Loading...
Attachment 11Jennifer Armer From: Mark Weiner <mark@weiner-family.net> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:18 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Concerns about Surrey Farms/Twin Oaks Dr. development Hello Planning Commission members, Pis accept this short email and set of concerns about the planned 10-unit development in our neighborhood of Surrey Farms. My wife and i have followed, and been involved with, the development since it was proposed by Mr. Dodge (our across the street neighbor) several years ago. While they have tried to follow Town planning procedures and processes, they continue to clearly ignore the impact it will have on the neighborhood, as well as several components of the General Plan created to protect hillsides like this. Our concerns include the impact of the water run off, removal of previously designated agricultural/open space (for decades by Mr. Dodge's father), creation of extended traffic via a cut - through road into what was created/always envisioned as a cul de sac. As a nearly 10-years member of the General Plan Committee, I know this is precisely what we looked to *avoid* when creating and appending the Hillside Plan component of the General Plan. Thank you for your consideration and understanding. Mark Weiner 130 Twin Oaks Dr. General Plan 1997-2005 / lifelong LG resident ATTACHMENT 11 Jennifer Armer Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 12:04 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Surrey Farms proposed Development From: Lisa Condensa <condensafamil y@gmail.com> Hello, I am a resident at 135 Longmeadow Dr. and have lived here with my family for going on 13 years. I opposed the proposed new development and here's why: 1) We moved here specifically for this neighborhood because of low traffic flow and uniqueness of a semi -closed neighborhood. With the exception of a very small semi -private outlet street (olde rd), there is virtually only one road in/out of this neighborhood. Increased traffic flow is undesirable for the many dog walkers and small children that roam our streets. People from outside the neighborhood come to walk the street because you can do so safely due to little or no cars passing you by. 2) My children have gone through the Los Gatos public school system and over the years we have seen a dramatic increase in class size thus pushing some to private schools. The boundaries already reach far and wide and our teachers can not sufficiently provide the individual attention each child needs. We had been very happy those years, but I would not want to be a resident trying to go through now with the increase of homes in our area, the increase in traffic is impacting the specialness and charm of our town. 3) This time of year take a look at our surrounding hillsides, they are picturesque green and dotted with trees. If lucky, we catch the deer or other wildlife out and once again you are reminded of the good choice we made to live in the Surrey Farms neighborhood. It's quiet here! We like it that way. Disruption of the hillside, disrupts the wildlife dispersing it into the neighborhoods which is an unnatural habitat for them. 4) A drainage pond? Which breeds mosquitoes in the heat? No thank you! We have plenty of underground water here in Surrey Farms causing most of us to have installed a sump pump and the streets do not have drains in the gutters. increased water coming down the hill could potentially flood the streets or properties below. Not a concern I wish to entertain. 5) Our neighborhood has a special look about it: predominantly ranch style, low profile and well kept. There is no place for large estates here. The potential of large oversized vehicles rumbling down the street, dust from all the disruption of the hillside, huge drainage system tunneled in, and then the view ultimately diminished? You have a potential to drive residents out of this neighborhood and ultimately out of this town. I beg you to consider these points in your decision process. There is a draw here to this neighborhood, to the structures that currently stand not to newness you can find anywhere. Proud owners, Lisa and Bert Condensa Lisa Jennifer Armer From: k m <kjirstecm@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 12:20 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Twin Oaks/Surrey Farm development Hi Ms Armer, I'm a little late with this comment but thought I'd send to you anyway. Thank you! Kjirste Morrell 172 Clover Way Re: Surrey Farms/Twin Oaks development I oppose the cancellation of the Williamson contract and rezoning of this property. Currently, as I drive home along Longmeadow 1 see green hills and trees, this view will instead become yet more houses sprawled along the hillside, with far too many lights at night. In addition, this development would have a large impact on traffic on Longmeadow, which I know is already a constant problem for the people close to Kennedy. Some type of traffic calming will be needed on Longmeadow to keep people who further up the hill away from main routes from speeding through the downhill and curve at the start of Longmeadow. If this development goes forward, I hope to see the following: 1) not just two access, but through access for homeowners. The risk of cut -through traffic could be reduced by making one section one-way and narrow, similar to the narrow section of Hilow. Providing multiple access routes is a safety issue, since it increases the potential routes to safety during a wildfire or other disaster. Emergency vehicle access doesn't address this concern. 2) Footpaths connecting to the Surrey Farms area, Brooke Acres Drive and the Cerro Vista area. Use the development as an opportunity to create the type of living space that Los Gatos residents appreciate. Many Los Gatos residents, including those in Surrey Farms, love to walk and would appreciate walking trails. Right now, Kennedy road between Longmeadow and Brooke Acres is dangerous for walkers and sharply reduces walking routes in the area. Also, walking trails might help provide safe bike routes to school for residents of the new development and connecting areas. Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Scott Harrell <harrellms@hotmail.com> Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:36 PM Jennifer Armer Feedback on 10 home neighborhood adjacent to Surrey Farms and Brook Acres H i, I live on 120 Longmeadow Dr. I am okay in general with the new plan (split neighborhood with dual entrances), but I do have a concern around traffic. Many children live on Longmeadow and cars are seen regularly exceeding the speed limit by 15-30 mph. This is also very true for artisans and tradespeople who work on houses in Surrey Farms. I am very concerned that we will have traffic for 4-5 years building houses and create a significant increase in dangerous traffic, My ask would be for some traffic calming measures on Longmeadow, speedbumps, more traffic monitoring, etc. I cannot make the meeting this evening, but I have seen near misses already (as well as a couple animals hit) and don't want to see any injuries or deaths. Regards, Scott Jennifer Armer From: Philip Shenker <pjshanker@comcast.net> Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 4:56 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: planning commission Hello Ms Armer, l was at the planning commission meeting 02/28/18. Of course 1 am not pleased with the recommendation from the planners. The public comments seemed to be essentially disregarded. It was also clear that "staff" is very much in favor of the project irrespective of the entire neighborhood's strong opposition. 1 was also disappointed that the chairperson on the planning commission conveyed that he had not made a site visit to Cerro Vista Ct. How is it that he could render any kind of a valid opinion without visiting the site. The answer is he couldn't. Regards, Dr Philip Shanker Jennifer Armer From: Gigi Harrell [ma ilto:gigi harrell@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2018 4:40 PM To: Council <Council@losgatosca.gov> Subject: Feedback on 10 home neighborhood adjacent to Surrey Farms and Brook Acres To the Los Gatos Town Council: Thank you for taking the time to listen to feedback from community members. My husband and I are unable to attend the recent/upcoming meetings with various members of the Town Council regarding the 10 home neighborhood adjacent to Surrey Farms & Brook Acres. In lieu of attending the meeting, we appreciate being able to share our feedback via email. As the proposal of the 10 home neighborhood adjacent to Surrey Farms & Brook Acres moves forward, I would like to voice my family's input on two specific area of the project. First, of the two ingress/egress proposals (initially presented in approximately 2014) we strongly prefer the split neighborhood with two entrances over the single entrance with ingress/egress solely coming from Twin Oaks Drive. Second, and most important, we want to voice our concern regarding traffic and vehicular/pedestrian safety. We want the final plans to ensure traffic is managed effectively. Many children live on Longmeadow and cars are seen regularly exceeding the speed limit by 15-30 mph. This is also very true for artisans and tradespeople who work on houses in Surrey Farms. We are very concerned that we will have traffic for 4-5 years building houses and create a significant increase in dangerous traffic. My ask would be for some traffic calming measures on Longmeadow, speedbumps, more traffic monitoring, etc. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Georgette "Gigi" Harrell & Michael Scott Harrell 120 Longmeadow Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Gigi Harrell Jennifer Armer From: Kemp, Melanie [mailto:Melanie.,CempCc cbnorcal.cornj Sent: Saturday, April 7, 2018 10:41 AM To: Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc; Laurel Prevetti Subject: Re: Pending application: Surrey Farm Council Members: From both a personal and professional standpoint, I am disturbed that the Town Council is looking closely at the prospect of finding a workaround that would change the intent of the Williamson Act, the General Plan and the Hillside Guidelines to create a Planned Development and certify an EIR for 18 acres of land in the Surrey Farms neighborhood of Los Gatos that would have grave impact on surrounding homes and nearby residents including removal of thousands of tons of dirt and extensive hillside cut and grading, removal of historic oaks, and destruction of privacy, views for homeowners and natural habitats for wildlife. Our building guidelines were thoughtfully conceived by your predecessors who were committed to preserving the natural beauty of Los Gatos and the surrounding area. I am gravely concerned with the current Town Council's recent lack of respect for our existing guidelines in the hearings you've recently held and the local projects you've recently approved. This Town Council is not reflecting the direction set out by previous Town Councils to preserve and protect our town, establishing a dangerous precedent for future development. I'm a Realtor with more than 40 years' experience and have experienced that over -development by means of guideline exemptions/waivers will kill the golden goose. Thank you, Melanie Kemp Melanie Kemp Broker Associate COLDWELL BANKER International President's Circle Global Luxury Property Specialist 408.805.1555 melanie.kempacbnorcal.com J www.melaniekemp.com I LinkedIn profile 410 N. Santa Cruz Avenue j Los Gatos, California 95030 I BRE 00867212 MELANIE KEiP `Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is vaiid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. Laurel Prevetti Town Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA TOWN OF LOS GATOS CLERK DEPARTMENT RECEIVED 1018 APR - q P tt 5 April 9, 2018 Subject: Request to Rezone and Develop Surrey Farm Land from Williamson Act Conservation to Housing Dear Ms. Prevetti, 1 reside at 120 Clover Way, Los Gatos, in the developed portion of Surrey Farm. The land in question contains steep grass covered hills that give this part of Los Gatos its very special character. When we bought our home here in 1981 we were told that the hills could never be developed because of their steep nature. I reviewed the record pertaining to this rezoning and development request, including the Environmental Impact Statement. I was struck by the very large number of exceptions, variances and mitigating measures required to convert this property from conservation to housing. It only confirms my conclusion that the steep slopes, the flood prone topography, and the natural beauty of this open space make it unsuitable for housing. The proposed mitigation ponds to handle drainage are fraught with pipes, pumps, and drains that will need constant upkeep — more effort and cost than any home owners' association can provide. Developing this land in the manner described in this application could result in conditions that lead to erosion and mud slides such as those recently experienced in Santa Barbara and Montecito. I urge the Town to turn down this request and to continue to conserve this unique parcel of land in its natural state, in the manner intended by Mr. Walker Vaughn, the original developer of Surrey Farm. Sincerely Yours, &-1,06 anet Fullmer Ba 120 Clover Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95032 TOWN OF LOS GATOS CLERK DEPARTMENT RECEIVED 2018APR -9P3t5 April 6, 2018 Subject: Request to Rezone and Develop Surrey Farm Land Dear Ms. Prevetti: grew up in Surrey Farm. My parents Janet and Chris Bajorek still live at 120 Clover Way. I have reviewed the request to rezone and develop the hills adjacent to Surrey Farm. I foresee a disaster waiting to happen if this plan is adopted depending on a Homeowners Association to maintain such complex matters as roads, drainage, and flood prevention facilities. 1 own a unit in Paseo Plaza, a 210-condominium complex in San Jose managed by a Homeowners Association (HOA). It is responsible for matters such as gardening, trash removal, maintenance of common areas and building security. The HOA is significantly challenged to handle these straightforward responsibilities and has failed to do so in several instances. The proposed development at Twin Oaks depends on an HOA to provide much more critical and complex matters such as management of roads, drainage and flood prevention facilities. The viability of the new HOA will depend on rapid completion and sale of all homes in the development. It will saddle the early homeowners with untenable responsibilities and costs. Based on my experience at Paseo Plaza the proposed Twin Oaks HOA will not be able to handle its responsibilities, thereby risking damage to existing homes of Surrey Farm as well as encumbering the Town to remedy this damage. As one example, consider the challenge of properly maintaining the complex drainage systems proposed for the two water retention basins. Clogging of the drains or failure of the pump would cause flooding or allow water to sit in the basins for extended periods of time, enabling the breeding of mosquitos. The presence of mosquitos near Hillbrook School and several hundred homes would cause an unacceptable health hazard. I also understand the applicant does not intend to develop this land. His plan is to sell it to an unknown developer after the zoning change approval by the Town. 1 am skeptical the new developer will abide by the myriad requirements described in the Environmental Impact Statement. I urge the Town to turn down this re uest and continue to protect this precious land parcel in its natural state. Sincerely, Peter C. Bajorek Attorney at Law 144 So. 3ro Street, Unit .21 San Jose, CA 95112 April b, 2018 Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager 110 East Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 TOWN OF LOS GATOS CLERK DEPARTMENT RECEIVED 2818APR _q P S Subject: Request to Rezone and Develop Surrey Farm Land from Conservation Space to Housing Dear Ms. Prevetti, As I am sure you know by now, the land in question is extremely steep but unique in its wilderness and beauty that complement the very special character of this part of Los Gatos. We purchased our home in July of 1981, Shortly thereafter I was fortunate to get acquainted with Mr. Walker Vaughn, who developed Surrey Farm. He and his wife lived until old age at 105 Longmeadow Drive. They frequently took walks around the neighborhood, and my wife and I often crossed paths with them. I was impressed that the developer lived in the community he created, a first in my experience. I learned several other interesting details about Mr. Vaughn's background. He moved to CA from Idaho after the end of WW2, trading Idaho farm land for CA land parcels in Palo Alto, Los Gatos, San Jose and the San Joaquin Valley. Especially interesting to me was to learn he owned the land that was purchased by IBM in the early 1950s in south San Jose. At that time, I was employed by IBM's Research Division which was housed on that land. I also Iearned that in addition to having purchased and developed Surrey Farm he had been the contractor that built our house. We quickly developed good rapport. Mr. Vaughn was very proud of what he had achieved at Surrey Farm, especially able to conserve the adjacent hills subject to this request. He considered this hillside key to the been of the developed part of Surrey Farm and emphasized his goal to protect this hillside in perpetuity. Mr. Vaughn's land investments became extremely valuable. His descendants and relatives, including the applicant in this case, became very wealthy by inheriting his fortune. They do not need to develop this property. I urge the Town to honor Mr. Vaughn's vision by turning down this request and continuing to preserve this unique piece of land in its natural state in perpetuity. Sincerely Yours, Christopher BaPk, Ph. D. 120 Clover way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Lisa Condensa[mailto:condensafamilyCa�gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2018 3:52 PM To: Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Laurel Prevetti Subject: Proposed Surrey Farms Development Hello, My family resides at 135 Longmeadow Dr. and have lived here for almost 13 years. I want to state we oppose the proposed new development backing up to our neighborhood for just a few of the following reasons. We moved here specifically for this neighborhood for its unique Magnolia lined streets and green backdrop. As a bonus, we have low traffic flow, low crime rate due to this neighborhood being semi -closed with only one small semi private outlet on Olde Rd. We have the good fortune to walk our streets with our dogs, our children can play freely outside and walkers and bikes roam the neighborhood easily without the concern of large commercial vehicles. We do not have sidewalks in this neighborhood, again adding to the charm. Our housing follows CC & R's with Iow ranch style homes thus preserving all views for all neighbors to enjoy. Particularly at this time of year, the hills behind this neighborhood are a beautiful green dotted with many trees and wild turkeys, hawks, deer, foxes, and those pesky coyotes are visible at various times. We moved here again for its uniqueness. Los Gatos has always been a town to preserve its natural surroundings. We are unique and that is what brings people to live, shop, eat, and enjoy what we call home. Seeing this beauty disrupted by 100's of truckloads of dirt being removed, trees being cut down. Wildlife disrupted and not to mention the noise of trucks going back and forth, when most of our have our bedrooms in the front of their homes? We would not want to live through that. Los Gatos doesn't need any more palatial estates. Lastly, we all know about the water that runs under our neighborhood which most of us have sump pumps to take care of the running water under our properties. We have a reduced amount of drains here and during heavy rains it becomes a bit of a problem. Now add to that, increased water from another development above us? You must reconsider what is being proposed here. There is a draw to this neighborhood, we feel so very lucky to have found a home here in this unique neighborhood. If you haven't already, please come walk Longmeadow dr. You will see it too. Proud owners, Lisa and Bert Condensa Lisa Jennifer Armer From: Carri Mallard <carri@mallard.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2018 2:32 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Surrey Farms Development... Jennifer, Surely we have few enough naturally beautiful green spaces in Los Gatos as it is? I'm not talking parks, but aged trees, natural landscape and wildlife, birds and a visually pleasing aesthetic. Creating newer, larger residences on existing lots is one thing, but this defies belief! The North 40 will destroy an orchard and that's bad enough, however this is a whole hillside. It's not a view that is seen by multi -million dollar home owners from up high, it's a view that we all see from down here. Everyone is always talking "small town, not city" yet this could be gone... Please say no. Thank you, Carri Mallard Proactive Staging & Design (408) 656 6336 www.proactivestaging.com Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Surrey Farms / Twin Oaks Development On Apr 22, 2018, at 5:59 PM, davidgreenfieidii yahoo.com wrote: Council Member Marico Sayoc We are writing to let you know that as a family of 4 Los Gatos voters, we strongly oppose the proposed Surrey Farms/ Twin Oaks development and ask that you vote against this development. - Please don't actively remove the property from its existing conservation easement before this conservation easement runs it full course. - Please consider the importance of open space in our community; once this land is disturbed it can never return to this existing state. - Please consider the impact on the neighborhood with the huge increase in construction truck traffic and noise impacting many streets in Los Gatos. We also appreciate you taking the time to meet with our neighborhood group. Sincerely, David, Karri, Jennifer and Kristin Greenfield 140 Longmeadow Drive 4-24-2018 Town of Los Gatos Town Council Re: The Proposed Subdivision of Surrey Farm Estates Hillside Development — from the American Society of Planning Officials "The subdivision of hilly areas is a growing problem. Hills once bypassed as too costly to build on except by owner -builders are now prime residential areas for subdividers for the very reason that they were bypassed and are closer to the metropolitan center than the nearest vacant flat land. Unfortunately, hillsides are costly and difficult to subdivide. Developers - to help reduce costs - have appealed to planners to write subdivision controls that have lower standards for hillside areas than flat land. But the problems peculiar to hillside subdivision often require controls that increase development costs. Experience shows, however, that if the controls written for flat lands are not modified for hillside use, subdividers will simply level the hills. Unstable cuts and fills because of grading, erosion, streets, storm water drainage, sewage disposal, water supply access for fire -fighting and dispassion of unusable land are problems of hillside areas that cities are attempting to solve. But there are so many problems that no single approach solves them all, Indeed no one community has yet met and solved even its own." Lessons of Montecito - Southern California has recently and for a while been hit hard with catastrophic floods, fires, earthquakes and resulting landslides. Certainly, we see more every year with global climate change. Nor is Northern California immune, not by a long shot. It is hard for a young planner approving a 13' cut and fill roadway on a 30-degree slope over a riparian corridor, with two wetlands at the bottom of the hill and the removal of 130 trees, to be seen as a great idea. When issues arise, existing neighbors will have recourse only to the new homeowners, and their as of yet unknown homeowner CCRs. We understand there is a housing strain and are mindful of the property rights of the owners but feel that the land at surrey farm estates could be more appropriately developed. The t 200-page environmental impact addressed many of these issues but common sense should prevail. At the bottom of thishillside, a 200' swale is not going to stop the water runoff. Three times we have had mud in our pool from the hillside runoff and had to pump out and acid wash the pool. And this is on an undeveloped hillside. Successful hillside development in Saratoga - Living for a few years in the hills of Saratoga we experienced many of these issues firsthand. On Saratoga hillsides, you need 2 acres per home. and then the footage of each home allowed is extrapolated using a formula based on slope. Also, their oaks are a protected species. In contrast, in Los Gatos it is only necessary to have 40,000 square feet to build your home. We understand the general plan committee is working on a second version of the hillside requirements and possibly we should wait to understand the updates. Nevertheless, it seems Cupertino and Saratoga have much more experience building on hillsides successfully. Trouble looming for Los Gatos — Last year in Los Gatos, during hearings on the North 40 development, it seemed like there was significant pressure on the planning commission by the presence of the developer's Berliner Cohen attorneys as the development case was made. The planning commission folded early and approved to town council. Ultimately, local residents will be left with many unaddressed issues. Our infrastructure is already suffering with school and beach traffic clogging our access; it can take thirty minutes just to get through town during peak times. With North 40, not to mention Alberto Way and Nefflix and Novitiate and shady lane traffic, our 80-year old infrastructure will be further tested. Like North 40, the Surrey Farm Estates land has been forever agricultural. That it will be rezoned to housing seems unprecedented in our community. Three variances granted simultaneously seems like a lot to approve at one time. Please let's slow the growth down so we can absorb it properly. If the land can't stay resource conservation please consider one house per five acres.Thank you again for your time and considerations. Respectfully submitted, Jon and Marsha Witkin 188 Twin Oaks Drive Los Gatos Intermittent residents since 1955 April 24, 2018 239 Marchmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 SUBJECT: SURREY FARM ESTATES PLANNED DEVELOPMENT Dear Mayor Rennie, Vice -Mayor Leonardis, and Council Members Jensen, Sayoc, Spector: I oppose the Surrey Farm Estates Planned Development and hope the Town will enforce its own goals and policies and reject this development. The Town has often failed to honor its own policies, and allowing this development would be one more case in which the Town overruled its own General Plan to let a Planned Development move forward. The project would clearly violate these parts of the General Plan: 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 habits and migration corridors, and viewsheds. 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. I frequently pass this area going down Kennedy Road, and I would sorely miss the beauty of its hillsides if they were used for residences. I'm sure that the deer and other wildlife that cross the area would miss the open hillsides even more. I was very surprised that the Planning Commission allowed this project to go through without any serious consideration of why this area was protected by the Williamson Act. It seems to me that the protections provided by the Williamson Act should be honored in relation to the Surrey Farms project. I feel that these protections have been tossed aside without respect for open space and the goals of the Act ... as well as for the goals and policies of this Town's General Plan. I believe the Town is in much greater need of this splendid open space than of 10 additional multi- million dollar homes. It is also my understanding that the project would require the building of a road the impact of which has not been studied in the current EIR. I don't understand how a project can move forward without an evaluation of the impact of a new road. I also believe the Town should respect the expectations of the current residents. Residents on Longmeadow and adjacent streets bought their homes with the expectation that the existing zoning, General Plan designation, and Williamson Act contract would be honored. The Town has a responsibility to respect the hopes and dreams of the current residents, some of whom built their dream homes based on promises that should continue to be in effect. Sincerely, Barbara Dodson Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Resource Conservation Space Proposal On Apr 24, 2018, at 8:17 PM, Ann D Beverly <bevfam@verizon.net> wrote: I would like to voice my opposition to the proposal to develop a 10 home subdivision in the Resource Conservation Space behind the Surry Farm neighborhood. Why do we need to develop this hillside? I live in Surry Farm and already have issues with drainage and underground springs. Every home in this neighborhood has sump pumps to control the excess water. Developing the hillside will only increase this issue. There are so many animals living in this area and where are they expected to go when their home is paved and fenced? There is no reason to develop the hillside other than greed. Is it greed that controls our town or do you have an appreciation for the quality of life in Los Gatos? Is 10 houses more important than the Williamson Act that protects the land, animals and trees of the hillside? I just don't understand why we need 10 additional houses in Los Gatos, isn't developing the North 40 enough? Please vote against this proposal. Sincerely, Ann Beverly 162 Clover Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Letter of concern for Surrey Farms Estate development (deadline 10/9 5pm) On Apr 24, 2018, at 9:30 PM, Mark Weiner <mark@weiner-familv.net> wrote: Hello Laurel, Pls see below for a short letter that I sent to our Planning Commission in late 2015, as the Dodge Family/Surrey Farms hillside development project starting moving forward. As this development is now coming before you for a decision, I would like to share my letter and concerns with you as well. As a lifetime Los Gatan, and 10-year committee/commission member, I believe I understand the values of our Town, as well as the trade-offs you as a Council member have to address week in/out. Given the impact on our neighborhood and town landscape, I respectfully request that you decline the current development request (and/or scale it back significantly, which is probably the best outcome for all). Thank you for reading my email and attachment! Mark Weiner Surrey Farms resident General Plan Committee'97-'05 Community Service Commission '92-'93 Forwarded Message --- From: "markCa?weiner-familv.net" <mark(a7weiner-family.net> To: "olannincAlosgatosca.gov" <planninoRlosuatosca.gov> Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 4:11 PM Subject: Letter of concern for Surrey Farms Estate development (deadline 10/9 5pm) Dear Planning Commission and Town Dept, Pls see my attached letter of concern for the pending development in Surrey Farms. Sincerely, Mark Weiner General Plan Committee '97-'05 <Weiner letter to LG Planning Commission 10-15.docx> October 6, 2015 Dear Planning Commissioners, I know you have received many letters from the neighbors in Surrey Farms regarding the pending Dodge development. Thus I will keep mine brief (my wife wrote a longer letter as well). I understand how the Planning Commission has to look at projects like the Dodge/Surrey Farms development independently - I worked closely with Planning for eight years while serving on the General Plan Committee. From my perspective (and General Plan experience), I see several issues with this development and the associated draft EIR. First, this hillside was not purchased or intended for the development of ten large homes. Bob Dodge kept it under the Williamson Act exactly for that reason, and did not intend for it to be "sprawled with homes" when he designed and built much of what has become the Surrey Farms neighborhood. This neighborhood will never be the same - and the character created by Mr. Dodge - will be gone forever. Secondly, the traffic impact of both the many year development (it will obviously take years to develop and sell 10 new custom multi -million dollar homes) and ongoing new houses will significantly impact Surrey Farms residents. Especially those on our street, Twin Oaks Drive, which will no longer be a cuI de sac and instead be a cut -through road for six to ten new homes. Thirdly, the draft EIR seems very strange in finding every single point "less than significant," whether with or without mitigation. Including section 4.2 from Table 2.1 "Land use would not significantly impact any scenic vistas." Ten x 5000 square foot homes against a formerly virgin hillside is "less than significant impact"? I understand that property owners have fundamental rights, and that Town must abide by them. But we also have a responsibility to preserve the core assets and environment of our beloved town. And I'm not sure that we have taken that second point to heart (or action) as Town has looked at this development project to date. Thanks for considering all aspects of this project. Sincerely, Mark Weiner 130 Twin Oaks Dr. General Plan Committee 1997-2005; Community Service Commission 1992-93 Ann Hosein 15959 Cerro Vista Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 710-0408 ann_hosein@yahoo.com April 25, 2018 Dear Los Gatos Town Council, We moved to Cerro Vista Court in Los Gatos in 2010. Our 2 children were going to middle school at the time, and we all loved the neighborhood. We see deer, wild rabbits, coyotes, and foxes regularly in the beautiful hillside next to our Court. We bought in this neighborhood because of the open space and the few houses here, all on 1+ acre lots. My family and I would like to implore the Town Council to keep the Williamson Act in place at least until it expires in 2025. The General Plan shows the open space and how important it is to the overall landscape of the Town of Los Gatos_ This will protect the wildlife as well as the beautiful old oak trees on the property. In the unfortunate case that the Williamson Act be cancelled, then we would agree with the members of the Planning Commission that unanimously agreed that 2 of the 4 lots coming out of the Cerro Vista Court entrance should not be built upon (lots 6 & 7) due to the incredibly steep grade of those 2 lots. Mary Bedame voiced her concerns about the amount of cut and fill that would need to be done, and said "...Jots 6 & 7 on slopes that are borderline 30 degrees.....privacy issues, prominently visually....I'm having some difficulty with the intensity of the development being 10 lots." Michael Kane shared his concerns on lots 6 & 7. Kathryn Janoff also has concerns about the traffic on Shannon Road and Cerro Vista Drive and protecting open spaces: "...fewer homes would mitigate these problems; reducing the number of lots would be better." In addition, Matthew Nudes voiced concerns about open space access and well as the destruction of trees. He specifically was concerned with which trees would be saved and which would be destroyed, since this property has some very old and beautiful trees on it. My family agrees with the concerns and recommendations coming out of the Planning Commission and that the developer must not put 4 homes off our small neighborhood of only 5 homes now. If the developer is able to put 2 new houses in our neighborhood, we would like to see the developer do some improvements to the neighborhood: Repave the roads that the construction trucks will be using (Cerro Vista Court and a portion of Cerro Vista Drive) 2. Street lamps added/replaced and maintained 3. The trail through the neighborhood cleared and maintained 4. Trim back the trees along the roads to ensure easier access 5. Ensure proper drainage for all new homes / lots Please contact me at ann hosein@yahoo.com if you have any questions. Warm regards, Ann Hosein fry Page 2 Jennifer Armer From: Mark Johnson <neighbor@mjohnson.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 12:50 PM To: Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; BSpector; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc Cc: Jennifer Armer Subject: (for May 1 Council mtg): Statement about proposed Twin Oaks / Surrey Farm development Sent Wednesday April 25th, 12:50PM Dear Town Council members, I'm Mark Johnson, I live at 100 Twin Oaks Drive in Los Gatos; on the corner of Twin Oaks & Longmeadow. I write to implore you to vote AGAINST the development proposed in the Twin Oaks / Surrey Farm area, which will be presented at the Town Council meeting on May 1st. In my view, the drainage proposals and the standing water ponds they include, pose a significant danger to our neighborhood, and to the kids at adjoining Hillbrook School. When another El Nino or Pineapple Express storm arrives, these could easily overflow and significantly damage homes, with mudslides, or flooding, or both. Mud and debris carried down the hill and into the proposed drainage "sluices" (sorry I don't know the engineering word) can, during a heavy storm, quickly fill and overflow the proposed ponds, spilling over into residents' yards and school grounds. That's not just an inconvenience, not just a financial setback (cleanup costs), it's also a legitimate health risk. It might even become a liability for the Town too, if people are injured and decide to file lawsuits. I'm also very concerned that during the dry season, these ponds will be natural breeding grounds for mosquitoes and other unwanted pests. Nobody wants to live near a mosquito pond and they surely don't want to send their kids to school next to one. There are zero ponds now and in my opinion the correct number of ponds in the future is also: zero. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to express my concerns. Sincerely, Mark Johnson This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://naol.