Item 3 - Addendum with Attachement
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER, AICP
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6832
www.losgatosca.gov
MEETING DATE: 09/17/2020
ITEM: 3
ADDENDUM
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
REPORT
REPORT
DATE: September 16, 2020
TO: General Plan Update Advisory Committee
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Review and Discussion of the Revised Initial Draft of the Hazards and Safety
Element.
REMARKS:
In response to a request from a Committee Member, below are the links to the current 2015
Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), Santa Clara County Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP) and Annex 9, and the Town’s wildfire preparedness webpage with links to the
defensible space ordinance, and other relevant information. The EOP is required to be updated
every five years and there is currently a revised draft under review.
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/15967/Los-Gatos-EOP-final-1-21-2016
https://www.sccfd.org/santa-clara-county-community-wildfire-protection-plan
https://www.losgatosca.gov/2581/Be-Wildfire-Ready
Attachment 3 contains comments from Committee Members.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with September 17, 2020 Staff Report:
1. Revised Initial Draft of Hazards and Safety Element
2. Comment Response Summary Table
Attachment received with this Addendum Report:
3. Committee Member Comments
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ATTACHMENT 3
Hazards and Safety Comments—Kathryn Janoff
Overall, good job with the reorganization, edits and changes recommended from last review.
Local faults map (p. 8-9) is a good addition.
Questions for GPAC:
1. Does the revised draft adequately reflect the recommendation(s) to address
wildland/urban buffer zones?
2. Should the GP emphasize the importance of residents’ and/or property owners’
responsibilities in fire hazard mitigation? This might be between HAZ 3.2 and 3.3, for
example:
Strongly encourage property owners and/or residents to follow Santa Clara County Fire
Department recommendations for creating and maintaining defensible space around
structures on property.
This would also be addressed in IP I, Public Fire Safety
****************************************
And Just a few edits:
Pg 8-4:
8.2 Second paragraph, first sentence: Change “All too regular”
Second to last paragraph, second to last sentence: is “More than half of the southern portion of
town” correct? Looks like the northern portion to me.
Page 8-7:
HAZ-2.1: New developments . . . shall minimize hazards . . .
Page 8-8:
HAZ-3.6 typo “and”
Page 8-13:
HAZ-4.3: replace “qualified” with “licensed”
HAZ-4.6: second line, delete “have”
Page 8-15:
HAZ-4.8: replace “consultant” with “engineer”
2
Page 8-15:
Revise second paragraph:
Beyond localized flooding, Los Gatos also faces a flood threat from dam inundation. While
less common, dam innundation is recognized in both . . .
Delete the sentence “Dam failure would predominantly exp ose . . .religious buildings.” This
information is not needed and could change over time.
Page 8-17:
HAZ-5.2: Delete “as shown in Figure 8.5 or” insert ” . . . according to the most current FEMA
mapping.”
HAZ-5.4:
Is “major” defined? And keep the word “at no higher than . . .”
Page 8-19:
HAZ-6.2: Not sure if the “Town” means Town officials or Town residents. I think you mean
residents. In which case, I would reword to say “ . . . make sure residents are made aware of
programs and resources in a timely manner.”
HAZ-6.3: revise “ . . . as early as possible to respond during and recover and return of the
public health system after a public health emergency.” (delete the words “or event”)
HAZ-6.8: “ . . . necessary to recover and return to normal following a public health
emergency.”
Page 8-20:
First paragraph, revise: “ . . . has identified other sites in the Town where hazardous materials
are present and cleanup activities are necessary. (Delete next sentence. Hope fully this will not
be timely in 20 years.). Next sentence, revise: “There are A number of facilities in Los Gatos
that emit . . . and/or toxic substances. As part of their daily operations. “
HAZ-7.5: “The Town shall to develop . . . “
3
Hazards and Safety Element – Marcia Jensen
Section 8.2, p. 8-4:
• 1st Paragraph: Why include a description of PSPS?? I would delete the entire
second sentence.
HAZ-3.2, p. 8-7: How can individual neighborhoods be “require[d]” to do emergency
planning? Seems impractical unless this is intended to be a Town, rather than a private
endeavor.
HAZ-3.3, p. 8-7: How can the Town “ensure” that fire and medical services are
available?
HAZ-4.5, p. 8-13: Who makes and/or how is the determination made that particular
property is “unbuildable?” Is there a risk such a determination, if not recorded on a plat
map, deed, etc., constitutes an unlawful “taking?”
Section 8.4, p. 8-15:
• 1st Paragraph: “Localized flooding may also occur as a result of…”
o “…floods that are of most concern result from/are due to…”
• 2nd Paragraph: “Beyond localized flooding, Los Gatos faces a less common
threat from dam inundation, but one that is…”
o “Valley Water is responsible for dam maintenance…”
HAZ-5.3, P. 8-17: “Obtain fee title…” How??
Section 8.5, p. 8-18:
• 1st Paragraph: Why do we include “public-private partnerships” – may happen,
but not necessarily…
• 2nd Paragraph, et seq: Why are we limiting the threat to influenza? COVID-19,
e.g., is not a “strain” of influenza…Why don’t we just say “pathogen?”
• 3rd Paragraph: delete “influenza” so it reads “…multiple pandemics have…”
HAZ-6, p. 8-18: Last phrase should end “….reduce resulting loss of life.”
