the base of the hill, to experience the objectionable odors, and the effects of all
of the pollutants released on the site during construction and beyond.
THE PROJECT WILL CREATE A FIRE HAZARD FOR THE SURROUNDING
NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOL
Section 4.10.1 ofthe DEIR states: "according to the Los Gatos General Plan, the
project site is located in a Very High Wildland Fire Severity Zone ... The Town's
20
Emergency Operations Plan identifies wildfire risk as a seasonal risk and notes that
because of the types of vegetation present in Los Gatos and typically high moisture
content, the wildfire risk is usually small. However, during drought years, there are
occasions when the winds blowing form the east dry out the hillsides and increase the
wildfire potential." (section 4.10-4) The DEIR does not adequately address this safety
concern, and would result in a larger number of residents needing to evacuate using the
same single access route. It also proposes a publicly-accessed trail in the area just above
our neighborhood, which poses another fire risk.
Recent and persisting environmental conditions in California, including extreme
drought have resulted in increased fire risk. Ongoing construction will also elevate the
fire risk. While we have lived on Longmeadow, we have experienced the Hillbrook fire
two summers ago, and another fire on an adjacent hillside (where the Cal Fire helicopters
landed on the site of the proposed development). We were also specifically warned by
Bob Dodge of the fire hazard on the hill, when we asked him years ago if it would be
okay for our children to play or walk on the hillside (which is directly adjacent to our
home), and he requested that they do not because of the fire hazard. This also raises an
issue with regard to the publicly-accessed trails that are proposed on the property. This
would also add to the fire danger.
Pursuant to section 4.10-3 of the DEIR, the risk to people and structures due to
fire is "less than significant." The mitigation measures, therefore are listed as: "None
required." There is a list of recommendations to comply with the HDSG. These,
however, appear to be a passing off of the problem to Architectural and Site Review, and
like other ongoing issues that will arise again and again each time a new home is
constructed, we will have to be vigilant to make sure that each home follows (at a
minimum) the criteria provided. The DEIR proposes minimizing fuel loads and ensuring
defensible space, and designing the landscaping "with fire safety in mind." Adequate
access roads and water supply for fire protection are called for prior to any "combustible
construction in compliance with the HDSG." As stated in the DEIR, however: there is no
mitigation measure even though this construction will take place on high-risk property
after many years of drought. Section 5.5.6 of the DEIR provides a Two Access plus a
Two EVA Alternative, which apparently proposes road construction across the ephemeral
21
swale; so there will be more ways to exit the property, but the property itself and the
resources therein will be even more degraded.
THE PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS OF THE TOWN
OF LOS GATOS WILL BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THE PROJECT
According to Section 4 .12.3, while the project will bring new students to the
neighborhood, it would "not contribute substantially to the increase in demand for
educational services within the service area" of the LGUSD and the LG-Saratoga Union
HS District. Again, how was this assessment made? We were under the impression that
our schools (and traffic in the area because we are in a short radius of Blossom Hill, Van
Meter , Fisher, Hillbrook and Los Gatos High School) were maxed out. The DEIR says
that the project would cause a less than significant impact on our schools. This do es not
take into account all the other "less than significant" impacts of new construction all over
town that cumulatively would be very significant. This project is just one more among
many new projects that is already making Los Gatos an overcrowded, less desirable place
to live. The impact on our schools needs further study.
SURREY FARMS WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY THE CUMULATIVE
IMPACTS OF BOTH THE HILLBROOK EXPANSION AND THE PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT
The Draft EIR concludes that , in addition to the impacts that result from the
project development, the Hillbrook expansion project on an adjacent property, will also
contribute to cumulative effects related to increased operational traffic and traffic noise.
In other words, our quiet comer of Los Gatos, which used to be backed by a small
country day school and open space, will now be backed by a larger school and an entire
new neighborhood.
THE DEIR INADQUATELY CONSIDERS ALL APPROPRIATE ALTERNATIVES
According to the Draft EIR , four possible project alternatives could be
considered: (1) no project alternative; (2) reduced density alternative; (3) two access
alternative; and (4) two access + 2 EVA alternative.
22
The DEI R states that the reduced density alternative was reviewed on a
preliminary basis but was rejected because the significant impacts identified in the DEJR
could be mitigated "though implementation of specified mitigation measures." The DEIR
states that CEQA 15092( c) does not allow a reduction in the number of housing units as a
mitigation measure if it determines that there is "another feasible specific mitigation
available that will provide a comparable level of mitigation." It concludes that, therefore,
"the Reduced Density Alternative, being legally infeasible, thus was not carried forward
for full analysis in this EIR."
According to CEQA 15092(c), the Town is not allowed to reduce the proposed
number ofhousing units as a mitigation measure if it determines that there is another
feasible specific mitigation measure available that will provide a comparable level of
mitigation. How can a comparable level of mitigation be assessed if the DEIR does not
analyze a reduced density alternative? There would be nothing to compare it to . The
intent of CEQA is to protect the environment to largest extent possible, so it is unlikely
that the statute has been properly applied or interpreted. Second, there are no other
"feasible specific mitigation measures available that will provide a comparable level of
mitigation." As indicated throughout this correspondence, many of the mitigation
measures do more harm than good. Finally, it must be noted that CEQA does not suggest
that the reduced density alternative should not be analyzed, only that it should not be a
method of mitigation ifthere are other, comparable methods of mitigation. The intent of
this section is "to provide a simple statement of the substantive duty to reduce or avoid
environmental damage where feasible. This duty is a constraint on the authority of an
agency to approve a project." CEQA 15092 (Discussion).
According to the DEIR, "Under the no project alternative, the proposed project
would not be developed and the significant environmental impacts identified in this
report, as well as the less-than significant impacts identified inCh. 4 (including visual
impacts), would be avoided. It should also be noted that the HSP seeks provision of
secqndary access for all existing dead end streets ..... With all properties adjacent to this
project site already developed with residential uses and continued pressure for more
housing in the region , and with agricultural operations likely to be marginally viable at
23
best, it is likely that there will be future proposals involving residential development of
this property."
It is unclear what this means, other than this project is the lesser of other
development evils? There is no support for the statement that, because of adjacent
residential neighborhoods, there will be future proposals involving residential
development of the property. There is no support for the statement that there will be
"continued pressure for more housing in the region ." There Is no support for the
statement that this property could only be used for "marginally viable" agricultural
operations. As discussed herein, this property is zoned as Resource Conservation space. It
is our understanding that it was intended to remain as open space, in order to provide a
pastoral setting to the neighborhood developed by its original owner. The DEIR should
have provided at least a statement that a no project alternative would eliminate all of the
negative impacts caused by the development of this property.
The DEIR as a whole, is inadequate, and we respectfully request that it be rejected
by this Planning Commission.
PART THREE. Surrey Farms Neighbors Involvement Since 2010
Because it is nowhere mentioned in the DEIR that there has been an ongoing
neighborhood/community movement in opposition to proposed development of the
property over the past five years, below we have listed the various contacts with the
Town during that time period
November 10,2010
December 21, 2010
February 10 , 2011
March 3, 2011
Bill Meleyco & Jill Fordyce meet with Marni Mosely to
review the proposed project
Petition from Surrey Farms neighbors in opposition to the
proposed development is submitted to the Town (attached)
Jill Fordyce contacts G. Larsen, W. Rooney, and Town
Attorney re: meeting with concerned neighbors about
proposed development
Catherine Briggs & Jill Fordyce meet with Marni Mosely;
in this meeting it is agreed that we will generate a list of
emails to provide the Town so that we can all be kept
informed of updates on the project.
24
April 19 , 2011
May 6, 2011
June 15 , 2011
July 8, 2011
August 11, 2011
Sept. 2, 20 11
Sept. 14, 2011
May 11,2012
June 22 , 2012
July I 0, 2012
Jill Fordyce contacts Marni Mosely regarding any updates
Jill Fordyce contacts Marni Mosely regarding obtaining the
submittal docs for neighborhood to review
Surrey Farms residents Kelley & Eric Jensen write to
Marni Mosely regarding concerns with the proposed
development
Marni Mosely advises Jill Fordyce via email confirming
that she is compiling the list of emails provided to her
notice list, and advising that John Hickey (counsel to
Fordyce, Meleyco and Witkin families) has been provided
all current documents.
Jill Fordyce supplies a list of thirty (30) neighbors who
have asked to be included on any updates from the Town.
Marni emails Jill Fordyce that revised plans received
John Hickey and consultant Jeff Lea meet with Marni
Mosely and Town Engineer
Surrey Farms resident Bob Steinbock emai ls Marni Mosely
raising multiple concerns.
Marni Mosely advises that no new plans or reports have
been submitted, and that developer has inquired as to what
can be built on the property without subdividing and taking
out of Williamson Act.
John Hickey checks in with Marni Mosely to see if
anything has happened on the project; Marni Mosely
replies that she received revised plans a couple of weeks
ago, that they 'd already been through tech review, and that
she "meant to let him know."
NOP is prepared and mailed : It states that the Town is
seeking "the views ofthe public and jurisdictional
/responsible agencies concerning the scope and content of
the environmental information which is germane to agency
statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed
project." It is not, however, mailed to neighbors or noticed
via the email list we provided.
25
July 12 , 2012
July 13 , 2012
July 17 , 2012
August 20 , 2012
August 23, 2012
September 12 , 2012
Jill Fordyce emails Mami Mosely to ask why story poles
are going up on the Dodge property; Marni Mosely replies
that they are part of environmental review and will be up
through the following week.
Mami Mosely advises that neighbors are not legally
entitled to be notified ofthe NOP .
Jill Fordyce and Catherine Briggs advise neighbors of the
NOP.
The story poles are still up ( 40 days after they were
erected); Jill Fordyce emails Mami Mosely; Mami Mosely
replies that they may be needed for a few more weeks .
Surrey Farms residents Catherine & Gary Briggs write to
the town with their concerns regarding the proposed
development.
Jill Fordyce receives an email from Marni as follows:
"Sorry for the last minute notice on this , but tonight the
General Plan Committee will be reviewing and providing
feedback to the applicant/property owner of the Surrey
Farms/Twin Oaks PD . We do not notice neighbors for this
type of meeting, but it is open to the public. The item is
limited to a 30 minute discussion si nce there are two items
on the agenda, so if members ofthe public show up to
comment, their time allowance may be limited tonight."
John Hickey asks for postponement of the meeting and
states that the neighbors should have been notified; Sandy
Bailey emails back denying this request and stating that the
neighbors did not have to be noticed because this is an
advisory meeting, and not a public hearing.
John Hickey submits letter to General Plan Advisory
Committee on behalf of Fordyces, Meleycos and Witkins.
Meeting with General Plan Committee: Approximately
fourteen Surrey Farms neighbors show up on a few hours '
notice provided by neighborhood group; Kennedy and
Brooke Acres neighbors appear as well. After listening to
our concerns, the committee unanimously votes to postpone
making any recommendation on the General Plan
amendment/zoning change/Williamson Act cancellation
until they have the following:
26
September 22 , 2012
November 16 , 2012
December 6, 20 12
February 19, 2013
March 2013
April 3, 2014
April 17 , 2014
-Draft EIR
-Noticed meeting with larger venue to accommodate all
interested parties
-Criteria on Williamson Act cancellation
-General Plan and zoning input
-Required findings on General Plan amendment/zoning
-Historical perspective with Hillside developments
-Information as to whether they are considering entire PD
by providing a recommendation on re-zoning
Jill Fordyce emails Marni Mosely about story poles (which
are still up)
Craig Fordyce emails Mami Mosely about story poles
(which are still up)
John Hickey asks Marni Mosely for update: Mami replies
that they are still waiting for reports
Jill Fordyce emails Marni Mosely about additional set of
story poles that appear on the property
Marni Mosely tells John Hickey that EIR is on hold
John Hickey checks in with Marni Mosely and still no new
documents
Following neighborhood meeting held by the Dodge
family, where it is revealed that there is ongoing activity
with the project, Jill Fordyce writes the following to Mami
Mosely:
"I am writing to reiterate my request that I (and the other
people copied on this email) be advised of any activity
regarding the proposed Dodge development. We made this
request of you in 2011. The fact that some ofus are
represented by counsel does not negate this request.