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.avast.com%2Fantivirus&data=01%7C01%7Cj armer%401osgatosca.gov%7C11b035e829f54735b86808d5aae5dfe2%7C6d38cb6747eb4d139e7c523cd7ccecd5%7C1&s data=dLFZVgNp%2F11bZxVcwNKSOWBsuMFoVknWQ7WBoy6YVBY%3D&reserved=0 Jennifer Armer From: k m <kjirstecmc gmail.com> Date: April 25, 2018 at 5:02:16 PM PDT To: 1prevetti (a4losgato s ca. go v Subject: Surrey Farms/Twin Oaks development Dear Ms. Prevatti, The Town Council will be considering a proposal to develop the hillside adjacent to Surrey Farms on May 1. As an affected resident of the Surrey Farms neighborhood, I'm writing to you to let you know what I think about this proposal. I oppose the cancellation of the Williamson contract and rezoning of the property bordered by Surrey Farms, Cerro Vista and Brooke Acres neighborhoods. Currently, as I drive home along Longmeadow I see green hills and trees, this view will instead become first a construction site, then yet more houses sprawled along the hillside, with far too many lights at night. The land on the hillside was intended to remain a Resource Conservation space and those of us who have homes nearby bought with that understanding. In addition, this development would have a large impact on traffic on Longmeadow, already a problem for the people close to the Kennedy end of the street. Some form of traffic calming will be needed on Longmeadow to keep people from speeding through the downhill and curve at the start of Longmeadow. A few years ago I lived on Loma Alta, the traffic created by people rushing up and down the street to get to and from their homes in the hills was one of the reasons why we moved. Surrey Farms is a neighborhood where people are always out walking their dogs, with kids riding bikes and playing basketball; this development threatens the peace and safety of our streets. If the Williamson contract cancellation and rezoning go forward, I prefer the proposal that more evenly splits home access between Twin Oaks and Cerro Vista. Adding 10 homes to the Surrey Farms neighborhood is equivalent to adding an entire additional street; it is preferable to add fewer homes so that the traffic burden does not fall entirely on Surrey Farms and Kennedy. I am glad there is a pedestrian trail in the plans. If this development goes forward, it should at least create the type of useful public space of that Los Gatos residents appreciate. Many Los Gatos residents, including those in Surrey Farms, love to walk and would appreciate walking trails that connected areas. Right now, Kennedy road between Longmeadow and Brooke Acres is dangerous for walkers, which sharply reduces walking routes in the area. A pedestrian trail in this development would also help provide safe bike routes to school for residents. Thank you! Kjirste Morrell 172 Clover Way It rstecmC gmail.co April 26, 2018 To: Members of the Los Gatos Town Council Re: Cerro Vista Easement: Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms Development Proposal We are original (and current) residents of Cerro Vista Court or Cerro Vista Drive who bought our property from the Cerro Vista developer in 1988-1990. At the time we bought our land we were informed that the "Dodge property" was under a Williamson Act contract and would not be developed for many years, if ever. We were also told, in no uncertain terms, that the two parcels (Cerro Vista and Dodge) would never be connected, even if the Williamson Act contract were to be cancelled. As evidence of this assurance, it was pointed out that "lot 10" in our neighborhood had a 10' wide utility easement in favor of the Dodge property. This easement was needed, it was explained, to make it easier, should the need arise, to get utilities to the portion of Dodge's land at the top of the hill; there was no other means of ingress from Cerro Vista Court. The easement in favor of the Town for "roadway purposes and the installation and maintenance of public utilities" which is now proposed to access the Dodge property, already existed when our subdivision was created. We believe that this easement, recorded in 1973, was granted by the Yabroff family and intended for future development exclusively within Tract 7613, which eventually became known as Cerro Vista. If there was ever any intent to use the Town's easement for roadways and utilities to benefit the Dodge property, why was a separate utility easement recorded specifically for the Dodge property? This utility easement was required by the Town as a condition of approval for our subdivision. We have a letter from the Planning Department dated July 5, 1984 requiring, among other things, "...a utility easement from Cerro Vista or Cerro Vista Court to serve the property to the southwest (Dodge)." A scanned copy of this letter is attached. For the reasons stated above, we were completely blindsided when the "Two Access" Alternative" was proposed. We had every reason to believe that our street had clearly defined parameters that would not be breached. We would like for you to consider this historical information in your deliberations about the number and location of lots (if any) to be accessed from Cerro Vista Court. Sometimes what can be done and what should be done are not the same. Submitted by: Cindy and Philip Shanker 15949 Cerro Vista Court Daniel Wencel 15975 Cerro Vista Drive (original owner/occupant of 15951 Cerro Vista Court (continued) Mishy and Jason Balaban 16075 Cerro Vista Drive P.S. We have a heard a lot of speculation from both sides as to whether the elder Mr. Dodge intended for his land to be developed or left as open space. The existence of the utility easement does not prove anything except that Mr. Dodge considered building one home on the property, he wanted to build it near the top of the hill, and he did not expect to have ingress -egress from Cerro Vista Court. One house can be built on Resource Conservation land. Near the top of the hill would be a desirable place to put such a home. (please see 1984 letter on next page) TOWN of> ilassiniettopiatmett July 5, i984 Cerra Vista Limited Partnership 257 Castro Street, Suite 2A Mountain View, CA 94041 RE: Shannon ROM Su1adTvisfon Application M-81-4A Gentlemen: The TOwn of t,os Gatos Planning Commission, at its meeting of dune 2/, 7984, made the following findings: 1. There would be no legal impediment to granting a new application for the sumo. approval. 2. The conditions originally applied or new conditions to be applied as a part of the extension approval are adapted to any new facts concerning the pro- poses project. The time extension, for M-8I-4A is approved, subject to the folloning conditions: '. A Final Map shall be filed, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer. 2, Right -of -ray snail be dedicated, to the satisfaction of the ToWn Engineer, to provide: a. 40-foot right-of-way for the extensions of Cerro Vista and Hilltop Drive and Cerro Vista Court. h. Slope and utility easements, including a utility easement from Cerro Vista or Cerro Vista Court to serve the property to the southwest [ Dodge) , c. Ingress -egress easement for aces to the Smith property. d. Emergency access road. 3. Guarantee, by contract and bond, the following movements, to the satis- faction o, the Town Engineer: (Continued on P.a•ge 2) April 26, 2018 To: Members of the Los Gatos Town Council From: Residents of Cerro Vista Court and Cerro Vista Drive Re: Neighborhood Statement: Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms Proposed Development The undersigned residents submit the following comments for your consideration: Williamson Act: We see no reason why the Williamson Act contract should be cancelled in advance of its normal 2025 expiration date. Others have written extensively on this topic, and we concur with their statements. General Plan designation and zone change (Resource Conservation vs HR-1:PD. This is another topic that has been extensively written about, and again we generally agree with leaving the land designated as Resource Conservation. If the above items are decided in favor of development, we wish to state the following: 1. Our Neighborhood: The density of the proposed development off of Cerro Vista Court has always been a major concern for our neighborhood. Our court has only 5 homes on it, and the applicant proposes to add 4 more. This is a disproportionate impact on our neighborhood. Our court has a wooded, rustic, secluded feel to it, which is different from the look and feel of other areas bordering the applicant's property. One of the reasons we chose to live in this neighborhood is that it is small and self-contained. The proposed development does not comply with General Plan Goal LU-6: To preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of place in residential neighborhoods. The four lots suggested for Cerro Vista access are hillside lots and as such present certain challenges. Lots 6 and 7, which face our court, are wooded and have a 30% slope. There are many old, beautiful oak trees and there is abundant wildlife. The following comments regarding the Twin Oaks proposal were noted in the minutes of a meeting of the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee on September 8, 2010: Clustering development at the bottom of the hill is desirable (our comment: 4 of 9 proposed lots are on the hillside, accessed from our court). Rural character should be maintained (our comment: proposed lots 6 and 7 are clearly the most rural, with abundant trees, natural vegetation and wildlife; the proposed road and homes would dramatically impact the environment and the character of our neighborhood). Lots 6 and 7 present the biggest challenge (slope, geotechnical, visibility) (our comment: whether for this reason or others, the Planning Commission recommended against building on these two proposed lots. We support that recommendation). Concerned about visibility of home site on lot 7 (our comment: we are not sure whether this is still an issue or not; the driveway/grading may be a bigger problem). It has been almost 8 years since the above meeting of the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee and the applicant has done little, if anything, to satisfactorily address the issues raised. We believe this information supports our assertion that it is inappropriate to have 4 of the 9 proposed lots accessed off of our court. 2. The environmental impact of the proposed road connecting Cerro Vista Court to the applicant's property: The Two Access Alternative is described as the "environmentally superior alternative." There is truth in this description, but it is not the whole truth. The fact that it involves less grading and less impact on a riparian area is a valid point. But the "environmentally superior" slogan fails to acknowledge environmental impacts created by adding an access road off of Cerro Vista Court, particularly the proposed location of the road. These impacts involve degradation of the natural landscape, with impacts to a number of Protected Trees, including Large Protected Trees. Town Policy ENV-1.1 is to "Preserve trees that are protected under the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance, as well as other native heritage, heritage and specimen trees." Michael Bench, Project Arborist, reviewed the environmental impact to trees under the Alternative Access plan. He stated that with the new road, protected Valley Oaks # 160 (11"), 163 (10"), 164 (11"), and 165 (Coast Live Oak) are proposed to be transplanted. Saving trees by transplanting them sounds so nice. Everyone can feel good about the idea. However, the reality is that quite often those trees do not have a happy ending. We have been told by a Town Planner, a member of the Town Council and numerous credible online resources that transplanted trees often fail to thrive. This is disturbing, as is the idea that simply planting a few new (younger, smaller) trees somehow mitigates the loss. And how do you compensate for the flowing, natural beauty of trees in an unspoiled environment? Even more disturbing are Mr. Bench's comments about two Large Protected Trees that would be impacted. He states in his report, "The proposed Alternative Access road would significantly impact Trees # 161 (56 inch diameter Valley Oak) and Tree # 383 (49 inch diameter Valley Oak)". He further states, "an estimated 30% of the root zone of Tree 161 would be damaged by fill and retaining wall construction, but Tree # 161 would be expected to survive with regular irrigation for 3 years". •Tree #161 is a Large Protected Tree, estimated to be a minimum of 150 years old. It is the oldest and largest tree in the entire 17+ acres. We are concerned about this tree's vulnerability and greater susceptibility to pathogens and other environmental insults while it is in a weakened state from having such a large part of its root system damaged. We spoke with Mr. Bench recently and although he did not entirely disavow his conclusion, he made it quite clear that predicting tree survival is an inexact science. He stated that 30% of the root zone is a significant amount of damage, and that drought conditions, which weaken oak trees, worsened significantly since he made his report (2013/2014). The California Oak Foundation's bulletin states "Any substantial change in the mature oak's environment can weaken or kill an oak, even a healthy specimen" and "By the time a mature oak has established its elaborate root system — so well designed for its environment and particular site conditions, it has lost the vigor of youth. It is Iess tolerant of change and can less easily recover to support a fully developed living structure." Mr. Bench also states in his report, "An estimated 20% of the root zone of Tree # 383 (49 inch diameter Valley Oak) would be damaged by the road construction, including the construction of the proposed retaining walls. It is expected to survive this road construction, but the impact to Tree # 383 would not be limited to the road construction. The proposed new residence on Lot 6 would adversely impact the root system of Tree #383 by an estimated 10% -15%. Also, the impacts of the Iandscape amenities upon Tree #383 cannot be assessed at this time, but these impacts (road, residence, landscape) must not be considered separate and independent but must be considered collectively." Do trees 161 and 383 (along with trees 160, 163, 164 and 165) seem like trees a "City of Trees" would want to put in jeopardy? It should be noted that if lots 6 and 7 are not approved, placing the road where it is currently proposed seems environmentally indefensible. There are other aspects of this proposed development that we find troublesome, some of which may be mentioned in other statements. However, as a group we chose to focus on the most severe potential impacts to our neighborhood, and hope that by doing so our message is stronger. Thank you for considering our input. Sara and Scott Brown 15961 Cerro Vista Court Ann and Clyde Hosein 15959 Cerro Vista Court Cindy and Philip Shanker 15949 Cerro Vista Court Helen Tahn and Eric Chen 15951 Cerro Vista Court (Note: 15955 Cerro Vista Court is currently unoccupied) Jan Schwartz and Bob Baden 15966 Cerro Vista Drive Daniel Wencel 15975 Cerro Vista Drive Michele and Jason Balaban 16075 Cerro Vista Drive Michelle Cesario 15970-A Cerro Vista Drive Ervie L. Smith 16025 Cerro Vista Drive Chrissy and Forrest Monroy 15970 Cerro Vista Drive Vlad Novotny 16105 Cerro Vista Drive Jennifer Armer From: John Morrell <john.morrell86@gmaii.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:43 PM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Fwd: Surrey Farms/Twin Oaks development Dear Ms. Armer, Please find attached a letter I emailed to the mayor and vice -mayor this evening. Regards, John Morrell 172 Clover Way iohn.morrell86(c�c mail.com On April 25, 2018 at 7:40:45 PM, John Morrell (john.morre1186Ca),gmail.com) wrote: Dear Mayor Rennie and Vice Mayor Leonardis, I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed cancellation of the Williamson Contract and subsequent development of additional homes on Surrey Farms (Twin Oaks/Brook Acres neighborhoods. First, the neighborhood access is becoming overloaded on Longmeadow Rd. In the long term, adding 20-30 cars to this area will increase the traffic risks to residents of Longmeadow who already struggle to manage speeding cars. In the short term, the construction vehicles will significantly impact these residents, many of whom have small children. Access via Olde Rd is inferior due to the grade and sight lines, which forces traffic to Longmeadow. Second, greenspace in Los Gatos is a precious commodity that needs to be respected and preserved. Changing the zoning plan based upon the commercial desires of a developer is not a community oriented decision - it is a profit oriented one that appears to serve the needs of the few. The proposed houses will do nothing to increase housing for smaller families or couples who would like to live in Los Gatos. The houses appear to be oversized relative to the neighborhood. None of the current residents moved into Surrey Farms so they could live down the hill from McMansions. Third, many of the homes in Surrey Farms have ground water in their crawlspaces with multiple mitigation systems. Altering the uphill environment may shift the course of that water, increasing the problems for current residents. These effects may not be obvious until we get a rainy winter. Lastly, Los Gatos needs to embrace density over sprawl. I would support zoning that allowed greater vertical heights in currently developed areas in order to preserve green space. Sprawl is not good long term path. The General Plan for the Town of Los Gatos represents a commitment to the Los Gatos Community. Residents who purchase property and commit to live in Los Gatos have a reasonable expectation that zoning plans will be followed. The proposed rezoning is a violation of that trust and commitment. In the event that the need for these properties is overwhelming, I would ask that you require some changes that would make these properties work more effectively for both the new owners and the current residents. 1) Require the development to have a road to the south connecting these properties directly to Kennedy Road so that the new traffic can access the properties easily, without traveling on Longmeadow Rd. If there is room for 10 more houses then there's room for a road. 2) Install traffic multiple calming devices on Longmeadow Rd during construction to protect the current residents from contractor vehicles. Impose noise curfews and dust control for heavy machinery during construction. 3) Require the developer to cover costs related to site drainage and water management problems in current homes that will result from altering the hillside. Best Regards, John Morrell 172 Clover Way iohn.morrel1864ornail.com Jennifer Armer From: Nancy Means <nancy@nmeans.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 7:47 PM To: Jennifer Armer Cc: Attorney Subject: Proposed Surrey Farms/Twin Oaks Development Dear Ms. Armer, My name is Nancy Means Johnson, and reside at 100 Twin Oaks Drive, on the corner of Twin Oaks Drive and Longmeadow Dr. I am writing to you to express my dismay at the proposed development. What brought us to this community was the delight we felt with the serenity, and lovely appearance of the neighborhood. We like to say that we we live on the corner of "Dead End" and Dead End". The only truck traffic is from neighbors improving their own properties. This proposal will completely destroy that serenity, with endless heavy truck traffic. That blessed quietude will be a thing of the past. The proposed drainage ditch and open collection pond will drench our neighborhood with mosquitos. We have drainage problems now when rains are heavy. The town will not be there to help. Why would the town change the the zone from the Resource Conservation space? There is so little left, and it will never come back. What happened to the General plan? This will destroy the neighborhood. Our quality of life will be gone. I hope that this doesn't fall on deaf ears, and our elected officials will listen to the people that put them in office, and choose us over the developer that will walk away from here as soon as as the project is approved. Very truly yours, Nancy Means Johnson nancy@nmeans.com Ms. Jennifer T Arrner, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Subject: Recommendation Regarding Twin Oaks/Surrey Farm Estates Revised Plans Scheduled for Town Council May 1, 2018 References: 1. Your email dated April 6, 2018 2. My letter to the Town Council dated April 6, 2018 Dear Ms. Arrner, April 24, 2018. My letter of April 6, ?018, to the Town Councilrecommended the land in question be preserved i►i its natural state in perpetuity. This would be the finest action for maintaining the quality of life for the residents of Los Gatos. Certainly, the Town should not consider ending the Agricultural Preserve status before its expiration_ The purpose of this note is to request that if ancd when the Town should ever consider this parcel for development, it should require a plan that would be in full compliance with the Towns regulations for hillside development, flood control, and erivironrnelital and health protection with no exceptions and mitigating measures. The process followed by the applicant and Town to date has yielded only nine --house and ten -house alternatives #or this development. This is an extremely high number of noires relatrue to the steep slopes, the propensity to flooding, and limited access to the land. This extreme density for this parcel could only be achieved by granting a large number of exceptions to Town land development regulations and by invoking several mitigating measures in attempt to deal with the consequences of the exceptions. As examples: exceeding land pill and cut limits for roads, building two lakes for partial flood control ;at significant health risk for the community), and depending (unrealistically) on a small Homeowner's Association to maintain and repair the completed development. There is at least one other alternative that should be considered by the Town before approving any development of this land: A plan showing the preferred access to and location of the maximum number of homes that could be supported an this land without any exceptions to the Towri's applicable hillside development regulations and without having to .build the flood control lakes. I offer the following example for your consideration: - Develop the !and as a small cluster of homes at the base of the hillside near the Dodge property, on lots of comparable size to the kits in Surrey Farm. - Leave all remaining land undeveloped and dedicated to permanent open space to avoid scarring the existing natural conditions that have existed on the hill for over 70 years. Establish a walking tail from the access road off Twin Oaks Drive to Cerro Vista Court and Brooke Acres Drive to retercarrnect the three communities. - Establish a drainage system connected to the existing system serving Twin Oaks Drive and Longmeadow Drive, thereby avoiding the need for the flood control basins. firmly believe that such an option should be detailed by the applicant if h.e decides to develop the land at the end of the present Agricultural Preserve agreement, Please provide this letter to all members of the Planning Commission and Town Council. Sincerely Yours, Christophdr Bajorek, Ph. ' 12OO Clover Way . t os Gatos, CA 95032 Jennifer Armer From: Sent: To: Subject: Fordyce, Jack (SJC) <Jack.Fordyce@colliers.com> Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:43 AM Jennifer Armer; Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marcia Jensen; Marico Sayoc; BSpector; Laurel Prevetti; Attorney Surrey Farms/ Twin Oaks Development Dear Los Gatos Town Council, My name is Jack Fordyce, and I grew up living at 191 Longmeadow Drive. I am writing you today to speak on my concern about the proposed development taking place on Surrey Farms. Surrey Farms to me, and to everyone in my neighborhood, is a perfect example of the beautiful nature aspect of Los Gatos- a rare and unique quality specific to our town. A dear part of growing up here for me and my family, was the beautiful hillside just beyond our backyard. It was/is common to see deer roaming the hill and hear the birds chirping from the trees which are scattered throughout the hillside. Speaking on the species specifically, I believe the proposed development is a huge detriment- and in fact very dangerous for all wildlife that have always known Surrey Farms as home. When it comes to safety, the aspect of the having constant construction on the hill, does not bode well for my neighbors and my family. The possibility or erosion, poor drainage, and flooding is very threatening to say the least. Because of all the development that Los Gatos has gone through recently, in my honest opinion Los Gatos has lost some of its natural, small-town feel, that so many grew up loving. Beyond losing some of its beauty, it is common knowledge to anyone living here, that the traffic has cluttered up town beyond reconciliation. I can't imagine why anyone would want to make it worse than it has already become. Lastly, the history of the neighborhood indicates that the land was intended to remain as Resource Conservation space- it should be kept that way. As a town council making the decisions for the residents of Los Gatos, I urge you to consider our thoughts and opinions. This is a big deal, and in the long haul, will affect our town and neighborhood exponentially. Jack Fordyce Strategic Sales and Leasing CA License No. 02022745 Direct +1 408 282 3905 Main +1 408 282 3800 f Fax + ; 408 283 4653 jack.fordyce@colliers.com f Add as Contact Colliers International 450 West Santa Clara Street f San Jose, CA 95113 f United States www.colliers.com Corners Jennifer Armer From: Sara B <mamabrown4@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 8:55 AM To: Jennifer Armer; Planning Subject: Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms proposed development Attachments: hillside letter.pages.zip Jennifer, The letter below and attached voices our concerns for the proposed development of the Surrey Farms Hillside. Sara and Scott Brown 15961 Cerro Vista Court Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members, First I wish to thank all the members for meeting with several of the Cerro Vista neighborhood homeowners over the past two weeks to hear our concerns about the proposed development of the Surrey Farms Hillside. In my February letter to the planning commission I stated my concerns about the early cancelation of the Williamson Act and the consequence of losing one of the few open hillside land parcels close to our town. My husband and I own a five acre parcel of land that is also in the Williamson Act, at the top of Cerro Vista Court. One of the biggest reasons we chose to move to Los Gatos two years ago was because of the beautiful and varied setting: the historic downtown neighborhoods, the quaint yet bustling downtown, the quiet rural areas as you leave the center of town, and of course the glorious Santa Cruz Mountains in the distance. We were thrilled to find a home that was close to schools, friends, and stores, but that was placed along the hillside where wildlife, open space, and nature abound. Like many others who have spoken or written over the years, I am opposed to this project and believe it is inconsistent with the Town's stated goals of sustainability and preservation. There are very few RC zoned parcels remaining in Los Gatos; even fewer that provide the beautiful backdrop to more densely populated neighborhoods and a school. I fear this project will irrevocably harm the hillside's natural habitat, completely change the appearance and charm of the hillside, negatively impact the two neighborhoods where the proposed streets will be built, and create safety concerns along an already busy and dangerous intersection of Shannon and Cerro Vista Roads. During the last meeting of the Planning Commission, several members stated their concerns about this project which echo those of our neighborhood. They raised concerns about cut and fill, traffic problems along Shannon Road, the steep slope of lots 6 and 7 and privacy issues with the prominence of those proposed houses. Mary Badame mentioned several times her concern (citing the Hillside Development Standards and Guidlines), stating, "I'm having some difficulty with the intensity of the development being 10 lots." She recommended the total number of lots be 5-8, not 10. Michael Kane agreed with her objections to building the two upper hillside lots , stating, "I share your concerns with 6 and 7...intensity, density, preservation of the views.. these are things to put in the record that we are concerned to with." He also advised the developer to look over the minutes from the September 8, 2010 CDAC meeting where 15 points were made regarding this proposed project. "Even then they were talking about lots 6 and 7, slope, geotech, and visibility... and I would also look at the subject of passion of the general plan when it says how things should be and how things should preserved in Los Gatos." Kathryn Janoff agreed that a new number for the development was needed, with a maximum of 8 lots, preserving the open space, saving as many trees as possible, protecting the riparian area, and looking carefully at the visibility impact of the proposed homes. She also raised the point that Cerro Vista Court and Drive have unique safety concerns that are subjective in nature and should be considered. Matthew Hudes brought up critical questions about the trees on the hillside and which ones will be saved, which will be destroyed. Should the council decides to allow the early cancelation of the Williamson Act on this property (which would set an unfortunate precedent), and allow for some development of this rural hillside by changing the RC zoning, we ask that you: ▪ remove lots 6 and 7 from the upper slopes as specifically stated in the recommendations by the planning commission. • reduce the number of remaining lots taking into account environmental factors such as slope, cut and fill, visual impact on neighbors ▪ make every effort to ensure that the environmental impact on the trees and wildlife is minimized • look at measures to improve the safety of the intersection at Cerro Vista Drive at Shannon Road • assure the residents of the Cerro Vista neighborhood that our roads will be repaved and repaired once any construction is completed. Thank you for your time and consideration, Sara Brown Scott Brown Distant view of the upper hillside of Surrey Farms. In the foreground is a portion of our hillside and our neighbor's- All are currently protected under the Williamson Act. Sent from my iPhone 669-777-8144 Please excuse brevity and typos .Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Surrey Farms On Apr 25, 2018, at 7:55 AM, Karen Brown <jksmdbrown@earthlink.net> wrote: Dear Council Members, We have lived in the Surrey Farms neighborhood for more than 20 years. We raised our family here. What drew us to this unique neighborhood were the quaint ranch -style homes, the quiet cul-de-sacs, the views of the hills with open space and the large, private lots. These are the things that make Surrey Farms such a special place to live. We feel that it would be tragic to forever change the landscape of this serene, beautiful neighborhood by building 10 large homes on the open space above us. If this project is approved, we are particularly concerned about 2-way access into this neighborhood, via Cerro Vista Drive and Twin Oaks Drive. Please take into consideration that the WAZE traffic application and other driving applications will direct beach commuters coming from the Shannon Road, San Jose/Almaden areas through our neighborhood to avoid traffic on Highways 85 and 17. We have witnessed the complete gridlock caused by these driving apps on Kennedy Road and the streets that run parallel to Kennedy on summer weekends for the past couple of years. Please keep this in mind as you make your decision. Please save Surrey Farms! Thank You, Karen and James Brown Blueberry Hill Drive Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: development On Apr 25, 2018, at 8:12 AM, Donna Wallerstein <violetwall@comcast.net> wrote: Dear Town Council Members, We are writing regarding the plan under review to build 10 homes on the Resource Conservation Space not far from our neighborhood. How is it that space designated as conservation space can even be considered for development? If we continue to build, our town is going to look very like the New Jersey towns that we moved away from: where one town blends into the next with little to distinguish one from the other. Los Gatos has made many, many mistakes with development in the 10 years that we have lived here as evidenced by the Laurel Mews "neighborhood" by Fisher Middle School. Traffic is horrendous and getting worse. Kennedy Road is dangerous now - imagine if we keep building houses there and put even more traffic on the streets. Please conserve the little open space that we have left in our town and save it for future generations while you still can. Many thanks, Donna & Robert Wallerstein 16557 Marchmont Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 Jennifer Armer Subject: RE: Surrey Farms/Twin Oaks development On Apr 25, 2018, at 4:59 PM, k m <kjirstecm@gmail,com> wrote: Dear Ms. Sayoc, The Town Council will be considering a proposal to develop the hillside adjacent to Surrey Farms on May 1. As an affected resident of the Surrey Farms neighborhood, I'm writing to you to let you know what I think about this proposal. 1 oppose the cancellation of the Williamson contract and rezoning of the property bordered by Surrey Farms, Cerro Vista and Brooke Acres neighborhoods. Currently, as I drive home along Longmeadow I see green hills and trees, this view will instead become first a construction site, then yet more houses sprawled along the hillside, with far too many lights at night. The land on the hillside was intended to remain a Resource Conservation space and those of us who have homes nearby bought with that understanding. In addition, this development would have a large impact on traffic on Longmeadow, already a problem for the people close to the Kennedy end of the street. Some form of traffic calming will be needed on Longmeadow to keep people from speeding through the downhill and curve at the start of Longmeadow. A few years ago I lived on Loma Alta, the traffic created by people rushing up and down the street to get to and from their homes in the hills was one of the reasons why we moved. Surrey Farms is a neighborhood where people are always out walking their dogs, with kids riding bikes and playing basketball; this development threatens the peace and safety of our streets. If the Williamson contract cancellation and rezoning go forward, I prefer the proposal that more evenly splits home access between Twin Oaks and Cerro Vista. Adding 10 homes to the Surrey Farms neighborhood is equivalent to adding an entire additional street; it is preferable to add fewer homes so that the traffic burden does not fall entirely on Surrey Farms and Kennedy. 1 am glad there is a pedestrian trail in the plans. If this development goes forward, it should at least create the type of useful public space of that Los Gatos residents appreciate. Many Los Gatos residents, including those in Surrey Farms, love to walk and would appreciate walking trails that connected areas. Right now, Kennedy road between Longmeadow and Brooke Acres is dangerous for walkers, which sharply reduces walking routes in the area. A pedestrian trail in this development would also help provide safe bike routes to school for residents. Thank you! Kjirste Morrell 172 Clover Way kjirstecm@gmail.com Jennifer Armer From: "Steinbock, Bob @ San Jose" <Bob.Steinbock@cbre.com> Date: April 25, 2018 at 9:21:21 PM PDT To: "rrennie@Iosgatosca.gov" <rrennie r(i7' iosgatosca.gov>, "sleonardis@losgatosca.gov" <sleonardis@losgatosca.gov>, u mjensen@losgatosca.gov" <mjensen@losgatosca.gov>, "msavoc@losgatosca.gov" <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>, "bspector@osgatosta.gov" <bspector@losgatosca.gov>, "Iprevetti@losgatosca.gov" <Iprevetti@losgatosea.gov>, "attorney@losgatosca.gov" <attorney@Iosgatosca.gov> Subject: Surrey Farms Development Ladies and Gentlemen, Although this is not the first time I have written about the development proposed on the pristine 17 acres off Twin Oaks Drive in Los Gatos. The fact that you have been charged with keeping the character of the Town is paramount to the discussions I am sure will surround the May 1, 2018 meeting. That being said, I believe the most significant issues with this proposed development include: • The grading, cut and fill of the hillside that would have to occur for 10 homes, 2 private streets, curb gutter, etc. ▪ Removal of protected trees (137 "impacted" and 71 removed ) • There are large drainage ditches proposed on the site which would appear to be counter to keeping the natural character of the hillside. • The EIR states there would be only 10 peak trips in the AM and 9 in the PM. With 10 homes in excess of 5,000 sf, this would appear to be woefully inadequate for homes that would have at least 2 people that drive every day to and from their places of employment, unless the plan is the sell the lots to retirees, which would seem improbable. • There is a timeline of possibly 10 years of construction traffic/ safety concerns which would be intolerable for our small Surrey Farms Community. • There would be significant pollution and other health impacts from grading, dust, construction and truck exhaust with more than 600 truck trips for the infrastructure alone. That would appear to be more than 60 truck trips per site which would seem inordinate for a development of any size. • Loss of open space/ wildlife habitat/ rural hillside which the planning committee has decided would be acceptable with mitigation. if we are to believe mitigation would solve all the issues, then any and all open space can be developed with mitigation procedures which is woefully inadequate by any standard for anyone developing any project. • Loss of important wildlife species and vegetation -which is also seemingly solved by mitigation. • Very little Resource Conservation space (otherwise known as open space) left in Los Gatos which is likely the most precious resource in our community. • Developer is asking for exceptions to hillside grading and riparian setback requirements. How is it that we can allow a general plan amendment, zoning change and exceptions to the Hillside development in one application? • The Town's General Plan has a stated goal of sustainability and preservation of neighborhoods; how is this development consistent with this goal? • When we purchased and improved our homes in Surrey Farms, we relied on the zoning, General Plan designation, Williamson Act contract, and a fully closed neighborhood (cul de sacs and no access to the hill). Additonally, we depend on you to keep the