HAZ-6.8, p. 8-19: What do we mean here? A post-emergency review? If so, how are we
defining “unmet needs?” A business person didn’t get a requested loan? Not enough
testing was available? Other??
4
Comments on Revised Draft Hazards and Safety Element
Lee Quintana
GPAC September 17, 2020 Meeting
8. HAZARDS AND SAFETY ELEMENT
Page 8-1: Key Terms
100 year flood event: Insert 100 year before Regulatory Floodplain
500 year flood event: Insert 500 year before Regulatory Floodplain Add definition for Regulatory
Floodway. This term is used in Figure 8-6
Page 8-1 and 8-2: Key Terms:
The definition for Fault also includes definitions for active faults, fault traces and fault zone, while
Quaternary Faults are listed separately. I suggest deleting Fault and Quaternary Faults as currently
included in Key Terms and listing them grouped together, bu separate as follows:
Fault. A fracture in the crust of the earth…….on the other side Fault, Active. A fault that has ruptured in
the past 11,000 years.
Fault, Trace. The line on the earth’s surface defi;ning the fault.
Fault, Quaternary, A fault that has been recognized at the surface and that has moved in the last 1.6
million years.
Fault, Zone. The area at risk of seismic activity beyond the fault itself.
Page 8-4: Sitting of Essential Facilities:
HAZ-1.4: The third bullet includes seiche hazard zones. Is Lexington Res. capable of generating a seiche
during an earthquake?
Haz-4.6: How does “adequate” here relate to HAZ-4.6 which requires Essential Facilities to exceed
California Building Code?
Page 8-6: Figure 8-1: Fire Safety Zones:
Is the area covered by the WUI in Los Gatos and the Fire Safety Zones the same?
If they are then delete the note at the bottom of the page and modify the title: Fire Safety Zones/WUI
(spelled out?).
If their areas are not the same explain how they differ.
Page 8-7:
HAZ-2.1: A number of questions come to mind: Does this apply only to new development on existing
parcels? Does “new development” include additions or intensification of an existing home? Would this
apply to new subdivisions or PD applications?. What does “access” or “minimize” mean in this context?
If an existing road is not wide enough to accommodate emergency equipment moving in and residents
leaving at the same time would an intensification of the existing use be allowed? Would it be possible
to demolish a home and replace it with a home substantially larger (ie. increase the intensity of use on
an existing parcel) ? This seems too open to interpretation to be a useful policy.
Haz-2.3: Could this be combined with HAZ-2.1?
Haz-2.4: Where does Santa Clara County Fire require secondary emergency access? Only in Very High
Fire Hazard Areas or also in High Fire Hazard Areas? I think the intent of this proposed modification was
5
to provide a secondary access, especially in hillside areas, even if the secondary access required an
increase in traffic. It is not clear that this will ensure that intent.
HAZ-2.5: This is very vague. How is “ buffer zone” defined? Sounds good but what does it mean?
HAZ-3.3: How does this policy relate to HAZ-2.1 and HAZ-2.4?
HAZ-3:4: There seems a lot of overlap between HAZ-2 and HAZ-3. Is there a way to combine the two and
still cover all the issues?
Page 8-8 and Page 8-10 Figure 8-3:
First paragraph: …..the proximity of major faults, and Page 8-10, Figure 8-3 Major Faults in the South
Bay:
Are the faults identified in Figure 8-3 all active faults? If so modify the title of Figure 8-3 to Active major
Faults in the South Bay.
If all faults are not active, identify which are active faults.
Last paragraph on page 8-8: Delete and.; then move the first half of this paragraph as a paragraph
following the existing first paragraph.
Page 8-9 Figure 8-2 Faults within Town Limits: Move scale away from Alquist Priolo Zone
Page 8-11 Figure 8-4 Projected Groundshaking: Add circulation and parcel screened pattern (as in Figure
8-2)
Page 8-13: HAZ-4”
Move HAZ-4.4 up as HAZ-4.1
While I agree that the use of Geotechnical report simplifies things, it is my understanding that a Geologic
Report and a Geotechnical Report are not the same. I suggest checking with public works on this.
HAZ-4.3: Should this also be changed to: qualified licensed ….
HAZ 4.4: “acceptable level” As defined by?
HAZ-4.1, HAZ-4.2 and HAZ-4.3: Since these three start off with the same statement, suggest combining
them under one HAZ with the use of bullets for Seismic, Grading and Construction.
Page 8-13 and 8-14:
HAZ- 4.6 and HAZ-4-10 overlap to some degree. Is it possible to combine them?
Page 8-15: Floods and Inundation:
Second Paragraph: Move down as third paragraph.
Modify the last sentence of the current second paragraph: ...Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD)
Page 8-16: Figure 8-6 FEMA Flood Zones:
The definitions used in Key Terms are different than the terms used in the legend of Figure 8-6. Suggest
consistent use of the terms in both places.
Figure 8-6 includes “Regulatory Floodway” in the legend. Add this definition in Key Terms.
Modify title : FEMA Flood Zones/Dam Inundation Area Add outline of Dam inundation areas and add to
legend.
Page 8-17: HAZ 5.6: What is the implementation measure for this?
6
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank