Exhibit 11 - Public comments received by 1100 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025From: Karen Ettinger <>
Sent: Sunday, February 9, 2025 7:45 PM
To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>; msayoc@losgatosca.gov; Rob Rennie
<RRennie@losgatosca.gov>; Mary Badame <MBadame@losgatosca.gov>; Matthew Hudes
<MHudes@losgatosca.gov>; Maria Ristow <MRistow@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: SB330 & “Builder’s Remedy” Projects
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please do not succumb to developers with greedy eyes on our sacred local environment under
State Bill 330 mandates with their “Builder’s Remedy” projects designated New Town, Ace,
Blossom Hill, Capri, Union 76, etc.!
Town residents (& business owners who wisely know that our town’s unique village character draws
tourism) are counting on you to disallow such inner-city style density and high-rise structures that
close in our beautiful open skies and mountain vistas.
The imposition of universal density across our state is a threat to quality of life in California. The
threats to our very existence were made obvious by the disastrous firestorms that have wiped out
so much in our state’s southern communities recently.
Dense housing increases statistical risks:
>that more accidents can occur (such as a fire in an apartment kitchen or garage)
>that more innocent people can be affected (with closer and more numerous neighbors)
>that emergency responses will be more difficult (to reach and provide)
>that escape is hampered (by congestion)
>that illnesses are more likely to spread
>that garbage & sewage can back up
>that water & power supplies can fail
>that air quality can deteriorate
>that natural animal & vegetal environments can be destroyed.
EXHIBIT 11
As Los Gatos homeowners since 1969 and town residents since 1968, my family values local
uniqueness — as well as the different characters of all communities that contribute to our state’s
diversity of heritages and lifestyles.
We welcome neighbors of any culture, faith, ethnicity, sexuality or social status; but we ask you to
defend local density and design restrictions that preserve the quality of life in which all of us have
invested hard work and resources.
Although homelessness is a serious concern that I share, it has many causes other than “lack of
housing supply.” Universal density development will not help those most vulnerable and needy
(those disabled by mental illness and/or addiction, those untrusting of offered help, some who
dislike structured living, etc.) — they need better public and charitable assistance programs.
For others, I believe the lack of affordable housing supply is caused more by the predominance of
ownership by real estate investor groups and individuals — some out of state and country — whose
only motive for ownership is to profit by renting or “flipping” sales of multiple properties at
“whatever the market will bear”. In my opinion, such ownerships should be limited by law if we
are really to solve the problem of housing monopoly and affordability.
Please stand up to state mandates on local zoning regulations and join other local governments in
doing so.
With thanks for your service to Los Gatos,
Karen Ettinger
Sent from my iPhone
From: Jon Witkin
Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2025 11:57 AM
To: Joel Paulson <jpaulson@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Gabrielle Whelan <GWhelan@losgatosca.gov>; Sean Mullin <SMullin@losgatosca.gov>; Erin Walters
<EWalters@losgatosca.gov>; Susan Burnett
Subject: 178 twin oaks drive proposed development
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
3-30-2025
Joel Paulson
Community development director
Town of Los Gatos
110 east Main Street
Los Gatos, ca. 95030
Copy to Whelan, Mullin and Walters
Hi Joel
My first letter was for the allowed two minutes at the Tuesday town council meeting. That agenda
item has been removed from the meeting. I thought I should forward it. The second Letter is what my
attorney thought was important for your consideration. We are already experiencing extreme
congestion during certain periods. Anything we can accomplish to minimize this project size and impact
would be appreciated.
Thank you
Jon witkin
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:55 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15863 for Community Development Contact Form
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Field not completed.
Last Name Field not completed.
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number Field not completed.
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
143-151 E. Main St
Message (Required) Letter to Council requesting EIR for SB 330 projects
Add An Attachment if
applicable
scan0789.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From: noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2025 4:33 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15928 for Community Development Contact Form
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Brent
Last Name Ventura
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
178 Twin Oaks Rd.
Message (Required) Letter requesting EIR for project
Add An Attachment if
applicable
scan0791.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
From: Shani Kleinhaus <shani@scvbirdalliance.org>
Sent: Friday, October 17, 2025 12:17 PM
To: Erin Walters <EWalters@losgatosca.gov>; Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Cc: Matthew Dodder <director@scvbirdalliance.org>; James Eggers
<james.eggers@sierraclub.org>; Katja Irvin <>; Jill Fordyce
Subject: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Surrey Farms
Estates (SCH No. 2025090920)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Ms. Walters and Members of the Planning Commission,
The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
(SCLP) respectfully submit the following comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND).
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
22221 McClellan Rd.
Cupertino, CA 95014
650-868-2114
shani@scvbirdalliance.org
Erin Walters, Senior Planner
ewalters@losgatosca.gov
Planning Commission
planning@losgatosca.gov
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
October 17, 2025
Subject: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Surrey Farms Estates
(SCH No. 2025090920)
Dear Ms. Walters and Members of the Planning Commission,
The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
(SCLP) respectfully submit the following comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision at 178 Twin
Oaks Drive. SCVBA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of birds, other
wildlife, and their habitats across Santa Clara County. The Sierra Club mission is to promote the
responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources.
As conservation organizations with members who live, recreate, and observe wildlife in Los
Gatos and the Ross Creek watershed, we have a direct and substantial interest in ensuring full
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Our long history of
engagement in environmental review involving riparian corridors, oak woodlands, and hillside
developments reflects our commitment to protecting regional biodiversity and ecological
integrity. Given the project’s location adjacent to critical habitat and wildlife movement
corridors, rigorous environmental review is essential.
Based on our review of the IS/MND and the recent October 2025 comment letter from the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), we find substantial evidence
that the project may result in significant hydrological and biological impacts that are not
adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated. As detailed below, the IS/MND fails to address the
jurisdictional status of an on-site ephemeral drainage, potential dewatering of riparian habitat,
habitat fragmentation for wildlife, impacts from lighting and collision hazards to birds, and
procedural conflicts with CEQA’s fair argument standard.
For these reasons, the Town must withdraw the IS/MND and prepare a full Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to ensure adequate environmental review in compliance with CEQA.
Project Overview and Summary of Environmental Concerns
The proposed Surrey Farms Estates project would subdivide approximately 17.5 acres within a
hillside area at 178 Twin Oaks Drive, to construct multiple single-family residences, internal
roadways, driveways, and associated infrastructure. The site includes oak woodland, sloped
topography, and an ephemeral drainage feature that ultimately conveys runoff toward Ross
Creek. Despite the project’s location within an ecologically sensitive transition zone between
existing development and natural hillside habitat, the IS/MND concludes that all potential
impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels without the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
However, substantial evidence in the record, including evidence provided in the October 2025
comment letter from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB),
demonstrates that the project may cause significant environmental impacts that have not been
fully evaluated or mitigated. These include, but are not limited to:
● Hydrologic impacts to a potentially jurisdictional ephemeral creek, including diversion
of contributing stormwater flows that may result in dewatering of riparian vegetation,
● Loss and fragmentation of biological habitat, including oak woodland, wildlife
corridors, and breeding/nesting habitat for birds, raptors, and pollinators such as Crotch’s
Bumble Bee,
● Unaddressed light pollution and bird collision risks associated with hillside residential
development and night lighting at the wildland–urban interface, and
● Procedural deficiencies under CEQA, including reliance on deferred mitigation,
absence of required agency consultation, and disregard of substantial evidence submitted
by a responsible agency.
Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard (Guidelines §§15064, 15065), the existence of
substantial evidence supporting a reasonable possibility of significant effects mandates
preparation of an EIR. The presence of unresolved agency disagreement, particularly from the
RWQCB, a responsible agency with jurisdiction over waters of the State, further compels
elevation of environmental review. These omissions provide substantial evidence of a fair
argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, requiring preparation
of an EIR under CEQA Guidelines §§15064 and 15065.
Accordingly, SCVBA and SCLP submit that adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration
would be legally improper, and that a full Environmental Impact Report is required to analyze,
disclose, and mitigate the project’s hydrologic, ecological, and cumulative impacts.
I. Hydrology and Waters of the State: Dewatering, Jurisdiction, and RWQCB Conflict
The IS/MND fails to properly evaluate or mitigate significant hydrologic impacts to an on-site
ephemeral drainage that is subject to potential jurisdiction by the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW). The document relies exclusively on a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers regarding federal jurisdiction, while omitting State jurisdictional standards under the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Fish and Game Code §1602.
A. Unresolved Jurisdiction over Waters of the State
The IS/MND asserts that the on-site ephemeral drainage is “non-jurisdictional,” yet it provides
no confirmation or concurrence from RWQCB or CDFW. This omission directly conflicts with
the RWQCB’s October 2025 comment letter, which reiterates the agency’s ongoing concern:
“Ten years after our initial comment letter, we remain concerned that the extent of
waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Water Board and the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife… has not been confirmed… Until jurisdiction is determined,
the Project should assume that the ephemeral creek is a water of the State.”
Waters of the State are defined independently of federal jurisdiction and include seasonal and
ephemeral drainages under the Porter-Cologne Act. Failure to acknowledge jurisdiction of a
State-regulated waterway constitutes a procedural and substantive CEQA flaw, as the project
may require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or Clean Water Act §401 certification from
RWQCB, and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW.
B. Diversion and Dewatering of Riparian Flow
Current site hydrology supports riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat along the ephemeral
drainage. The IS/MND proposes bioretention basins and pervious pavements designed to divert
stormwater runoff into storm drains, away from the natural drainage. As RWQCB
emphasizes:
“Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation along the ephemeral
creek would be diverted… This could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water
to sustain the vegetation, a significant impact to the creek.”
The MND does not contain any hydromodification management analysis, despite the Town’s
obligations under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). No measures are provided
to maintain base flows, protect channel stability, or preserve riparian hydrology.
C. Inconsistency with the Los Gatos General Plan
The Los Gatos General Plan calls for protection of riparian corridors, habitat connectivity,
and natural hydrologic functions. An ephemeral creek that supports riparian growth is
subject to these protections, and cannot be dismissed without agency consultation or
hydrological analysis.
D. Lack of Enforceable Maintenance and Ownership Measures
The IS/MND defers long-term maintenance to a future homeowners’ association (HOA), without
identifying:
● Responsibility for inspection and repair of stormwater infrastructure,
● Funding mechanisms for hydrologic mitigation, or
● Standards for performance over time.
Deferred mitigation violates CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B), which prohibits mitigation
dependent on undefined future actions.
Conclusion on Hydrology
Because substantial evidence demonstrates the potential for significant hydrologic impacts -
including dewatering of a State-regulated waterway - CEQA mandates preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report. The IS/MND must be withdrawn or recirculated to address these
deficiencies.
II. Bird Collisions with Glass
Bird collisions with glass are one of the leading human-caused sources of bird mortality in North
America. Scientists estimate that up to one billion birds die each year in the United States from
collisions with buildings and transparent or reflective surfaces. This is not a marginal issue; it is
a primary driver in the continent-wide decline of bird populations, including species already
stressed by habitat loss, climate change, and drought.
Birds do not perceive glass as a barrier. They see reflected sky or vegetation and attempt to fly
through it, or they see a direct line of habitat through a structure and follow a “line of flight”,
often fatally. While some environmental documents briefly acknowledge reflective glass, a truly
protective approach must also address clear glass and see-through conditions, such as parallel
glass façades or corridors that create direct flight paths through structures, as well as stand-alone
glass elements such as balcony railings.
These features can be especially hazardous in hillside or riparian-edge developments, where
migrating and resident birds move through tree canopy or along drainages. Local oak woodland
and creek corridors serve as flyways for warblers, thrushes, towhees, and raptors, species that
cannot adapt to invisible barriers.
Los Gatos General Plan Recognizes Bird Collision Risk
Importantly, the Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan explicitly acknowledges bird
collisions as a serious environmental concern and commits to requiring safer building design.
Under the Environment and Sustainability Element, the Town states:
“Require new development to increase bird safety by reducing hazardous building
and architectural elements, and including bird safe and lighting design.”
The General Plan further anticipates a dedicated Bird Safety Ordinance to reduce collisions
with windows and regulate hazardous materials and lighting:
“Adopt a Bird Safety Ordinance to reduce bird collisions with windows… regulate
building design and lighting implementation.”