character of the Town including our neighborhood. At the minimum, shouldn't we have more of a say in what is developed at the site since we are the most effected and impacted. Thank you for your attention this matter and everything you do for our Town. Bob Steinbock 126 Twin Oaks Drive Los Gatos, CA 95032 2cb utci:' ..ock S.en; )rPresident . Lic. 4 01111353 CBRE I Brokerage 225'.1; s`. Sari, Cra ,a Siroat, 2;'1 Floor I Sal Jose, CA 95113 T 408 4587424 F403437 317G C 408 218 7721 Jennifer Armer From: Nancy Means <nancy@nmeans.com> Date: April 25, 2018 at 7:59:30 PM PDT To: <bspector@losgatosca.gov> Cc: <lprevetti[?,losgatosca.gov> Subject: Proposed Surrey Farms/Twin Oaks Drive Development My name is Nancy Means Johnson, and I reside at 100 Twin Oaks Drive, on the corner of Twin Oaks Drive and Longmeadow Dr. 1 am writing to you to express my dismay at the proposed development. What brought us to this community was the delight we felt with the serenity, and lovely appearance of the neighborhood. We like to say that we we live on the comer of "Dead End" and Dead End". The only truck traffic is from neighbors improving their own properties. This proposal will completely destroy that serenity, with endless heavy truck traffic. That blessed quietude will be a thing of the past. The proposed drainage ditch and open collection pond will drench our neighborhood with mosquitos. We have drainage problems now when rains are heavy. The town will not be there to help. Why would the town change the the zone from the Resource Conservation space? There is so little left, and it will never come back. What happened to the General plan? This will destroy the neighborhood. Our quality of life will be gone. 1 hope that this doesn't fall on deaf ears, and our elected officials will listen to the people that put them in office, and choose us over the developer that will walk away from here as soon as as the project is approved. Very truly yours, Nancy Means Johnson nancv ainmeans.com Jennifer Armer From: Jan Schwartz <jsourhilltopAgmail.com> Subject: Twin Oaks DrivelSurrey Farms development Date: April 26, 2018 at 10:01:32 AM PDT To: rrennie a(7losgatosca.gov, sleonardis a(�losgatosca.ciov, bsoector(a�iosgatosca.gov, miensen@iosgatosca.gov, msayocRlosgatosca.gov Cc: Neighbor - Sara Brown <rnamabrown4Rgmaii.com>, Neighbor Michell Cesario <michellecesario[cyahoo.com>, Neighbor Ann & Clyde Hosein <ann hoseinRyahoo.com>, Neighbor Vlad Novotny <vladnovotnyyahoo.com>, Baden Bob & Jan Schwartz <bobbadenverizon.net>, Cindy & Phil Shanker Neighbor <cshanker[acomcast.net>, Neighbor - Daniel & Chris Wencel <saturn476(c�gmaii.com> To: Los Gatos Town Council members First, we would like to express our appreciation to all of you for your willingness to meet with the neighbors of Cerro Vista Court and Drive. You have been accessible and have listened carefully to our concerns. You have received a letter from many of us that we have co -signed, so we will not repeat all of those concerns here. We want to highlight an additional issue for our neighborhood, which is traffic. The intersection of Cerro Vista Drive and Shannon Road is a dangerous one. Heading east, Shannon road dips around -� curve and rises to the intersection. Heading west, there is a curve and a downhill approach. Visibility on both sides is short, and traffic tends to exceed the speed limit heading downhill. The current residents have learned to be super cautious pulling out onto Shannon Road, not relying on a cursory glance in either direction. Adding more traffic at that intersection, especially from a large number of construction workers and others who are not familiar with our neighborhood, is likely to increase the number of accidents. An additional concern is the number of visitors and non-residents who use private driveways (Schwartz at 15966 and Monroy at 15970 Cerro Vista Drive, for example) while looking for other addresses on Cerro Vista Court or Drive. Our driveway is narrow, with a hairpin turn that does not accommodate large trucks. Cars and trucks have damaged the road, and we spent $15,500 to repair it this year. Some of the traffic was legitimately ours of course, but increased traffic will be detrimental. All of the roads off Cerro Vista Drive end in private or small turn-arounds. The fact that they are posted "Private Drive" does not prevent misguided traffic from using them. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sara and Scott Brown 15961 Cerro Vista Court Michelle Cesario 15970-A Cerro Vista Drive Ann and Clyde Hosein 15959 Cerro Vista Court Vlad Novotny 16105 Cerro Vista Drive Jan Schwartz and Robert Baden 15966 Cerro Vista Dr. Cindy and Phil Shanker 15949 Cerro Vista Court Daniel Wencel 15975 Cerro Vista Dr. (all Los Gatos, CA 95032) Jennifer Armer From: Jill Fordyce <jillfordyce@me.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:55 AM To: Rob Rennie; Steven Leonardis; Marico Sayoc; 8Spector; Marcia Jensen; Jennifer Armer Cc: Craig Fordyce; Home Subject: Proposed Surrey Farms/ Twin Oaks Development Attachments: SSFFinal.docx; LandConservationContract.pdf Dear Mayor Rennie, Vice Mayor Leonardis, Council Member Jensen, Council Member Sayoc, and Council Member Spector, You are being asked to consider a proposal to develop a ten -home subdivision on the rural hillside set above the Surrey Farms neighborhood. This land is zoned as Resource Conservation space, and has been in a Williamson Act contract for over forty years. In order to develop ten homes on this hillside, the developer is asking you to cancel the Williamson Act contract, amend the General Plan, rezone the property, and approve an ordinance that would permit the construction of two private roads, ten large homes, and a huge drainage pond on the property. You are also being asked to certify an EIR that we believe is inadequate in that, instead of mitigating harms, it grants exceptions to regulations to allow the developer to build. It also fails to consider a lower density alternative, and fails to address the recently -proposed two -access alternative. This project will do irrevocable harm to the natural habitat and the neighborhoods that surround it, and is inconsistent with the Town's stated goals of sustainability and preservation. Both protected and non -protected species will lose their habitat forever. 137 trees will be "impacted" and 71 of those will be removed — a half acre of ancient oak forest. 81 % of the land is being developed. This land is home to deer, owls, migratory birds, wild turkeys, and other native wildlife. There are no roads that allow access to this hillside, and the developer proposes to build a road through his own residence in order to create this new neighborhood. That home is in Surrey Farms, a neighborhood that, by design, has cul de sacs, no cut -through traffic, and no sidewalks. The aesthetic of this neighborhood will change dramatically as a result of this development. The quaint, rural, quiet neighborhood will now live in the shadow of ten 6,000 square foot homes, looking down on it. The hillside itself will be damaged and degraded, and the developer is asking for an exception to hillside grading requirements, proposing cut and fill depths greater than those permitted by guidelines that exist to protect the integrity of the hillside. The hillside is home to Ross Creek, which will also be adversely impacted by the development. The developer is asking for an exception to the riparian set back requirements, which exist to protect both the waters and the amphibians that rely on the waters. These regulations were created for a reason: to preserve the integrity of the earth itself. The question that must be answered in order to go forward with this project is why? Why would the Town of Los Gatos, with stated objectives of sustainability and protection of hillsides, open space, wildlife habitat, and integrity of neighborhoods, grant these exceptions in order to approve this development? The land was placed in the Williamson Act pursuant to a Land Conservation Contract entered into in 1975. We urge you to read the actual Contract, which appears to include an acknowledgement by both the Town and the Owner that this property was part of a designated preserve prior to the time the contract was entered into. The contract specifically states: "The property is located in an agricultural preserve established by the Town. The Owners and the Town wish to limit the use of the property to agricultural uses and uses compatible with agricultural uses in order to preserve the limited supply of agricultural land, to discourage the premature or unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and to permit the maintenance of open space and land of rural character. The Owners and the Town recognise that agricultural land has public value 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 California." With very little Resource Conservation space left, and rural lands being lost to housing projects throughout town, we urge the Town Council to follow the Town's original plan for this property —a plan that seems to have existed prior to the Williamson Act Contract —and recognize its value as open space. Because approval of this development is a multi -layered process, we've divided our comments into the following separate sections (attached hereto as one document): I. Due to the History of the Property and the Neighborhood, Surrey Farms Residents Have Relied on the Property Remaining Undeveloped II. Why Would the Town Cancel the Williamson Act Contract? III. Why Would the Town Amend the General Plan? IV. Why Would the Town Rezone the Property? V. The Project Asks for Multiple Exceptions and Does Not Abide By the Hillside Development Standards VI. The Impacts of this Project on the Land and Our Neighborhood VII. What Happened at the Planning Commission VIII. The Impact of the Project on Our Home and Family Thank you for taking the time to read comments and for your service to the Town of Los Gatos. Kind Regards, Jill & Craig Fordyce 191 Longmeadow Drive I. Due to the History of the Property and the Neighborhood, Surrey Farms Residents Have Relied on the Property Being Designated as Resource Conservation Space In 1956, the original Surrey Farms Development CC&R's 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 1 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) 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 states that: "The property is located in an agricultural preserve established by the Town. " According to the 1956 map frequently referred to by the applicant, Surrey Farms had previously been zoned for residential development. It appears, however, according to the language of the contract, that some time between 1956 and 1975, the Town placed the land in a conservation category. 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)." 2 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. We provide this history to give the Council an idea of why we all relied on the hillside remaining undeveloped when we moved to Surrey Farms: the Town and the landowner had agreed to place the land in a Land Conservation contract; the last four residences were constructed on Longmeadow to assure that Surrey Farms would not have a through -street and would not encroach on Ross Creek and the floodplain; the proposal to create roads from Cerro Vista and Brooke Acres were denied and, thus all three surrounding neighborhoods became landlocked; and it appears that even without the Williamson Act contract, this property was zoned and/or designated as Resource Conservation space. The Land Conservation Contract is attached hereto for your reference. 3 II. Why Would the Town Cancel the Williamson Act Contract? The first part of this process should be consideration of the applicant's request that the Town Council vote to cancel the Williamson Act Contract entered into between Tom and Dorothy Dodge and the Town of Los Gatos in 1975. The contract ensures that the land is preserved as a rural land and that it cannot be developed. It is our understanding that the applicant is asking the Town to cancel this contract so that he can sell the property to a developer for significantly more money than he could if it were still a protected land. 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). The preferred method to terminate a Williamson Act contract is the nonrenewal process; cancellation is an option under limited circumstances and conditions set forth in Gov't Code section 51280. The provisions for cancellation of contracts were included in the Williamson Act as a means of dealing with situations where the cancellation will either facilitate an alternative use that is consistent with purposes of the Act or facilitate a public interest that substantially outweighs the objectives of the Act. The Constitutional authorization of the Williamson Act requires the Act represent an enforceable restriction; easily available cancellation would render the Act ineffective as a land -use control device. (Id.) The council may grant tentative approval for cancellation of a Williamson Act contract only if it makes either public interest or consistency findings. Because the applicant has filed a Notice of Nonrenewal, the Town Council would need to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act. In order to find that the cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act, the council must make the following findings: 4 (1) That the cancellation is for land on which a notice of nonrenewal has been served. (2) That cancellation is not likely to result in the removal of adjacent Lands from agricultural use. (3) That cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan. (4) That cancellation will not result in discontiguous patterns of urban development. (5) That there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development (Cal. Govt Code §51282(b)). The Planning Commission did not make any findings relative to cancellation of the Williamson Act. The applicant has not demonstrated that: (1) cancellation is for an alternative use which is consistent with the applicable provisions of the city or county general plan; and (2) that there is no proximate, noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the proposed use or that development of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban development. It is our contention that the cancellation in order to build a planned development on Resource Conservation space would not be consistent with a General. Plan that places great importance on hillside protection, open space, sustainability, and preservation of neighborhoods. 5 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. This property has never been used for agricultural purposes, at least since 1948 (according to the Town), which pre -dates the Williamson Act contract. The Land Conservation Contract itself states: "The owners and the town wish to limit the use of the property to agricultural uses and uses compatible with agricultural uses in order to preserve the limited supply of agricultural land, to discourage the premature or unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses and to permit the maintenance of open space and land of rural character. The Owners and the Town recognize that agricultural land has public value 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 California." Exhibit A of the Contract provides a list of land conservation contract compatible uses, which includes agriculture, nurseries, open space, forest preserves, outdoor recreation, public utility and service, riding and hiking trials, stables, and the residence of the owner. We further contend that the applicant has not made a showing that there is not other land available for this development. According to the Land Use Element of the General Plan, approximately 292 acres within the Town are vacant parcels of varying sizes that are scattered throughout the Town. Most of the vacant acreage in Los Gatos is located in the single-family residential area on the eastern side of the Town. Parcels here a generally larger than they are elsewhere in Los Gatos, and a number of significantly sized parcels are vacant. In order to make the requisite findings under the Williamson Act, the availability of these properties, at a minimum, should be assessed. According to the HSP, "placing lands in Williamson Act contracts should be encouraged by both Town and County." (HSP 4.3 (3) (a)). It logically follows that cancellation of Williamson Act contracts should be discouraged. Indeed, the Town of Los Gatos has only cancelled one Williamson Act contract (Blossom Hill 6 Road in 1996). The Williamson Act Contract is a two-party contract; both parties derive benefit from the contract. The landowner gets a tax benefit and the Town gets the benefit of the rural space that is so essential to the character of our Town. The landowner should not be entitled to cancel just because he wants to obtain a higher price for the land; rather, if wants out of the Williamson Act contract, he should wait until the contract expires. 7 III. Why Would the Town Amend the General Plan? The role of the General Plan is to act as a "constitution for development, the foundation upon which all land use decisions are to be based." (GP at INT-1). The General Plan explains how our natural resources and physical features are to be maintained and enhanced. To be considered consistent with the General Plan, 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 meet the intent of its policies. (General Plan 2020 at p. 1NT-1). The proposed development requires an amendment to the General Plan precisely because it is in conflict with the General Plan Goals and Policies. According to the 2020 General Plan, the existing Land Use for the property in question is Open Space/ Recreation. (GP 2020, Figure LU-1 "Existing Land Use"). The Los Gatos 2020 General Plan supersedes previous General Plans. (General Plan 2020 at p. INT-1). The 2020 General Plan focuses on promoting sustainability which, for the purpose of the General Plan, means using resources in the present in a manner that does not compromise the choices and quality of life of future generations. This goal can be met several ways, including increasing alternative modes of transportation, maintaining a healthy local economy, and preserving open space. (General Plan 2020 at p. INT-2). The 2020 General Plan was developed with extensive community input and involvement and reflects the community's vision for Los Gatos. When the first General Plan was adopted in 1963, the Town was approximately six square miles, with a population of 11,750. Today, it is approximately a 14-mile square area with an estimated population of 28,800. (General Plan 2020 at p. INT-5). Los Gatos has evolved to its current status as a community with "lovely neighborhoods, a vibrant downtown and valued small- town character." (General Plan 2020 at p. INT-5). 8 The General Plan Vision Statement states that the impacts of new development must be evaluated in light of the development's overall benefit to the community, and that input from surrounding residents and property owners is a major consideration during any development review process. (General Plan 2020 at p. VIS-3). The General Plan states that one of the most important means for ensuring the continuity of values is by consistent and resolute enforcement of the General Plan, specific plans, and the Town Code. (General Plan 2020 at p. VIS-4). Many of the issues identified in the General Plan are sustainability issues, including: open space, hillside preservation, environmental quality, natural plan and animal life conservation, resource conservation and community design. (General Plan 2020 at p. VIS-4). The Land Use Element is the basis for physical development in Los Gatos. (GP 2020 at LU-11). According to the Land Use element of the General Plan: "Planning for neighborhood preservation and protection is one of the most important purposes of the Town's General Plan. Preserving the small-town heritage, natural setting, and architectural diversity are also important to this community." (General Plan 2020 at p. LU-1). The Land Use Element specifically references the Williamson Act as follows: "The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, better known as the Williamson Act, works to preserve agricultural and open space lands through restrictive use contracts administered by counties and cities under State regulations. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open space use under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts, with counties and cities also acting voluntarily." (General Plan 2020 at p. LU-9). "Approximately 136 acres of land within the Town limits and 358 acres of land within the SOI are designated Williamson Act land. (General Plan 2020 at p. LU-9). The Land Use Element notes that the number is higher than the number of acres in existing Agricultural use because Williamson Act "includes parcels that 9 are classified by the Assessor as Agriculture, Open Space, and Single Family Residential. Single Family Residential may be considered an acceptable classification by the Assessor since Williamson Act contracts may include provisions for a limited number of dwelling units on the property." In fact, of these lands, only 3.85 acres are considered "prime agricultural lands" under definition of the Land Conservation Act. (General Plan 2020 at p. LU-9). The proposed development is also inconsistent with the following Land Use Element Policies: Policy LU-1.3: To preserve existing trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats, and promote high quality, well -designed, environmentally sensitive, and diverse landscaping in new and existing developments. Policy LU-1.4: Infill projects shall be designed in context with the neighborhood and surrounding zoning with respect to the exiting scale and character of surrounding structures, and should blend rather than compete with the established character of the area. Policy LU-4.2: Allow development only with adequate physical infrastructure (e.g. transportation, sewers, utilities, etc.) and social services (e.g. education, public safety, etc.). Policy LU-6.4: Prohibit uses that may lead to the deterioration of residential neighborhoods, or adversely impact the public safety or the residential character of a residential neighborhood. 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 1975, 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 of land envisioned by the Town (in the 1960's) was to develop it as residential lots. As we argued in our letter in response to the DEIR, this reasoning is circular, i.e., the reason land was put into the Williamson 10 Act was to preserve it and prevent development —a fact that neighbors in the surrounding area have relied upon for over forty years. As we also stated, referring back to a General Plan that was superseded decades ago, and that existed prior to the development of Surrey Farms, is not an acceptable way to assess appropriate land use in 2018. Fundamentally, there must be a justification for the change in the designation of the property. It was planned for Resource Conservation space; Resource Conservation space is the use the Town selected; neighbors and other Los Gatos residents relied on this designation. What is the justification to change it in contravention of the 2020 General Plan? 11 IV. Why Would the Town Rezone The Property? On June 16, 1975, pursuant to Ordinance 1234, the Town Of Los Gatos amended the zoning of this property from R 1: 20,000 to Resource Conservation space (RC). Shortly thereafter, the last four homes on Longmeadow were constructed, forming a cul de sac, closed neighborhood that, terminating the street at an area just below Ross Creek and the protected wetlands. That same year, the land was placed in a Williamson Act contract —an agreement to preserve the land in its current rural condition. 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. According to the Town Code: "The Resource Conservation Zone (RC) is intended to enhance the quality of life in the town of Los Gatos. The RC zone provides a means to protect open space, special landforms, scenic areas, watershed, wildlife and vegetation. The RC zone also restricts access to and within 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." (Town Code of Los Gatos, section 29.40.155). Over the last 40+ years, families have moved into Surrey Farms with the understanding that the land behind the neighborhood —land that is both in a Land Conservation Contract and zoned as Resource Conservation space, would remain that way. When we purchased our home in 1999, we went to the Town and looked at the large zoning map on the wall and the green block of land adjacent to our neighborhood, and asked the planner whether it could ever be developed. The answer we received was: "Not in your lifetime." We, as well as other neighbors, relied on this zoning when we improved our home and invested in our neighborhood. 12 We are left with the fundamental question: why would the Town rezone this property? Who does it benefit to take away Resource Conservation space? If the issue is that we need to provide more housing, is this the place to build it? In order to rezone this property for residential development, the council would have to affirmatively believe that this is the right place for housing —on a steep hillside landlocked by three pre-existing neighborhoods, far from transit and other services. 13 V. The Project Does Not Comply With the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and the Hillside Specific Plan The project is subject to both the HDSG and the HSP, the objectives of which are to: maintain the rural, natural open space character of the hillsides; preserve natural topography and ecosystems; and conserve the natural features of the site such as topography, natural drainage, vegetation, wildlife habitat, movement corridors, and other physical features, but does not provide a way to achieve these objectives with this proposed development. According to the General Plan, the Town's HSP and HDSG ensure that open space areas in the hillsides are "preserved to the greatest extent possible by the Town. The viewsheds and existing character of the hillsides and open space areas are carefully maintained through the implementation of this General Plan and the Town's various planning processes." (General Plan 2020 at p. OSP-5). The HDSG is intended to acknowledge that: - The rural, natural open space character of the hillsides is an important component of the Town's character and charm. - The hillsides are geologically and environmentally sensitive areas. - Development in the hillsides has the potential to affect, and be effected [sic] by, the environment. Awareness of a site's natural constraints will result in development that is sensitive to the environment, incorporates safeguards to maximize public safety, and minimize changes to the visual quality of the hillsides. (HDSG at p. 6). Development plans must demonstrate full compliance with all standards. (HSDG at p. 10). The Staff Report dated February 23, 2018 states that the applicant is proposing cut and fill depths greater than those permitted by the HDSG. Grading proposed for the private roadway includes locations of cut up to seven feet in depth and fill, up to thirteen feet in depth. 14 According to the HDSG: "the following cut and fill criteria are intended to ensure that new construction retains the existing landform of the site and follows the natural contours. Cuts and falls in excess of the following levels are considered excessive and contrary to the objectives of the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines. Grade to the minimum amount necessary to accommodate buildings and to site structures consistent with slope contours. These are maximum numbers and may be reduced by the deciding body if the project does not meet other grading standards or is not consistent with the goals and objectives of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines." The maximum cut and fill requirements are listed as follows: Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills Site Element Cut* Fill* House and attached garage 8'** 3' Accessory Building* 4' 3' Tennis Court* 4' 3' Pool* 4'*** 3' Driveways* 4' 3' Other (decks, yards)* * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence shall be limited to 6 feet. ** Excludes cellars. (HDSG, p. 17) The purpose of a PD overlay zone as it relates to hillside areas, is to encourage the appropriate location of residential units in the least restrictive development areas of the site. The intent is to significantly reduce the amount of 15 grading, roads, and other alterations to the exiting environment, to minimize the visual impact of the development, and to retain the maximum amount of continuous open space it its natural state. Site constraints and the implementation of the HDSG may not allow a specific site to be developed to the maximum density allowed by the Zoning ordinance. (HDSG at 56). Development in the Hillside Specific Plan area is prohibited outside of designated "least restrictive development areas" (LRDAs) unless it is compliant with conditions established in the Plan. (GP 2020 at LU-20). Hillside residential development shall preserve open space and protect significant natural features in the layout and design of streets, lots, and grading patterns in subdivisions and planned developments. Development shall be limited to the least restrictive development areas. (HDSG at 56). The least restrictive development areas are: (1) below the ridge view protection line; (2) outside riparian corridors; (3) with a 30% slope or less; and (4) where the impact on the natural hillside environment including vegetation, wildlife corridors, cut and fill slopes, and natural watersheds is minimized. Within sub -areas 2 though 9 of the HSP, development is prohibited outside the LRDA unless there is no feasible alternative. At the Planning Commission hearing on February 28, Commissioner Badame stated that the project requested "maximum allowable density" and asked whether, if there were fewer homes, there would there be exceptions needed for cut and fill, LRDA, and 30 degree slopes. Staff answered that there would still be exceptions required. The commissioner then noted that, pursuant to HDSG, Ch. 8 "Site Constraints", they may not allow the hillside to be developed to maximum density. They cannot mitigate privacy and the homes are also prominently visible. She noted that these are standards — they have to be followed. 16 VI. The Impacts of the Project on The Land and Our Neighborhood On October 9, 2016, we submitted comments in response to the DEIR, which discuss all of the problems we see with regard to the project. Those comments are incorporated into the Final EIR as "Letter D - Fordyce Family" (pages 2-44 to 2-92). (The Town's response to our comments can be found in the Final 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. Below is our attempt to summarize the concerns articulated in those comments. 1. The Applicant Should Not Be Granted Exceptions to Regulations In Order to Develop This Site In order to fit a ten -home development into the landscape of this pristine hillside, the applicant is asking for multiple exceptions. Specifically, the applicant has asked for exceptions to the grading and LRDA requirements mandated by the HDSG, and to the setback requirements mandated to protect the Ross Creek by the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. The applicant has asked to remove protected trees and encroach into protected riparian corridors. These regulations were drafted with care, for a specific reason: to maintain the integrity of the hillsides and riparian corridors and the life they support. There is no reason to grant exceptions. A less -dense alternative was not considered in the DEIR. 2. The EIR Did Not Consider the Impact of the Development as a Whole Although the project proposes to take an empty hillside replete with wildlife and ancient oak trees sitting above an established neighborhood, and turn it into an entire new neighborhood, almost everything in the Draft EIR is listed as having a "less than significant impact." We contend that there will be impacts, as this is not the use of land envisioned by either the Town or the neighborhood. 17 The Town's response to this comment is that the DEIR "evaluated the proposed project's consistency" and that "all potential conflicts with existing land use regulations are considered Iess than significant." While individual components may have been addressed throughout the DEIR, there is no attempt to address the impact of the whole of this project on the whole of our neighborhood. 3. Degradation of the Hillside The project would utilize roughly 81% of the site, destroying the beauty of the hillside area. The Town's response was that there is "no evidence or documentation that states that the proposed project site was to remain untouched." However, the Williamson Act contract put in place by Mr. & Mrs. Dodge in 1975, which is in full effect until 2025, dictates that this land may have no more than one single-family dwelling on the property. Additionally, it property has been zoned accordingly — as RC space — since 1975. 4. The Proposed Development Will Destroy the Aesthetics of the Surrounding Neighborhoods The DEIR found no aesthetic issues with the Planned Development. Although 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 will become a constant construction zone, a busy neighborhood, or even a ghost town if the lots are not sold as expected. The hillside does not contain any current unnatural source of light; construction of a neighborhood on the hill will create multiple new sources of substantial light and glare. The development will substantially impact scenic vistas, damage scenic resources, and degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings. 18 In its response to these comments to the DEIR, the Town maintains that the hill behind Surrey Farms is not really considered a "scenic resource," and that, rather, the General Plan seeks to preserve "view of the hillside areas of Santa Cruz Mountains, particularly the Sierra Azul ridge, rather than individual slopes interspersed within the Town." The Town response also states that "scenic resources are generally designated as those places or areas that can be viewed by many residents or visitors throughout the town rather ran more isolated areas" and makes a distinction between public and private views. We are not sure how the line is drawn between a public and a private view. The hill is the view of most of the Surrey Farms neighborhood, and the adjacent Cerro Vista neighborhood, and Hillbrook School. Indeed, it provides that backdrop and natural beauty that, for many of us, has made this neighborhood feel so rural and peaceful. The Town also noted that, because the homes must comply with the Town's building codes and landscaping in place, there will minimal aesthetic harm from sources of light. However, this fails to take into account three things: (1) this is a natural hill that is currently 100% dark at night, so any light source will be intrusive; (2) the Town Code cannot control car lights, which we fear will shine directly into our homes at the base of the hill; and (3) the homes and streets of the proposed development are located directly above our homes. 5. The Project Will Irrevocably Harm Biological Resources Protected Species According to section 4.3-2 of the DEIR, the 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. As with all the wildlife affected or potentially affected by this proposed development, the destruction of their natural habitat cannot be mitigated. 137 trees will be "impacted" by the development and 71 of those will be removed. Over 80% of the 19 land will be developed. The white-tailed kite is a protected species and this is an insufficient way of ensuring its habitat is preserved. According to section 4.3-3, the 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. While a detailed mitigation measure is proposed, it does nothing to preserve the habitat. The Dusky footed woodrat is a protected species. 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. Various mitigation measures are proposed, with no acknowledgment that the frogs' habitat is being modified, Limited, and destroyed. Other Species Another ten target species were determined by the DEIR to have the potential to occur within the study area. These include one federally listed species (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). One large stick nest was observed on the project site, potentially belonging to a great —horned owl and two barn owls were also observed. Both are protected raptor species. Although they axe not expected to occur on site, the presence of an additional 16 target species could not be entirely ruled out. 6. The Proposed Development Will Adversely Affect the Riparian Habitat of Ross Creek According to section 4.3-7 of the 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. According to 20 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. 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." The Town concurs that the construction of streets would require an exception to the Guidelines by encroaching into the recommended riparian setback. The justification for that exception is that "encroachments may be considered justifiable in this case due to the very limited riparian function of the ephemeral swale in terms of wildlife and water quality." As mentioned in our comments to the DEIR, "there is a significant physical linkage between the in -stream and near -stream biological communities that is critical 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 species are dependent on a healthy riparian system to survive." Minimum setbacks are required to minimize impacts to streams. There is no justification in the DEIR for granting an exception to the setback requirement. 7. Protected Trees Will Be Removed According to February 23, 2018 Staff Report, project implementation would affect 137 protected trees, and 70 protected trees would be removed, affecting approximately 0.52 acres of mixed oak woodland. The Town contends that mitigating the removal of these oaks, some of which are hundreds of years old, will be through planting 24-48 inch oaks in a 4:1 replacement ratio. 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 21 there are less of them being planted than are being removed. Additionally, all animal species that rely on these trees for nesting or food or habitat will be irrevocably harmed. 8. 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." The hill is home to deer, coyotes, wild turkeys, bobcats, owls, mountain lions, tarantulas, foxes, and other native wildlife. The Town responded by saying that the project site is a "mostly isolated patch of undeveloped land surrounded by development." This statement demonstrates just how minimal of value was placed on the fact that this "isolated patch of undeveloped land" provides a home to so many animals, birds, plants, and amphibians. The Town also contends that the project site does not provide connectivity to large areas of undeveloped land and does not serve as a wildlife corridor that provides connected or access to larger or other known wildlife corridors or habitats." This appears to be a further reason to preserve this particular habitat. If there is no known connective wildlife corridor, where will all the wildlife go? 9. The Project Will Have A Detrimental Affect on the Site Geology and Soils In January 1975, when the last four homes on Longmeadow were constructed, the Assistant Planning Director acknowledged that this four lot subdivision at the end of Longmeadow included lots of varying sizes due to the flood plain area required by Ross Creek, which lies directly behind what is now our home and the Meleycos home. Drainage is a pre-existing problem in Surrey Farms. Water naturally runs from the hillside into the neighborhoods. The Town acknowledges that water collects, and ponding occurs, in the northwestern portion of the site. The 22 northwestern portion of the site is adjacent to our backyard, the Meleyco's backyard, and Hillbrook School. The Town also states that the project design "maintains the existing drainage patterns for surface water on the site" and that storm drains would collect stormwater and convey it to one of two proposed detention basins located onsite. In our comment to the DEIR, we raised concerns about the health and safety of having a large drainage pond at the base of the hill behind our property. The project would construct an 18-foot wide earthen berm overflow channel along the adjacent property boundaries of the northwestern corner of the site to contain overflow from the proposed stormdrain system and detention basis. We don't understand how this works, i.e., where does the water ultimately go? What happens if the basin fills? Where does the berm redirect water? A fundamental question that has not been answered by the DEIR or in the Town's comments, is how significantly the grading of the hillside, the construction of homes and roads, and the removal of vegetation will affect the amount of water accumulating in the northwestern portion of the property. Given recent weather conditions in California, we are fearful of the potential for flooding and mudslides. Finally, there is the question of who is maintaining the drainage ditch? The Town states that the drainage facilities would be "maintained by the Homeowners Association or other maintenance district through an Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the Town." This is not reassuring, and leaves us wondering what our remedies are if this new system fails, and/or the berm directs water into our yards or the adjacent schoolyard. As stated in our response to the DEIR, the developer has not provided an adequate solution to protect our neighborhood from flooding, erosion, and other drainage issues caused by the grading, construction, and removal of natural vegetation in an environment where drainage is already a significant issue. 23 10. The Development Will Add to Already -Existing Traffic Problem in Kennedy Corridor In our response to the DEIR, we raised concerns about contributing to an already bad traffic situation in the Kennedy Road area. Since writing those remarks, the traffic has grown exponentially worse. There are weekends during the summer where we simply cannot leave our home to go to the grocery store or downtown because the traffic is backed up on Kennedy past Englewood, and the whole town is grid -locked. On a regular school day, if you leave at the wrong time, you can sit for four or five Lights at Kennedy and Los Gatos Boulevard. The Town has suggested that the project would add approximately 8 additional trips in the AM peak hour and 10 trips in the PM peak hour when the project is fully developed. I'm not sure how this figure was arrived at, but from my household alone, there are generally at least six trips, and upwards of twelve trips during peak hours. We have also asked the town to consider the effects of construction traffic on our neighborhood. We anticipate that development of the infrastructure and ten individual homes would result in years and years 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 generation of residents 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. The Town does not agree that these are concerns, stating that "during the initial phase of road and infrastructure construction, approximately 247 truckloads (494 one-way truck trips or trip ends) of excess excavated material would be hauled off site." The Town estimates this grading phase as taking approximately 15 days, generating 33 truck trips per day, or approximately 6 truck trips per hour. The Town then concluded that this is a "relatively small amount of construction traffic" and that the grading period will only take two weeks. How did they arrive at these estimates of both time and trips? Is one truck every ten minutes on a quiet 24 residential street a "relatively small amount?" None of this seems reasonable, and none of it accounts for the impact on the Surrey Farms neighborhood of the construction of homes, one after the other, whether years apart, or all at once. 11. The Project Will Significantly Increase the Noise in the Surrounding Areas According to section 4.7-1 of the DEIR, 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." Mitigation includes limiting the work hours to: 8 am to 8 pm on weekdays; 9 am to 7 pm on weekends and holidays. 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. As we stated in our response to the DEIR, the project will absolutely cause a permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project site vicinity. How could it not? Instead of hearing birds, frogs, coyotes, and the wind in the trees, we will hear car doors, alarms, cars, people, phones, radios, televisions, parties. The Town responded to this comment by stating that noise generated by "residential activities from the project site would be similar to noise generated by adjacent or nearby residences and would not conflict with the existing residential noise environment in the neighborhood, and that, therefore, the potential impacts are considered less than significant." First, we do not generally have noise from "residential activities." Other than wildlife, the only noise we typically hear is children on the field at Hillbrook School, and occasionally, because of the way sound travels down the hill, we can hear telephones and people speaking from the one house on Cerro Vista directly above Hillbrook and visible from our yard. To go from essentially no noise, to a neighborhood full of noise, with sound that 25 travels downhill, will be a huge impact on the homes at the end of Longmeadow, along Twin Oaks, and I imagine Cerro Vista, as well. Construction of the project will drastically affect our way of life. We noted that the construction will not create havoc for a couple of weeks or months, but indefinitely. The mitigation measures provide no relief. Construction, with its accompanying dirt, dust, pollution, and noise are allowed for twelve hours a day on weekdays, and ten hours a day on weekends. The Town does nothing to respond to this very serious concern, and instead notes that the construction and demolition activities are "permitted to exceed the Town's noise limits when construction and demolition activities are performed Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays." This is not a mitigation of any sort, with nearly every waking hour of the day our home life being exposed to construction noise, for an indefinite period of time. 12. The Project Will Adversely Affect the Air Quality in the Area In our response to DEIR, we raised concerns about the efforts to mitigate air quality by watering exposed surfaces two times a day. We expect that this will result in a constant source of dust, pollution, and runoff in our backyard. The Town stated that water will moisten the dirt and make it less susceptible to blow away; however, the issue of constant runoff is not addressed. We also raised the issue of construction of infrastructure and pads built on the hill prior to any houses even being sold. The Town responded that the construction of infrastructure is required as a condition of the Tentative Map. What if the project is not financially viable, i.e., the houses are unable to sell? What happens then? We will have a view of empty streets and pads —essentially a ghost town on the hill above Surrey Farms, in full view of our entire neighborhood and beyond. 26 13. The Project Will Create a Fire Hazard For the Surrounding Neighborhoods an School According to the General Plan, the project site is located in a Very High Wildland Fire Severity Zone. In our comments to the DEIR, we noted that environmental conditions in California, including extreme drought have resulted in increased fire risk, and that ongoing construction, public trails, and populating the project site in general will elevate the fire risk. The Town suggests that the hillside will actually be less susceptible to fire because of sprinkler systems in houses and irrigated vegetation. This presumes that houses are built and landscaped. Given the wildfires rampant in our state over the last year, the threat to our neighborhood caused by a fire on the hill is a serious concern, and one that cannot be resolved by the construction of emergency access points. 14. Surrey Farms Will Be Adversely Affected By the Cumulative Impacts of Both the Hillbrook Expansion and the Proposed Development We noted in our comments to the DEIR 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. Our quiet corner 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 Town stated that it does not concur that the proposed project would result in cumulative impacts, but also states that the DEIR does note that "the proposed projected and Hillbook School, because of the proximity, would contribute to cumulative effects related to East Ross Creek, increases in operational traffic, traffic noise, air pollutant emissions, and greenhouse gas emissions," but that these impacts can be reduced to "less than significant." 27 15. Two of the Proposed Lots Are Located on Protected Wetlands According to Section 1.1 of the RDEIR (dated May 4, 2017), since the time the DEIR was released for public review in 2015, the applicant received correspondence from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) indicating that a 342 square foot area in the northwestern corner of the site (adjacent to the Hillbrook School and Meleyco properties) has been identified as jurisdictional waters. These waters were not identified in the DEIR. The wetlands appear to reside on proposed Lots 3 and 4. (See Figure 3.3.1). Because of this fmding, it appears the project is subject to Executive Order 11990 and California Wetlands Conservation Policy (Executive Order W-59-93). Executive Order 11990 provides for the protection of wetlands, with oversight from USACE. The California Wetlands Conservation Policy establishes a primary objective to "ensure no overall net loss....of wetlands acreage and values in California." The RWQCB implements this policy and its Basin Plan Wetland Fill Policy by "requiring mitigation for wetland impacts." (RDEIR p. 4.3-30). According to Section 1.2.1 of the RDEIR, the applicant has proposed to avoid impacts to the wetlands by constructing a "proposed bioswale and detention basin to the southeast of this wetland area" (directly adjacent to the Fordyce, Meleyco and Hillbrook School properties). This "detention basin" is referred to as a "pond" on the applicant's proposed subdivision maps and is located on proposed Lots 3 and 4. (See Proposed Subdivision PD, A-1). The applicant proposes to connect a new storm drain under the wetlands, connecting to an existing underground line. The presence of wetlands on the project site raises two issues for the neighboring properties and the Town. First, is the suggested "avoidance" of impacts to the wetlands by creating a detention basin a valid, safe and studied alternative? As mentioned in our response to the DEIR, the construction of the proposed detention basin or pond immediately adjacent to a school and several homes, raises some fundamental issues. Similarly, if the only way to protect the 28 wetlands from damage caused by the proposed development is to create this potentially hazardous body of water, the development should be rejected. Second, in considering mitigation measures, we strongly urge the Town to require onsite wetland preservation. There are three options laid out in the RDEIR to mitigate the affect this project will have on the newly identified jurisdictional wetlands: contribute to mitigation bank; create wetlands; wetlands restoration on a portion of Ross Creek. The offsite option, which allows creation of wetlands somewhere else, allows the project site to denigrate and/or eliminate the wetlands on the property entirely. We request that the town require the developer to pursue wetlands restoration of Ross Creek in order to provide actual physical and biological benefit in terms of wildlife and habitat. Mitigation banking is just a check, and a check will not retain the delicate balance of wildlife and nature on the hill. Finally, Lots 2 and 3 are directly behind the Fordyce, Within and Meleyco residences, and immediately adjacent to the jurisdictional wetlands. If this proposed project or any version thereof were approved, those immediately adjacent lots should be removed in order to protect both the neighboring properties and the wetlands. 29 VII. What Happened at the Planning Commission On February 28, the Planning Commission was asked to make a recommendation to the Town Council with regard to the proposed development. The Commission was advised by staff that all five decisions were coming before them as one item because they were "intertwined." Specifically, they were asked to make a recommendation regarding certification of the EIR, General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Cancellation of the Williamson Act, and approval of the of the PD Ordinance. From the outset, many commissioners expressed dismay at not being able to read through the many letters sent by neighbors because of lack of time. The majority of our neighborhood, including us, wanted to submitted comments subsequent to the Staff Report being released, so that we could more fully understand what was coming before the Planning Commission and what the staff recommendation would be. Although this now appears to have been an error, in that it appears many of our comments weren't read, it should be noted that it was not until the Staff Report that the 2-Access alternative even became part of the proposed project. In any event, one commissioner asked if they should continue the hearing so that they could read the letters. There was then a discussion that, since this item asked them to provide a recommendation to Town Council with comments on alternatives, and not an outright denial or approval, they should go forward with the hearing. Staff indicated that the project would require exceptions including depths of cut and fill, and construction outside LRDA for roadway and one driveway. It also requires removal of protected trees. With regard to the Williamson Act, staff confirmed that only one Williamson Act had been previously been cancelled by the Town. When a commissioner raised concerns about the dramatic change in the view of the hillside, the applicant's architect admitted that all of the schematics are 30 essentially imaginary and that they merely depict "where they could be according to Hillside standards." Commissioner Badame stated that they, therefore "do not know what we're getting." She stated that it was "maximum allowable density" and asked whether, if there were fewer homes, there would there be exceptions needed for cut and fill, LRDA, and 30 degree slopes. Staff answered that there would still be exceptions required. The commissioner then noted that, pursuant to HDSG, Ch. 8 "Site Constraints", they may not allow the hillside to be developed to maximum density. They cannot mitigate privacy and the homes are also prominently visible. She noted that these are standards — they have to be followed. She stated that the General Plan provides for neighborhood protection and preservation, that the developer cannot mitigate what it does to our aesthetics, and that. a PD application asking for 10 lots is too much. Another concern that was raised is that, because the 2-access alternative had not been previously proposed and was not part of the EIR, it wasn't appropriate for review. One commissioner expressed concern that the applicant was asking for something other than proposed project and inquired: "How did we get here? And have the 2 alternatives been studied?" Commissioner Kane indicated that they needed to minimize impact on neighbors, that there shouldn't be houses right behind us, and that there shouldn't be so many houses. Commissioner Hanssen stated that she has a lot of concerns with the EIR, and that, with regard to view, it only assesses from viewpoint of the general public, not individual property owners. She noted that the EIR is only one part of the decision, and that they should also look at General Plan, that the General Plan has "a lot of teeth in it" regarding views and protecting neighborhoods. She stated that she has concerns about the PD because it does specify 10 lots. One of the commissioners expressed a desire to have the developer "do more work on PD concepts and reduce number of sites and provide more detail on PD." Commissioner O'Donnell stated that he did not want to go back to the 31 drawing board, and if they feel 10 lots is too many, they can make it less. He then made a motion to include everything (Williamson Act cancellation, EIR, PD Ordinance, Rezoning and General Plan Amendment) in one motion and recommend approval. Thereafter, a lengthy conversation commenced, wherein all of the commissioners stated their comments to be included in the proposed motion, including: -identify what trees are going to be saved, and which are going to be destroyed and a new tree map before voting - a comment that they cannot certify EIR without a final sketch - reduce lots from 10 to 8, which will affect trees, roads, etc. A commissioner proposed making 8 lots in the Ordinance, with preservation of trees, and staying within LRDA. At this point, the Town attorney interjected that they cannot ask the developer for a less dense plan because of CEQA, but that they can suggest what lots to remove. Comments to the motion continued as follows: -there is nothing about the public access easement for open space in the ordinance and nothing in the PD ordinance about the size of unit -can size of homes be reduced? -the applicant is asking for a huge variance on cut and fill — have they done this before? -what are the fencing requirements? -remove lots 6 & 7 - remove lots 1,2 and 3 - which are in direct conflict with HDSG. - pull back lots 1-3 from other properties. - redistribute remaining lots so they are consistent with neighborhood. Commissioner O'Donnell then stated that he would support 8 to go forward and that Council will ultimately decide if "8, 10 or 2." He then indicated that they're saying 8 because they want 6 and 7 off the slope and to preserve views. Comments to the motion continued as follows: 32 -need a list specific trees to be saved -applicant must include compelling evidence as to why trees cannot be saved -need new tree map That was the end of the discussion and the motion unanimously passed. When we left the meeting, we were unaware of what actually passed. There had been repeated concerns expressed about the project, specifically with regard to the PD ordinance, the exceptions required, and inconsistency with the General Plan. There were no specific findings made with regard to Williamson Act cancellation. There was minimal discussion as to whether it was appropriate to rezone the property or to amend the General Plan to allow the development. Most items in the EIR (wildlife habitat, drainage, light, noise, pollution, etc.) were not discussed. We were surprised that, given the grave concerns expressed and the desire for more information and time to read neighborhood letters, that this went forward to the Town Council with a recommendation for approval. Please note that all of the above are taken from notes that I took from the meeting, as there is no transcript available, only the video. 33 VIII. Personal Impact of the Development on Our Home and Family It is a daunting task to describe the effect the development of the hill would have on our home and our family. We moved into our home at 191 Longmeadow Drive in February of 1999, when we were expecting our fourth child. Our three older children were 6, 4 and 2 at the time. The primary feature of the home was its location at the end of a cul de sac in the quiet, rural Surrey Farms neighborhood, and the beautiful hillside behind it, replete with chirping frogs and roaming deer. In 2002, we undertook an extensive remodel, which we completed just around the time our fifth child was born. All five of our children have spent either all or the majority of their lives at the end of Longmeadow. Both the neighborhood and the rural hillside have been a significant part of all our lives. To date, we have avoided making a statement of how personally this project would affect the quiet enjoyment of the home we've resided in for nearly twenty years. This is because we strongly believe that this development is bad as a whole for the Town and for our neighborhood for all of the reasons indicated in multiple previous submissions to the Town, including: grading and destruction of the hillside; removal of protected trees; potential for drainage, erosion, and flooding problems; health and safety issues created by large drainage ditch proposed adjacent to school and neighborhoods; increased traffic in Surrey Farms and Kennedy corridor; possibly 10 years of construction traffic/ safety concerns; pollution and other health impacts from grading, dust, construction and truck exhaust; loss of open space/ wildlife habitat/ rural hillside; loss of views/ aesthetics/ privacy; lights and glare into neighborhood; loss of important wildlife species and vegetation; loss of enjoyment of our homes and neighborhood/ change the aesthetic of beloved, old Los Gatos neighborhoods; a permanent change in ambient noise level of our neighborhood; very little Resource Conservation space left in Los Gatos; encroachment into land in violation of hillside grading 34 requirements; encroachment into wetlands and riparian corridor in violation of and riparian setback requirements. Turning a rural hillside that sits above an established old neighborhood into a site that is 81 % filled with large homes will look like a giant hotel on the hillside, visible throughout surrounding neighborhoods. It will harm the land and species that rely on it. We don't believe the project will add value to our Town, only to the developer. We believe that the project will harm the Town by taking away valuable Resource Conservation Space and adversely affect pre-existing neighborhoods. If this project is allowed, our home will lie directly beneath multiple new, large homes. There will be noise and lights where there currently are none. The privacy of our own home will be jeopardized, if not eliminated entirely, by having multiple home sites look down into our yard and house. A house that we designed with windows and glass doors to take advantage of nature and rural views, will now have to reorient, given that the rural views will be gone and people will be living above us. It will be the equivalent to buying a home on the end of a quiet country lane, having one of your neighbors agree to put a road through his property, and constructing a hotel behind you. It should also be noted that, in the various iterations of this project over the Last eight years, no efforts have been made to shield or protect us from completely losing the quiet enjoyment of our home. We love the hill. We don't see it as a "view," so much as a living thing that has brought peace and joy to our family for the past twenty years. We urge the Town to continue its commitment to preserve this rural land. Thank you for your service to our Town and for taking the time to read these lengthy comments. Jill & Craig Fordyce April 26, 2018 35 NO F Limp CONSEt' /M XON C:QNpflhC'T This agreement is made between the TOWN OF LOS Gi#'x'0S, a wuni.c.Ipal corporation of the State of California, (TOWN), DODGE and ROB RT L. Ja'td I)OROp ' T. DODGE, (OW!?11:;R.j) , and .i a made w:it.h reference to t:he fcllowi.nq facts. '1'1•ie OWNERS own real property located in the ',t'i: AI. The property is described in Exhibit "13" attached hereto and throughout: this agreement is c:ail,ed "pr.)per try" . The property is locator) in an c.ara cul.t:u7:.:.l preserve establ i.shod by the TOWN. The OWNERS and the TOWN wish to limit the use of the property to agricultural use, and uses compatible with agricultural uses in order to preserve the limited supply of agricultural 1.• nd, to discourage the premature or unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses ;and to permit the maintenance of open space and land of rural c:ltaraeter. The OWNERS and the TOWN recognize that agricultural land has public value as open space and that agricultural land const.i.t:uten an important social., aesthetic and economic asset: 1:o the people o.L the TOWN and of the State of California. The OWNERS and the TOWN .intend that this contract is, and shall be throughout its term, lulling any extensions, an enforceable restriction within the meaning of Article XXVIXl of the Constitution of the State of California an •1 ,%xler the provisions o2 section 422 of the California Revenue: and Taxation Code?. tzt • r: QD 00 t� +616 i.. '?i:a C91.1tract taxita.S-aliforRii1LaDqc9MAAPYRtkOl 1his contract is made and entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965 (Chapter 1, Part I, Division 1, Title 5 of the Government Code, commencing with section 5.1200) and is subject to all of the provisions thereof. 2. B 298 ix:. 12 The TOWN and the OWNERS agree as foi.Low. 3.. ft4itri9.14011.0n Ps.9 og—P.41q149rtZ. During the term of this contruct and of all extensions or renewals thereof, the property described in Exhibit "13° shall not be used by the OWNERS for any pmrpose other than the production of agricultural commodities for commercial purposes, and uses compatible therewith. listed in the attached Exhibit !All. such compatible USE are PAH. The TOWN, by V0S011ition of.its Council, may from time to time revise the list of compatiole uses for property is located, the addition of new the agricultural preserve in which the but such revision shall be limited to uses to the list, unless the OWNERS consent in writing to deletions. Neither this contract nor the fonlgoing reference to the adoption of resolutions shall be interpreted as limiting, superseding, or restricting the planning and zoning powers of the TOWN. During the term of this contract and of all ext-onsions or renewals thereof, the OWNER.: shall not remove, cut down _2... e1 b 4 298 i,tf, 1.3 or: destroy any tree on the property having a trunk diameter of more than six inches measured at an elevation of fours fee, from the ground without p;: ior- approval of the Planning Dirt ctor of the TOWN, nor perform on the property any grading which involves either displacing or filling a total of 50 cubic yards, or substantial diversion of surface water or any damming or diversion of a waiter course without prior approval of the Director of Public Works of the TOWN. 3. Per n_,;lf„Coax arc ct: Thi:, contract is effective on the date it is signed Gt? behalf of the TOWN. Its initial tern is the period from its effee:tive date. plus ten years commencing January 1, 1976. Each January :t beginning January .1., 1976 shall be the contract's annual renewal. date, and on each annual renewal date one year shall be added automatically to the contract's ini.tial berm unless notice of nonrenewai is given as provided in Paragraph 4. . NoticP of_. N9nrenPwa 1. E i.the r: party may ,prevent automatic renewal of the contract by serving written neltic;e of nortrenewal on the other,. The notice shall be effective only if it; is served by the landowner are -I:}tic TOWN at least nine* days prior l:o the a:enewal, date, or .by the TOWN on the landowner at arsast silty stays prior to the: renewal. date. Unle.ss notice is so served, the contract: i 298 Hit!, ..1 is renewed annually as provided in Paragraph 3., 'Mc OWNERS, upon receipt of a notice of rronienewal from the TOWN, may- in writing protest the proposed nonrenewa,i. The TOWN may, at any timo prior to the renewal date, withdraw the notice of nonr:enewaJ.. Xf either party serves proper notice a1: norrr:•enewal on the other, the contract Shall remain in effect for the balance of the ton year period (measured from the beginning of the contract's init:.ial term i.f i:he notice is served during the first calendar year, or from the contract's last annUai renew,•al date i.f the notice is served in a subsequent calendar year) r:) a d shall then terminate. 5. (. ou i.cter:a t:inn. '.t`he consideration for the: execut_jan of this c:ont:.ract:. .is the public benefit to be derived by the TOWN from the restriction on they use a f the property, and the property tax benefits to the OWNERS rrlUch will occur as the result of imposition of the restriction. 6. Successors in ;Cnterest This contract and the restrictions imposed hereunder snal.l be binding upon, and inure Lo the benefit: of, the successors in interest of the OWNERS. When any of the property descl:.beef in Exhibit "E" is lawfully divided, the owner of any portion may exercise, independent of .any other owner of a po.ct:.ton of the divided property, any of the rights of the B ens fay 15 ()WNeic 3 in this contract, including the right to give notice of noli onowa1• and to petition :for: cancellation. The effect of any such action by the owner: of a portion created by the division o•r lane] described in Exhibit "S3" shall not be imputed to the owners of the remaining portion and shall have no effect on this contract as it applies to the remainder of the divided property. 1. Canccll.aUpn This contract may be cancelled as to all or a part of the subject pr:opL7.►; ty only upon the petition of the OWNERS to the TOWN and after: a public hearing has been held and notice thereof given as required by suction 51204 of: the Government Code. The Town Coultir:.i:t of the TOWN may approve cancellation only ►u provided by Article 5 of the Act. 8. Not is c:Q. . 'All notices required or permitted by this contract, including notice of a change of address, shall be in writing and given by personal delivery or semi:. by United States mail addressed to the party intended to be notified. Notice shall be deemed given on the date of personal: delivery, or forty- eight hours after deposit, postage prepaid, in any lost: office or m01. L,.x regularly maintained and served by the United Staten Posta]. Service. -5. hi 298 fr f.! 16 Notice to the TOWN 3i1� �, be 21tIdre•;yec7; Town Clerk Town of Loa Gatos Civic Center, 1.10 i.. Main Street. P. 0. Box 949 Los Cato, California 950:31 Not i.c=c to %:'WNERS shall be addressed: Robert L. and Dorothy T. Dodge .170 Twin Oaks Drive Los Gatos, California 95030 nr WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this contract to be executed: by OWNE125 on February 19, 1975 and by TOWN can ._..._FItt.2. rY Ig .._.. s E975 ttA • . .Oft'; •4; STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUN' :' OF SAN:T'A CLA ', ; sf:. TOWN OIL' LOS GATOS , a municipal co)- )ritioel. 7S Mayor loaf. •t: . Dodg? Doro t.T. Dodt, TOWN. OWNERS. OH this !;,L day of 1r, ._..._._.._... But .. cbrperi.__._, 1975, before: me rx Notary Public, personally appeared RO13 1tT L. DODGE and DOROTHY T. DODGE, known to me to be 41xe persons whose names are subscribed to the with i.b instrument, and a e:nYoaa.redl7cd that they executed the scum, Witness my hair and official seal. S..AL \ My fbn:n:im,c, r%'i. n t Li 298 IA!:.1,7 ML)L)cOtiYSI' RWtTLON. C brip2Wp C414P,T1 g1).3 .i151S, Following i g a list of land uses determined ko be compatible with the agricultural use of the land subject to this agreement:: 1. Agriculture, including but not limited to horticulture and grazing, 2. Arur:ser.ies for the culture of plants for whoXesale, or ror sale for use in agricultural enterprises, but not other types of nurseries. 3. Open. space. t. i'orest: preserves. S. Outdoor recreation fanilit:i.es. }. Public utility and service. 7. Riding and hiking trails. B. Private and commercial, stables, provided th.!t any commercial stable must provide access to pub 1.lc riding and hiking trails. 9. Residence of owner, and his employees engaged in domestic or agricultural work on the premises. 1 X.wxt?i:'v nA" 0 `J All of the following 298 i;•'.: 1.8 following described real property in the Town of Los Gatos, County of Santa Clara, State or Ca'.i.fc,rnia: BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the Easterly line of Twin dales Drive, as shown on the Map of "Tract x'arm", filed Feb.r•uary 21, 1956 in ok 66o fMaps, aty9 pages urr46 and 47, with the Southwest: -corner of the ln conveyed to Pacific Title Insurance Company, f ore ior�ti,cyeci California� y recorded April 1, 1957 in Hook 3764 of Official Records, corporation, : thence along the Southerly, tioethea cter:ly and Easterly linesoof0. disaid parcel described in said steed the following courses and gl].5ti9t1C+3a: South 8[}° 25' 5?'. st: stance fee East 235.64 feet, South 3° 56' 05" t, thence Easterly along the arc of a curve to the left, tangent to the preceding course with a radius of 21.40 feet, through a central angle of 111° 30' 30" for an arc distance of 41.64 feet • thence North 64° 33'2, 34' 10" East 56.06 feet, thence �•�� East 125.07 feet, North 5 ° curve to the ].eft, tangent to the along the arc Gf3a of 57.00 feet, through a central. agle of3G preceding course with a radius distance of 36.31 feet: ° 30' for an axe North 2 e ° t ' 4 S " ► thence North 17° 04'10" East fee East 21.53 feet and forth 1 ° 28 " 93.26 teat to a point: in the Northerly .line of the parcel �.f Last 307.43 to Surrey Farm C• velope.rs, a partnership bylof land Januaryyrl :I•�):G in Book 3401 of Official I deed recorded 30, Northerly :tine. South30' traat:o929.2 page t y e thence aloe 7 r" g he Northeasterly said cornw. thereof; thence along tbe Easterlyo parce,ltso1Y conveyed to Surrey Farm Developers, South 8° 55' Nest ' the Northeasterly corner of that: certain 16.16 acre � 7c 4 feet to conveyed to L.D. Allen, et ux b parcel 1940 land Book 972 p;� Official Records, � k deed recorded March 29, in B ok of said 1fic acreR, page 593: thence along the Northerly thence North ].5° 25' East �1501fNet; hence North West 53) ')0' Kest S feet to a point which bears Southerly 40 fee C1 angles with the beginning course mentioned in hisLtdescrat ri ipt<y.tgn) thence parallel with said co, sEe North 80° 25' 528 or more or less t:o. a point on the ' 1 aster iy line of Wei OakTwns feet Drive; thence Northerly along the said Easterly line 40 feet more or less to the point of beginning. Containing approximately 17.9.1- or of 1a.l . lXH]:f3:cT A Jennifer Armer From: Sara B <mamabrown4@gmaii.com> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2018 10:57 AM To: Jennifer Armer Subject: Re: Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms proposed development Jennifer, May I also recommend that council members review the information found under California Department of Conservation regarding the history and objectives of the Williamson Act. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca/basic contract provisions/Pages/wa overview.aspx The Williamson Act Program has remained stable and effective as a mechanism for protecting agricultural and open space land from premature and unnecessary urban development. Participation in the program has been steady, hovering at about 16 million acres enrolled under contract statewide since the early 1980s. This number represents about one third of all privately held land in California, and about one half of ail the state's agricultural land. Every indication points to an indefinite continuation of this level of participation into the future. And below is the Zink regarding cancelation of contracts. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/Ica/basic contract provisions/Pages/contract cancellations.aspx A Wiliiamson Act contract is an enforceable restriction pursuant to Article •i 3, section 8 of the California Constitution and §51252. Williamson Act contracts are not intended to be cancelled an in fact, cancellation is reserved for unusual, "emergency" situations. Therefore, the nine-year nonrenewal process has been identified as the legailly preferred method for terminating a Williamson Act contract. The Supreme Court has stated that cancellation is not appropriate where the objectives served b cancellation could be served by nonrenewal, (See Sierra Club v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Ca1.3d 840, 852-853). The State of California's Attorney General's Office has opined that cancellation is impermissible "except upon extremely stringent conditions", (62 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen. 233, 240, (1979). The Attorney General has also opined that nonrenewal is the preferred contract termination method: "If a landowner desires to change the use of his land under contract to uses other than agricultural production and compatible uses, the proper procedure is to give notices of nonrenewal pursuant to section 51245." (54 Ops. Cal. Atty. Gen 90, 92 (1971).) Thank you for sharing this and these links with council members. We are residents who own five acres c "non -prime agricultural" Williamson Act land and wish to see it and other parcels in our town/ state remai under this important conservation contract. Please see figure LU-2 in the Town of Los Gatos 2020 General Plan. Our parcel is directly north of the Surrey Farm hillside. Sara and Scott Brown 15961 Cerro Vista Court Program Overview LCA - Questions and Answers Contract Terminations Contract Cancellations Farmland Security Zones Material Beach Public Acquisitions LCA Home