Tonight at the meeting, I asked: (1) Whether paperwork
had been submitted regarding cancellation or non-renewal
of the Williamson Act contract; (2) Whether the new
proposal from the Dodge family has been submitted to the
Town; and (3) the status ofEIR. None of these questions
were answered. Can you please respond to this email with
these answers?"
27
April 18 ,2014
October 7, 2014
October 9, 2014
October 12 , 20 14
November 12,2014
December 8 , 2014
August 31, 20 15
September 2, 20 I 5
Marni Mosely responds that no cancellation has been
submitted, there are no new proposals; and the DEIR still
ongoing
Jill Fordyce emails Marni Mosely requesting to know the
outcome of a Staff Technical Project Review set for the
following day.
Marni Mosely emails Jill Fordyce that staff met with the
applicant and provided planning comments. She stated that
she was sti ll waiting for final comments from Engineering
and Fire. She also said that there were new plans which
include an alternative design that has 4 of the I 0 lots
accessing from Cerro Vista.
Don Mooney, new counsel for Fordyces, Meleycos a nd
Witkins submits a Public Records Act Request to the
Town, asking for (among other things) all documents
regarding the origin a l development of Surrey Fanns.
The Town as ks for more time to provide a response to the
PRA Request.
Don Mooney submit s a second Public Records Act Request
to the Town, asking for all studi es that were used in
preparation of the DElR; eventua ll y the Town responds to
the origi nal PRA Request with Documents o nl y relating to
current proposed Development
Neighbors are notified via Mail of a Public Hea1i n g on the
Draft EIR for the development, to be held on September 9 .
T h e DElR i s over 700 pages and we are notified just before
Labor Day weekend.
The Fordyces, Witkins and Meleycos request a
postponement of this hearing as follows:
"We are writing to request that the public hearing regarding
the Twin Oaks Drive Proposed Development Draft EIR
currently scheduled for September 9 be continued to a later
date so as to accommodate meaning~! review by
and valuable input from the public.
The Draft EIR is a 717 page document. We received a ten-
day notice of this hearing, which includes the Labor Day
weekend.
We believe a continuance of at least ninety days is
28
September 9, 2015
September 16 , 2015
September 26, 2015
necessary to allow the public to have a reasonable amount
of time to review and consider this document.
Additional time is also necessary to notify all interested
parties. Any new development in Los Gatos has the
potential to gravely affect our community as a whole, not
just the surrounding neighborhoods , and this requires wider
notification of the hearing date ."
Mami Mosely responds to the emai l, stating that the
decision regarding a continuance must be made at the
public hearing by the Commission, and noting that this is
only for public comment and no decision will be made at
the September 9 hearing.
Public Hearing is held on Draft EIR, with many neighbors
appearing to express concern over the proposed
development. The request for postponement submitted by
Fordyces, Meleycos and Witkins was not addressed by the
Commission.
Don Mooney subm its a third Public Records Act Request
to the Tow n, asking again for all documents regarding the
original development of Surrey Farms. (The previous
response from the Town did not contain these documents.)
The Town responds to the Third PRA with 12 pages of
documents, including handwritten notes and an original site
map from Surrey Farms dated November 1955. The
accompanying letter from the clerk states that there are no
other records regarding the original development of Surrey
Farms Neighborhood.
PART FOUR. Photographs of The Hill and Surrey Farms
Via Dropbox, please find photos we've taken of our neighborhood, the hill, the
wildlife, and Ross Creek. For more photographs, please go to our Save Surrey Farms
Facebook page: https ://www.facebook.com/Save-Surrey-Farms-
220965074599839/photos/ You can also search the hashtag #savesurreyfarms on
lnstagram.
These photos provide a glimpse of the beauty of the wildlife, the feel of the
neighborhood, and the serenity of the hillside. We urge you to take action to protect both
29
the habitat on the hill and our neighborhood. Thank you for your time and service to our
Town.
Sincerely,
The Fordyce Family
Jill , Craig, Jennie, Jack, Daisy, Will and Hope
191 Longmeadow Drive
ATTACHMENTS:
-PETITION SIGNED BY SURREY FARMS RESIDENTS DECEMBER 2010
-PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE HILL AND SURREY FARMS (Via Dropbox)
30
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Hello ,
Kjirste Morrell <kjirstecm@gmail.com >
Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8 :05 PM
Robert Schultz; Joel Paulson; laurel Prevetti ; Marni Moseley
John Morrell
General Plan Committee Meeting -Twin Oaks
Surrey Farms EIR comments-Morrell.pdf
We sent comments on the Twin Oaks/Surrey Estates Draft EIR that we understand were not made available to
the General Plan Committee. Our comments are attached to this email.
Thank you,
Kjirste & John Morrell
172 Clover Way,
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
To : Los Gato s Planning Commission and Community Development department
From: Kjirste & John Morrell, Los Gatos residents, 172 Clover Way
Date: October 5, 2015
Subject: Surrey Farms Estates PD-10-006 draft EIR
We're writing to ex press our concern with the Surrey Farms Estates planned
development application PD-1 0-006 and the draft EIR associated with this
development. Although we share the concerns our neighbors h ave addressed, such
as increased noise and traffic, we will specifically target two areas that may not have
been otherwise mentioned.
First, the proposed development fa lls within an area marked as high fire ri sk, per
the CAL FIRE Fire Haz ard Severity Zone Maps recommended in 2008
(bttp://frap.fire.ca.gov /webdata/maps/santa clara/fhsz l map.43.pd0 a s is true for
the entire Surrey Farms neighborhood . Though this is mentioned elsewhere in the
draft EIR, table 2-1 section 4.10-3 indicates that the risk to people and structures
due to fire is "less than significant."
Since this is a high fire risk area, at a minimum there should be multiple egress
routes available to homeowners in the case that one route is blocked. The draft EIR
does not adequately address this safety concern, and would result in a larger
number of residents needing to evacuate using the same single access route. Recent
and persisting environmental conditions in California, including extreme drought
and increased fire risk, in conjunction with long-term demographic trends such as
an aging population and increased tendency of residents to age at home have
resulted in increasing risk to homeowners in the case of emergency. (See for
instance the findings following the Valley Fire, such as:
http: //www.californiah eal t hlin e.org/a rticles /2 015/9/2 8/fi res-expose-issues-wi th-
disaster-pregaredn ess-fo r-e ld erly-disabl ed) In light of these conditions, greater
attention should be paid to provision of egress routes for homes located in high fire
danger regions, such as those proposed in the draft EIR. Emergency service
personnel are not the only people who need access in the case of an emergency; in
many cases the first responders may be private care takers. Certainly the EIR should
have considered fire hazard more carefully than is a pparent in the draft document.
Secondly, the draft EIR fails to take into account the effect of drainage changes on
the existing neighborhood. The Surrey Farms neighborhood has well known
drainage issues. (Se e for instance http: 1/li vein losgatosblog.com/su rrey-farm-
m hborhood/) Any change to the upstream hydrology, as is proposed in this
development, will have effects on those downstream.
Finally, on page 4 .1-8, under "Consultation with neighbors" the draft EIR indicates
that consultations wer e held with neighbors on Twin Oaks, Brooke Acres, and Cerro
Vista. However, no mention is made of discussion with residents on Longmeadow
and Clover Way, who are also impacted by this proposed development, p a rticularly
1
by the increased traffic. Homeowners on Longmeadow are strongly impacted by the
proposed development and certainly should have had their concerns heard at an
earlier stage.
We were glad to see the proposed walkways in the draft EIR, and sincerely hope
that whatever development occurs on the site makes a concerted effort to provide
excellent connection with existing walkways, sidewalks and roads. Enhanced
walkway /bikeway connection helps keep school traffic down, by providing a safer
bike routes to schools, and provides a safe and pleasant walking experience for all
residents.