Despite these commitments, the environmental document does not analyze bird collision
hazards nor propose any bird-safe measures for glazing, transparency, or façade design.
This absence creates a direct inconsistency between the project and the Town’s adopted
policy direction.
Architectural Collision Hazards That Must Be Addressed
Basic bird-safe design is especially critical in hillside and riparian-edge developments where
migratory routes cross tree canopies and drainages. Hazardous features include:
● Expansive reflective glass facing vegetation
● Parallel or transparent façades creating “line-of-flight” conditions, and
● Glass balcony railings, corner glazing, and atriums that create illusions of open
passage
These features are known to cause high-speed bird strikes, a long-term operational impact that
CEQA requires agencies to identify and mitigate.
CEQA Requires Addressing Operational Wildlife Mortality
CEQA evaluates not only temporary construction effects but long-term biological impacts from
the operation of the built environment. Because bird-glass collision mortality is foreseeable,
preventable, and recognized in Town policy, it must be mitigated at the project level through
enforceable measures such as patterned glazing, reduced reflectivity, and design alterations to
eliminate see-through corridors.
Conclusion
Given the Town of Los Gatos’ explicit policy to “increase bird safety by reducing hazardous
building elements,” it is essential that this project incorporate bird-safe architectural standards.
Absent such measures, the project would perpetuate a known and significant source of avoidable
wildlife mortality, inconsistent with both CEQA and the Town’s own General Plan.
III. Artificial Lighting (ALAN) and Impacts on Wildlife and Ecological Health
Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) poses significant and well-documented impacts on wildlife,
ecological function, and human health. While the environmental document discusses lighting
only from an aesthetic or glare perspective, the evaluation of lighting impacts on biological
resources, including migratory birds, nocturnal wildlife, and ecosystems is warranted. Light is
not merely a visual issue, it is a biological force that disrupts circadian systems, navigation,
foraging, predator-prey behavior, and reproductive timing.
Los Gatos General Plan: Lighting is a Biological Resource Concern
The Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan expressly recognizes lighting as an environmental
impact affecting wildlife, not just visual character. Under the Environment and Sustainability
Element, the Town directs:
“Require the design of building, street, landscape, and parking area lighting to
improve safety, energy efficiency, protection of the night skies (dark sky
protections), biological resources, and environmental soundness.”
The General Plan also calls for a Dark Skies Ordinance to minimize ecological disruption:
“Adopt a Dark Skies Ordinance … to regulate exterior lighting, skyglow, and
impacts to wildlife.”
Despite these adopted policy commitments, the MND does not analyze lighting impacts on
wildlife movement, riparian corridors, or nocturnal species. It treats lighting solely in terms of
visual compatibility with surrounding homes, overlooking its ecological consequences.
Scientific Basis: Why ALAN Is an Ecological Impact
Peer-reviewed research has shown that nighttime lighting causes the following:
● Disorients migrating birds, pulling them off-route into developed areas where collision
risk increases,
● Disrupts circadian hormones in wildlife and humans by suppressing melatonin,
● Alters predator–prey dynamics, favoring some species (rats, crows) over others (owls,
bats), and
● Reduces insect populations, which cascades upward to birds and bats reliant on them.
Blue-rich light (high CCT LEDs) is especially harmful. The spectral range of 4000–5000K
commonly used in development has been linked to higher disorientation and physiological stress
in wildlife. Warm-spectrum lighting at 2700 Kelvin or below significantly reduces ecological
disruption.
Location Sensitivity: Hillsides and Riparian Zones
Lighting impacts are particularly severe at the urban–wildland interface, such as hillside
developments bordering Ross Creek and oak woodland. These areas support nighttime
movement of the following:
● Owls (Great Horned, Barn Owl),
● Bats and nocturnal pollinators, and
● Migratory thrushes, warblers, and tanagers navigating by starlight.
General Plan implementation guidance even identifies riparian corridor lighting as an
ecological concern requiring directional control:
“Require careful lighting design in and near natural riparian corridors to direct
light away and maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the corridor.”
This heightened sensitivity is entirely absent in the MND.
Recommended Mitigation – Consistent with General Plan
To comply with CEQA and align with General Plan sustainability goals, outdoor lighting should
incorporate the following:
● Full shielding and downward direction (no uplight, no spill into habitat),
● 2700K or lower color temperature to minimize harmful blue light,
● Automatic shut-off or curfews after 10:00 PM, except motion-activated security
lighting, and
● No unshielded façade or landscape lighting near riparian or canopy edges.
Conclusion on Lighting
By omitting wildlife analysis and relying solely on human visual standards, the MND fails to
address a documented environmental impact recognized in both science and Town policy.
Effective lighting mitigation must protect ecological function, not just visual ambiance. A full
EIR is warranted to evaluate operational lighting impacts in this sensitive hillside and riparian
environment.
IV. Biological and Wildlife Impacts: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Special-Status Species
The IS/MND fails to adequately assess significant and irreversible impacts to biological
resources, including native woodland habitat, wildlife movement corridors, nesting birds, and
special-status pollinators. The project lies within a transitional zone between developed hillside
residences and the Ross Creek watershed, an area known to support raptors, migratory songbirds,
and oak-associated wildlife. The document’s reliance on generic pre-construction surveys does
not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for identification, analysis, and mitigation of long-term habitat
impacts.
A. Oak Woodland and Habitat Fragmentation
The project would remove a substantial number of mature coast live oaks and associated
understory vegetation. Oak woodlands provide critical foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for
species such as Acorn Woodpecker, American Kestrel, Red-Shouldered Hawk, and multiple
migratory warblers. Despite the scale of proposed vegetation clearing, the IS/MND does not
quantify total tree loss, assess habitat fragmentation, or evaluate impacts to wildlife corridor
functionality across the Ross Creek drainage interface.
Fragmentation of woodland habitat at this location poses long-term ecological consequences,
including reduced canopy continuity, loss of acorn mast availability, and disruption of species
movement between hillside and riparian zones. CEQA requires disclosure and mitigation of such
impacts (Guidelines §15380), which the MND does not provide.
B. Riparian Dependency and Loss of Hydrologic Support
The IS/MND acknowledges the presence of an ephemeral drainage but incorrectly concludes
there will be no biological impact. As documented by the RWQCB, the project’s stormwater
design would redirect runoff away from the drainage, depriving the riparian system of seasonal
hydrology:
“Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation… would be
diverted… This could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water to sustain the
vegetation.”
The biological effects of hydrologic alteration, loss of vegetative cover, reduced insect prey
availability, and increased temperature exposure, were not analyzed.
C. Nesting Birds and Raptors: Inadequate Mitigation
The site supports habitat suitable for breeding birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code §3503. However, the IS/MND proposes only
seasonal nest surveys, deferring species protection to future conditions. CEQA prohibits reliance
on deferred mitigation in place of substantive analysis. Permanent loss of nesting and roosting
habitat is not mitigated by temporal surveying.
Raptor species such as Red-tailed Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, and Great Horned Owl are known to
utilize this region. The MND does not analyze displacement, loss of hunting perches, or effects
on prey availability.
D. Special-Status Pollinators: Omission of Crotch’s Bumble Bee
The IS/MND omits any analysis of special-status invertebrates, including Crotch’s Bumble Bee
(Bombus crotchii), a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate species. This
omission violates CEQA Guidelines §15380, which requires treatment of candidate species as
threatened or endangered. Oak-woodland and chaparral-edge habitats within Santa Clara County
are within the known range of this species.
No botanical or pollinator surveys appear to have been conducted.
Conclusion on Biological Impacts
The MND fails to disclose the scale of habitat conversion, analyze biological connectivity, or
mitigate for permanent ecological loss. Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the
project may have significant biological impacts, requiring a full Environmental Impact Report.
V. CEQA Procedural Failures: Reliance on an MND is Legally Improper
The IS/MND for Surrey Farms Estates does not comply with the procedural requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Multiple deficiencies in analysis, consultation,
and mitigation demonstrate that reliance on a Mitigated Negative Declaration is legally improper.
Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, the presence of substantial evidence supporting a
significant impact mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
A. Failure to Apply the Fair Argument Standard
CEQA Guidelines §15064(f)(1) requires an EIR where substantial evidence indicates a project
may have a significant effect on the environment, even if the lead agency believes impacts can be
mitigated. In this case, expert agency evidence from the RWQCB clearly disputes the MND’s
conclusions on hydrology and biological impacts. Disagreement among experts requires an EIR,
not an MND.
B. Deferral of Mitigation and Absence of Performance Standards
The IS/MND repeatedly defers mitigation to future plans, HOA oversight, or permitting
processes, without defining performance standards or enforceable obligations. This violates
CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B), which prohibits reliance on unspecified or future
mitigation, particularly where long-term resource impacts are involved (e.g., habitat loss,
hydrology modification).
Examples of impermissible deferral include the following:
● Stormwater operation and maintenance left to an undefined HOA,
● Lack of binding commitments to preserve riparian flow or tree canopy, and
● Absence of defined mitigation ratios for habitat or tree removal.
C. Failure to Recirculate After New Substantial Evidence (RWQCB 2025 Letter)
The October 2025 RWQCB comment letter introduces substantial new evidence that the project
may significantly impact waters of the State. Under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, a lead agency
must recirculate an environmental document when new information shows the project will result
in new or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed. The Town did not
recirculate, thereby depriving decision-makers and the public of a full review.
D. Misapplication of Housing Laws Does Not Exempt CEQA
While the project appears to invoke the Builder’s Remedy provisions under Government Code
§65589.5, CEQA remains fully applicable. Housing law does not waive or reduce CEQA review.
Courts have consistently held that compliance with CEQA is mandatory and independent of
zoning or housing authorization. The IS/MND’s approach suggests environmental review is
secondary to entitlement, which is legally incorrect.
Conclusion on Procedural Failures
The procedural shortcomings of the IS/MND, combined with substantive omissions in
hydrology, biology, and lighting, render it legally indefensible under CEQA. A full
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to ensure compliance with state environmental
law and to provide accurate assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of the project’s impacts.
VI. Conclusion and Request for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report
For the reasons outlined in the sections above, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance finds that the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Surrey Farms Estates project is inadequate
under CEQA. Substantial evidence in the record, including technical comment from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, demonstrates that the project may cause significant environmental
impacts that have not been fully analyzed, disclosed, or mitigated. These include potential
dewatering of Waters of the State, permanent loss of biological habitat, wildlife disturbance from
lighting, and unmitigated operational effects.
Under CEQA Guidelines §§15064 and 15065, a Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be
adopted where substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant impact. Furthermore,
CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 requires recirculation when new information indicates the potential
for new or more severe impacts, as is the case with RWQCB’s October 2025 letter.
Accordingly, SCVBA and SCLP respectfully requests the following from the Town of Los
Gatos:
1. Withdraw the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
2. Recirculate the environmental document to incorporate agency concerns and
hydrologic and biological analysis, and
3. Prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates project alternatives,
hydrologic modifications, biological resource impacts, lighting effects, and cumulative
conditions within the Ross Creek watershed.
The EIR must also include a reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce impacts
to hydrology, wildlife corridors, and hillside habitat, as required under CEQA.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and remain available to participate in
future consultation, provide biological expertise, and ensure that environmental review for this
site reflects the region’s ecological values and legal standards. Please include these comments in
the administrative record for this project.
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Katja Irvin, AICP
Guadalupe Group Conservation Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
I. History of Surrey Farms Neighborhood and Previous Development Proposals
for This Site
In 1956, the original Surrey Farms Development CC&Rs were recorded. In the mid-
1970’s, the last four houses on Longmeadow (185-191) were built. Around this same time, the
Town was considering making Longmeadow a through-street, connecting to Kennedy and
Shannon. That project was ultimately denied, primarily due to neighborhood resistance to the
idea of transforming the quiet, closed Surrey Farms neighborhood into a thoroughfare. Around
this time, it appears that similar proposals to extend Cerro Vista and Brooke Acres were also
denied, making all three of these neighborhoods “cul de sac neighborhoods.”
In September 1974, residents of the Surrey Farms neighborhood submitted a petition
regarding “the future of Longmeadow Drive as it affects Surrey Farm.” Discussing the proposed
development of the last four homes on the street, Mrs. Lila June McGrath wrote: “If this
proposed development assures the termination (i.e., deadend) of the road added onto
Longmeadow Drive in the vicinity of Ross Creek, our grievance is diminished. This was the plan
originally submitted by the developers with the blessing of the town government. If, on the other
hand, this added-on road, at Longmeadow Dr. paves the way to ultimately turning Longmeadow
Drive into a through-way from Kennedy Road to Shannon Road, the residents of Surrey Farm
would strongly oppose the attachment of any public road...”
Mrs. McGrath sites three areas of concern held by the Surrey Farms residents of the mid-
1970s: “(1) 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
checkerboard square mentality we seem to be facing.”
Ultimately, the Town agreed with Mrs. McGrath, and our home (191 Longmeadow
Drive) and the Meleyco home (189 Longmeadow) became the end of Longmeadow, in a cul de
sac, terminating any thought that Longmeadow—and indeed Surrey Farms—would have a
connecting street.
On February 2, 1975, Bob and Dorothy Dodge and the Town of Los Gatos entered into a
Land Conservation Contract with regard to the property in question, which now constituted the
backdrop of the entire, and fully-developed Surrey Farms neighborhood. The contract itself
stated that: “The property is located in an agricultural preserve established by the Town.” The
intent of the original Land Conservation Contract was to preserve the rural quality of the land,
recognizing that the maintenance of open space and land of rural character holds significant
value. It also gave a significant tax benefit to the landowner. This property has never been used
for agricultural purposes, at least since 1948 (according to the Town), which pre-dates the
Williamson Act contract.
On March 19, 1975, just after the Land Conservation Contract was signed and the
decision to terminate Longmeadow was made, the Town Council approved the four-lot
subdivision at the end of Longmeadow.
On May 8, 1975, a Cerro Vista Court extension road was denied by the Planning
Commission. Thereafter, residents of Brooke Acres reasoned there would no longer be a road to
connect to, and requested that Brooke Acres also be developed as a cul de sac “for the health,
safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood, also by reasons of Sec. 1.4 Purpose of Ord.
867 (Zoning).”
On June 16, 1975, an ordinance was passed by the Town Council to rezone the hillside
from HR-1:20 to RC.
In 1975, 187 Longmeadow was built.
On January 1, 1976, the first term of the Williamson commenced.
In 1976, 185, 189 and 191 Longmeadow were built.
These last four residences were constructed to end Longmeadow Drive in a manner that
would assure that Surrey Farms would not encroach on Ross Creek and the floodplain and would
not have a through street; and the proposal to create roads from Cerro Vista and Brooke Acres
were denied and, thus all three surrounding neighborhoods became landlocked.
Prior to purchasing our home at 191 Longmeadow Drive in February 1999, we went to
the Town and inquired as to the likelihood of the hill (proposed project site) being developed.
Noting that it was Resource Conservation space, the clerk told us “not in your lifetime.” In 2016,
the applicant herein submitted an application to cancel the Williamson Act Contract and to
approve a ten-home planned development on the site. In August 2017, the Town prepared an EIR
on the proposed project. According to the IS/MND, “although the project has since changed and
the EIR was never certified by the Town, the setting of the site has remained the same and, thus,
a number of the technical reports associated with the former project and 2017 EIR remain
applicable to the proposed project.” (IS/MND p. 6)
On October 9, 2016, we submitted comments in response to the DEIR, which discussed
all of the problems with regard to the project. Those comments are incorporated into the EIR as
“Letter D - Fordyce Family” (pages 2-44 to 2-92). (The Town’s response to our comments can be
found in the EIR at pages 2-93 to 2-108). We also submitted a response to the RDEIR on June
19, 2017, and to the Final EIR on February 28, 2018. Given that a number of the technical
reports associated with the former project are relied upon for the current project, we request that
those documents, as well the entirety of the previous EIR be included in the record herein.
On May 1, 2018, the Town Council voted unanimously to decline a request to cancel the
Williamson Act contract, thereby rejecting the proposed project. In reaching this decision, the
Town Council acknowledged that the Williamson Act contract would expire in April 2025 and
expressed a desire to find a way to permanently preserve the hill as open space and/or create a
development plan that preserves a majority of the hillside as open space. The Town Council also
specifically acknowledged that rural hillsides like this are part of the Town’s essential identity
and should be preserved.
In 2023, Robson Homes submitted a proposal to subdivide this same property into 12
parcels and construct 11 detached single family residences, 11 ADU’s, and 2 BMP units in the
form of attached single-family residential units to the town’s Conceptual Development Advisory
Committee (Application CD-23-001). In response to a notification and call for comments by the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee, we provided our 2018 submission in opposition
to the previous proposed development, which outlined many of the issues confronting any
proposed development of the property. The Conceptual Development Committee expressed the
following concerns regarding the proposed Robson project: too many homes; the potential for
even more structures with ADUs; the increase in traffic; fire access; the potential for increased
water runoff; the loss of open space; the need for hillside preservation and wildlife corridors;
overall impacts to environment and existing neighborhood; impact of increased density on fire
safety and rain/erosion; a single ingress and egress. One commissioner noted that in 2023, the
project has to be evaluated differently than in 2018 because of SB 9 and ADU’s, noting that there
would have to be a fair amount of less units. Another stated that there must be fewer homes for
many reasons including ingress/egress/access, the “real burden” on the neighborhood, and the
water and drainage issues. Another summarized the recommendations of the Conceptual Design
Committee as follows: the number of units proposed is excessive; the fire risk is severe; there
should be the bare minimum for density; and the development needs to comply with hillside
standards and guidelines. (Conceptual Development Advisory Committee Meeting April 12,
2023).
It should also be noted that before the proposed Robson development was before the
Conceptual Design Advisory Committee, we were approached by Robson Homes to determine
what they could do to mitigate the effects of the proposed project on the neighborhood. This
included, among other things, discussion of a grove of trees in between the proposed
development and the property lines along Longmeadow and Twin Oaks, and the possibility of
deeding a portion of land to adjacent properties to ensure privacy.
To date, we have not been approached by the developer of the current proposed project to
determine what, if anything, could be done to lessen the impact on the neighborhood and
specifically, the homes directly adjacent to the site. We are unaware of this current proposed
project going before the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee; therefore, this is our
first opportunity to formally present our concerns with regard to the current proposed project to
the Town.
One final note: over the years, many of us have been told by original Surrey Farms
residents that there was a deal struck between the Town of Los Gatos and Bob Dodge during the
time he was developing the neighborhood. According to that deal, he would get a certain density
if the hill was preserved as resource conservation space and the rural backdrop to the developed
neighborhood. I have not been able to find evidence of this deal in Town records, as the Planning
Commission and Town Council documents from this time period are sparse and not digitized;
however, it should be noted that the Williamson Act contract entered into between Bob and
Dorothy Dodge and the Town included the language: “The property is located in an agricultural
preserve established by the Town.”
From:
Sent: Friday, December 5, 2025 4:34 PM
To: Ewalters@logatosca.gov <Ewalters@logatosca.gov>
Subject: 178 Twin Oaks Drive
Dear Ms. Walters,
The purpose of this note is to express serious concern about the Bioretention Basin (pond,
man made wetland) proposed for this development.
In my judgment, the need for this pond is a clear indicator that the drainage from the
proposed development will exceed the natural drainage capability of the land. The
proposed development should be modifled to eliminate this pond. Examples of options
that should be considered are reducing the scope of the development such that the
drainage will not require the pond or redesigning the drainage system, so it is completely
underground (i.e. connecting it to the storm drain system serving the rest of Surrey Farm).
The pond as proposed will cause the accumulation of stagnant water which in turn will
cause infestation of mosquitoes. The risk of West Nile Virus Disease transmitted by
mosquitoes, which can be neurologically damaging as well as fatal, is unacceptable near
the neighborhoods and school surrounding the proposed development. The lack of clarity
about who will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the pond will only
exacerbate this risk.
In summary, the Planning Commission should direct the developer to create an alternative
plan that will not require this pond and which will not have risk of fiooding of the adjoining
communities.
Sincerely Yours,
Christopher Bajorek
Los Gatos, CA 95032