Sincerely,
Kjirste Morrell
John Morrell
172 Clover Way,
Los Gatos 95032
2
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Marsha Witkin <marshmelol@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 27, 2015 8:55 PM
Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz
Concerns Regarding Surrey Farms Development
Gmail -Response to Surrey Farms Draft Environmental Impact Report.pdf
Attached is an email that I wrote to the Planning Commission regarding the Surrey Farms Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Please consider these comments at the October 28th meeting.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns.
Marsha Witkin
188 Twin Oaks Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
91231201 5 Gm ail -Respons e to Surrey Farms Draft EnvirOIYTlen!al lmpact Report
Marsha W itki n <marshmel o1@gmail.com>
Res ponse t o Su rrey Farms Draft En v ironmental Im pact Report
1 message
Marsha Witkin <marshmelo1@gmail.com>
To: planning@losgatosca. gov
Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 5:49 PM
We moved to 188 Twin Oaks Drive about 18 months ago to the home my husband grew up in . Prior to that we
lived in the hills of Saratoga for 29 years . Our neighborhood in Saratoga was quiet and serene. One of the
reasons we decided to move to my husband 's childhood home was because of how quiet and serene the Twin
Oaks property is . Our concern about a development going up behind us with an access road being added
adjacent to the south side of our property , and ten homes being constructed beh ind the east side of our property .
is that it will forever change the quiet and serene nature of the area . In add ition , the hillside behind us already
creates serious drainage, erosion and flood ing problems which will only get worse when ten houses are built into
the hills ide. In a heavy rainstorm our property gets flooded from runoff from the hillside behind us . Putting ten
homes behind us will only exacerbate the problem. The proposed solution to construct a large drainage pond to
handle the drainage problems w ill create a health hazard with mosquito and other insect
infestation.
In the 1989 earthquake my husband's parents were l iv ing in this house. At that time t he house suffered serious
structural damage costing them $350,000 in repairs. In today's market that same repa ir would cost double that
amount. In that earthquake our home in Saratoga had no structural damage. Obviously our home in Los Gatos
is close enough to a fault line to make potent ial earthquake damage a serious concern . Adding ten homes
behind us which cut into the hillside will only make matters worse in the event of an earthquake.
These are only a few of the reasons why the land behind us should remain open space as it was intended when
Surrey Farms was originally developed.
Respectfully Submitted,
Marsha Witkin
188 Twin Oaks Drive
Los Gatos , CA 95032
https :/lmail.google.com/m ail /ul0/?ui=2&i k=Oca1a6f54b&viev~=pt&sear ch=sent&th= 14ffcd364b0e78e6&siml=14ffcd364b0e78e6 1/1
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
davidgreenfield@yahoo.com
Tue sday, October 27, 2015 11 :47 PM
To:
Subject:
Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti ; Joel Paulson; Robert Schultz ; Catherine Briggs
General Plan Committee Meeting -Twin Oaks
General Plan Committee,
Regarding tomorrow's meeting on the Twin Oaks property, I'd appreciate if you would take
consideration the input that I provided below to the Los Gatos Planning Commission.
Thanks very much .
Dave & Karri Greenfield
-----Forwarded Message -----
From: Dave Greenfield <davidgkiner@yahoo .com>
To : "planning@losgatosca .gov" <planning@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Karri Greenfield <karrigreenfield@yahoo.com>; Catherine Briggs <briggszoo@gmail.com>; Jill Fordyce
<jafordyce@aol.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 6 , 2015 11 :19 PM
Subject: feedback on Dodge Property
October 6 , 2015
Los Gatos Planning Commission,
140 Longmeadow Drive
Los Gatos , CA 95032
We are writing to express strong opposition to the Dodge Property Development. We live on Longmeadow Avenue,
directly in the path of traffic for this planned development.
Our primary opposition is based traffic, safety, noise and loss of open space .
We believe the traffic and safety issues are obvious as stated multiple times during the planning meeting. Lots of kids
mixed with lots of construction traffic on a very quiet road creates a clear problem. None of the mitigation options
addressed these concerns.
We moved to Surrey Farms from Willow Glen a few years ago primarily for the solitude and the spectacular hillside views .
We are very concerned that years of construction will affect the noise (and dust level) in the area . Eventually the noise will
go away (even if eventually takes 10 years). The loss of open space though seems non -recoverable. And the reduction in
open space seems counter to what we understand are objectives of the city (increase open space and parks). We don't
believe mitigation options address these issues as well.
We appreciation your consideration.
Regards,
Dave & Karri Greenfie ld
1
CC : Jill Fordyce & Catherine Briggs
2
M arni M ose ley
Fr om:
Sent:
To:
Su bject:
Atta chments :
Dear Los Gatos
General Plan Committee
Catherine Briggs <b r iggszoo@gmai l.com >
Wednesday, October 28 , 2 015 7:55 A M
Marni Moseley
Fw d : General Plan Committee Meeting-Twin Oaks
Surrey Farms letter Briggs.docx
Enclosed please find a letter from my husband and me addressing the proposed subdivision
development
. We would appreciate it if you would consider the input that we provided below as they relate to
the General Plan for the town for your meeting this evening, October 28th
Thank you for taking the time to read our perspective.
Sincerely,
Catherine & Gary Briggs
1 06 Longmeadow Drive
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
I.D.: Los Gatos Planning Commission and Community Development Department
fmm: Gary & Catherine Briggs, Los Gatos resident at 106 Longmeadow Drive
~lam: October 8, 2015
RE: Surrey Farms Estates
We are writing to share our concerns about the proposed development on the Dodge
property behind Longmeadow Drive and Twin Oaks . We share our neighbor's concerns
about traffic and sa fety and want to focus on three additional, broader issues:
First, in light of escalating global climate change, we are _very concerned about the loss of
the hillside and open space and its consequential impact on the wildlife and vegetation.
Mitigating climate change is one of Governor Brown's key priorities and we believe
that our town should make decisions in line with this mandate.
We would like to be proud to live in Los Gatos, a town that has integrity, sets an example to
others and makes the decision that is right for now -and for the future of our earth.
It is undeniable that removing this open space will displace animals and wildlife, eliminate
native species. Building large homes will emit incremental pollution into our environment,
exacerbating the effects .
Moreover, it is important to uphold Mr. Dodge's original vision and commitment to
our neighborhood, which was to preserve this as open space for precisely these reasons.
His children, who have inherited the property-and who do not live in the Los Gatos
community-instead see this as an opportunity to make money and are choosing to
subdivide. We feel that the Dodges have not fully explored all options and could sell to a
single owner, which would be a feasible and preferable alternative.
Second , the town's infrastructure is already overburdened. Schools do not have sufficient
space to accommodate the current student population and the amount of traffic on the
streets is terrible -and unsafe. It is negligent to add more homes when the town does not
currently have the physical capacity in its schools or on its roads to support them;
widening Kennedy Road and Los Gatos Boulevard Route 9 are not viable options.
Additionally, the crowded schools and roads detract from the character of our town.
Third, building homes on the hillside will put even more strain on the existing drainage
problems that our neighborhood already has. All homes have sump pumps, and those that
are located on the lower escalation of our hills have particularly serious problems. In fact,
if you walk around the neighborhood, you see water running down the drains year-round-
and even during this drought.
We s incerely hope that you will do what is right for our town, our environment -and yes,
our neighborhood. We encourage you to do the right thing. Make a decision for the long-
term -and not for the pocketbook of the developer or for that of the town.
Thank you for your consideration,
From: Chris Bajorek
Sent: Wednesday, October 28, 2015 8:56AM
To: MMosely@losgatosca.gov; LPrevetti @losgatosca .gov ; JPaulson @losgatosca .gov;
RSchultz @ losgatos ca .gov
Subject: General Plan Committee Meeting-Twin Oaks
I plan to attend the subject meeting this afternoon . I request you read my note below and
consider its content before the meeting.
My note was originally sent to the Planning Board.
I want to emphasize my concern about vehicular traffic on Kennedy Road, especially the
congestion at the intersection of Kennedy Rd. and los Gatos Blvd. Now that schools are in
session traffic has only gotten significantly worse. Several block long car lines on Kennedy
waiting at the traffic lights, and 4 to 5 traffic light cycles to be able to transition through this
intersection, are now the norm each morning. It would be unacceptable to add to this
congestion via the proposed Twin Oaks development.
I strongly urge you to establish a moratorium on all further development of properties served
by Kennedy Road until the Town comes up with a meaningful solution to this traffic problem .
Sincerely Yours,
Christopher Bajorek, Ph .D.
From: Chris Bajorek
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 9:43 AM
To: planning@LosGatosCa.gov
Subject: Request to Rezone and Develop Surrey Farm Land
To members ofthe los Gatos Planning Board:
I live at 120 Clover Way, los Gatos, in the developed portion of Surrey Farms .
My letter pertains to the pending request to rezone the subject property from Agricultural
(Williamson Act Contract) to Housing use . The property in question is located at the end of
longmeadow Drive in the Surrey Farms section of the Town.
I have read the latest draft of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this proposed
action. The EIR clearly indicates that one of the preferred alternatives the developing this land
is to leave it in its current state as an agricultural preserve.
I strongly support this alternative for the following reasons :
1. Current residents of Surrey Farms bought their houses in large part because this
neighborhood adjoins the subject property and with the expectation that the property would
remain undeveloped in perpetuity. Its hilly presence near the existing homes adds unique
charm to this section of Los Gatos. This charm would be destroyed by reversing the zoning of
this parcel.
2. This agricultural zone also significantly enhanced the value of homes built in the
neighborhoods surrounding the parcel. Ending the conservation of this land would significantly
decrease the value of the existing homes .
3 . Surrey Farms has been a highly desirable neighborhood because it is quiet and has modest
traffic. Developing the subject land would have a very negative effect on these positive
attributes, both during construction and after completion of the homes. The noise and traffic
congestion would be exacerbated by constraining access to the proposed development via only
one road.
4. During the past 10 years our section of East Los Gatos has experienced significant growth in
traffic congestion . The increase of congestion is especially noticeable on Kennedy Road and its
intersection with Los Gatos Boulevard . This congestion has been exacerbated by the traffic
associated with the local schools, especially with the expansion of Hillbrook School. The Town
has no solution to this serious problem . The last thing we and Los Gatos need is to add the
traffic that would be generated by development of this parcel.
5. The EIR suggests that the property be developed now because future housing needs will
further increase the pressure to develop it. I strongly disagree with this premise because los
Gatos is not short of premium housing stock. Moreover, Los Gatos is not interested in
devaluing its existing housing stock by densifying future construction .
In summary, reversing the zoning of this parcel from agricultural to housing use would have
only many very negative impacts on the owners of properties surrounding this parcel. It would
also have only strong negative impacts on East Los Gatos as a whole. It would only be of
financial benefit to the owner of the land .
The owner and the Town should shou ld stick with their original commitments to keep this land
undeveloped via the Williamson Act Contract.
Doing otherwise would represent a "bait and switch" action by the Town which could expose
the Town to litigation .
Please leave Surrey Farms as is .
Sincerely Yours,
Chr istopher Bajorek, Ph .D.
120 Clover Way
Los Gatos, CA 95032
chri s@ bajorek .us
Marni Moseley
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear General Plan Committee,
Steven Markman <smarkman@me.com >
Wednesday, October 28, 2015 10:12 AM
Marni Moseley; Laurel Prevetti; Joel Paulson ; Robert Schultz
General Plan Committee Meeting -Twin Oaks
Tonight you will be considering a request that would determine "whether the proposed General Plan
Amendment from Hillside to Residential is consistent with the Town's General Plan ." A positive
finding would allow the removal of a hillside property from the Williamson Act into a Residential Zone where
a new development, the Twin Oaks Planned Development, is proposed for construction. The hillside in
question is currently undeveloped in any way and prominently visible from every home on Twin Oaks and
Longmeadow Dr. We believe that any development of that hillside is entirely inconsistent with the General Plan
in that it will destroy the natural beauty of the hillside, displace the wildlife, result in trees being eliminated,
roads being cut into the hillside, drainage issues created, extra noise created, extra light pollution and extra
traffic created. Please find that development of the Twin Oaks hillside is entirely inconsistent with the General
Plan.
Thank you,
Steve and Pat Markman
187 Longmeadow Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank