Twin Oaks Dr-Surrey Farms - Desk Item and Exhibit 18
PREPARED BY: JENNIFER ARMER
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 02/28/2018 ITEM NO: 2 DESK ITEM
DATE: FEBRUARY 28, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GP-12-001, WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT WA-11 CANCELLATION, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION PD-10-006, AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT EIR-12-001. PROJECT LOCATION: TWIN
OAKS DRIVE. APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: TOM DODGE, SURREY FARM ESTATES, LLC. REQUESTING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FROM AGRICULTURAL TO HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL, CANCELLATION OF THE EXISTING WILLIAMSON ACT CONTRACT, AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM RC TO HR-1:PD TO ALLOW FOR SUBDIVIDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO 10 LOTS, CONSTRUCTION OF 10 NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, AND REMOVAL OF LARGE PROTECTED TREES. APN 532-16-006.
REMARKS:
The attached public comments (Exhibit 18) were received between 11:01 a.m. Monday, February
26, 2018 and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 28, 2018.
EXHIBITS:
Previously received under separate cover:
1. August 2015 Draft Environmental Impact Report
2. May 2017 Partial Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
3. August 2017 Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Previously received with February 28, 2018 Staff Report:
4. Location Map (one page)
5. Required Findings (two pages)
6. Required CEQA Findings of Fact (40 pages)
PAGE 2 OF 2 SUBJECT: TWIN OAKS DRIV/PD-10-006/GP-12-001/WA-11/EIR-12-001 FEBRUARY 28, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Twin Oaks-Surrey Farms PD - DESK.docx 2/28/2018 11:26 AM
7. September 8, 2010, Conceptual Development Advisory Committee meeting minutes (two
pages)
8. September 12, 2012, General Plan Committee meeting minutes (three pages)
9. October 22, 2014, General Plan Committee meeting minutes (two pages)
10. October 28, 2015, General Plan Committee meeting minutes (two pages)
11. Project Description and Letter of Justification, received February 6, 2018 (eight pages)
12. Letter from the State Department of Conservation in response to Petition for Cancellation of
Land Conservation Contract No. 75-913 (one page)
13. Consulting Arborist’s Report, dated March 30, 2011 (26 pages)
14. Public Comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 23, 2018
15. Planned Development Ordinance (45 pages) with Exhibit A Rezone Area (one page) and Exhibit
B Development Plans, received January 29, 2018 (29 sheets)
Previously received with February 28, 2018 Addendum Report:
16. Project Information Sheet, prepared by the Parks and Public Works Department
17. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m. Friday, February 23, 2018 and 11:00 a.m.,
Monday, February 26, 2018
Received with this Desk Item Report:
18. Public Comment received between 11:01 a.m. Monday, February 26, 2018 and 11:00 a.m.,
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject
Marjorie Cahn <artmarj@aol.com >
Monday, February 26, 2018 4:40 PM
Jennifer Armer
artmarj@aol.com; jafordyce@aol.com
aga inst Dodge property Development
To the Los Gatos Planning Commission:
We have lived in Surrey Farms for 48 years and have enjoyed the peaceful and quiet neighborhood. We are against the
development of the Dodge Property for 10 Homes which would be a constant source of disturbance for at least ten
years and a danger to the people and children who live in our neighborhood.
From just the building of one house nearby there has been a barrage of at least an average of 5 -10 trucks daily of
workman who park all day to do the building of just one house -and large cement trucks, trucks delivering wood and
supplies, roofing trucks and other types of materials that have to be delivered for just one house ar rivi ng all the time.
The proposed project would bring ten times the amount of workers and trucks for years to come. There will be dust and
air pollution, constant construction noise, dirt on our streets and the wear and tear on Longmeadow Drive, Twin Oaks
and Kennedy Road as the heavy trucks come back and forth. Hopefully Olde Road will be closed to the builders and
workers needed for this project. The use of Olde Road for construction trucks and equipment would render it a one way
narrow path that would prevent its use by fire and emergency vehicles .
How will we be able to take our walks and protect our children? There are Seniors and neighbors who walk every day
and children on bikes, teenagers who also walk to and from school, and have cars and many people who have dogs who
need to be walked several times a day.
Bringing ten more Family homes also brings two to three more cars per household that will be using Longmeadow Drive,
Twin Oaks, Olde Road and Kennedy Road .
The beauty of the hillside will disappear and the peacefulness of the neighborhood will be affected. The disturbance to
the land by the construction will also disturb the animals and wildlife who currently live on the hillside and our
neighborhood will probably have an influx of rodents and snakes looking for new lodgings. The proposed pond will only
bring more mosquitos and be a dangerous place where drownings might occur.
We do not want our neighborhood to be impacted and changed by this project.
Sincerely yours,
Marjorie and Edward Cahn
158 Clover Way
Los Gatos, CA 9503 2
EXH~B\T 1 8
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Jennifer Armer,
Dave Greenfield <davidgreenfield@yahoo.com>
Monday, February 26, 2018 11:34 PM
Jennifer Armer; Karri Greenfield
Planned Development on the Dodge Property
We live at 140 Longmeadow Drive, street on one of the planned entrances of the Dodge Property.
Our biggest concerns tied to the plan relate to increased traffic (particularly construction traffic), safety
related concerns due to significant level of construction equipment/grading materials and loss of quiet
due to the noise that comes with the project. We picked Surrey Farms for the peace, quiet and beauty
of the area, all of which will be harmed with this project.
We aren't opposed to development, but 10 lots sold individually means years and years of on-going
construction.
We'd prefer fewer lots.
And we'd like confirmation that there will be a 2nd entrance to share this pain that you are asking a
small number of home-owners to bear.
Regards,
Dave and Karri Greenfield
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jennifer Armer
Pey < pey@comcast.net>
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 12:09 AM
Jennifer Armer
Twin Oaks Drive Planned Development
Re: Twin Oaks Drive Planned Development
To the Planning Commission:
We're writing this email in regard to the Twin Oaks Drive Planned Development.
We live on Twin Oaks Drive and strongly protest this irresponsible development of our back yard. And we don't
understand why despite all the neighborhood's protests, this is still happening! Why are all our protests falling on deaf
ears?
Surrey Farm is a small, charming neighborhood in Los Gatos that will be absolutely overwhelmed by this proposed
development. Why are you even considering allowing these developers to make such devastating changes in our small
town? By allowing developments such as this one to go forward, you're changing the basic qualities of what makes Los
Gatos special and unique. You are slowly ruining Los Gatos, one small neighborhood at a time.
On the behalf of all the residents in Los Gatos, we urge the planning commission to please, please seriously consider the
long term implications of this development in terms of safety, traffic, noise, air and water pollution, not to mention the
blight it will be on the beauty of our town.
And finally, just ask yourselves this question ... Would you allow this development to happen if it was proposed for your
own backyard?
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Mahmood and Pey Mozaffari
146 Twin Oaks Dr.
Los Gatos CA 95032
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear Council,
Jan Schwartz <jsourhilltop@gmail.com>
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 9:30 AM
Jennifer Armer
Baden Bob & Jan Schwartz
Surrey Farms development
The proposed devel.opment of 10 homes on Cerro Vista Court and Longmeadow Drive would totally change the
character of this neighborhood. There are deer and coyote that have already been squeezed by fencing and new
housing. Houses are private with green space and gardens, and our views are beautiful.
The new development is not in keeping with the rural atmosphere of Cerro Vista Drive. Please retain what is one of the
few areas near town that is not overdeveloped.
Thank you,
Jan Schwartz
15966 Cerro Vista Drive
Los Gatos, 95032
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Importance:
Scott Brown (scbrown) <scbrown@cisco.com>
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 1:25 PM
Jennifer Armer
My strong opposition to the Surrey Farms proposal
High
Dear Members of the Planning Commission:
I am writing this letter to express my strong opposition to the pending proposal to nullify the Williamson Act
protection of Surrey Farms and to convert this to a residential development. Let me express my reasons why
I feel very strongly about this.
Williamson Act: I am an owner of a home directly adjacent to Surrey Farm. I am also an owner of a large
tract of Williamson Act land. As the children of Hillbrook School look up from their playgrounds, they see our
open green space and that of Surrey Farm. I cannot imagine ever taking this beautiful green space away from
our kids, our neighbors and our community. The wisdom ofthe previous leaders of Los Gatos and the
homeowners of this specific area cannot be brushed aside. The Yarboff's built our home in 1970 and
protected the green space around it carefully and purposefully. Bob Dodge did the same with Surrey Farms
for his entire lifetime. I plan to carry on this covenant because it is simply the right thing to do and it's what
everyone that developed this beautiful area intended . There is no plausible emergency that would cause my
land or Surrey Farms to be rezoned for residential development. Where do we draw the line? How much
development is too much? How long before everyone in Los Gatos looks east and see nothing but unstopped
development. The Yarboffs and Bob Dodge knew the answer to that question. You should as well.
Wildlife Impact: I walk and drive past the Surrey Farm green space nearly every day. I see bobcats, coyotes,
deer, foxes, birds and an abundance of incredible wildlife. This is their home. They deserve to be
protected.
Drainage Impact: I also know firsthand the challenges with drainage off this hill. In the two years previous
where we had heavy rainfall, the importance of the foliage absorbing and holding this runoff has been
instrumental. The creek below is already incredibly challenged and unable to handle the additional runoff
that would come with residential hardscape and surfaces.
Protecting our kids: A huge drainage pond next to the Hillbrook School playground is a disastrous idea . Also,
the Cerro Vista neighborhood has no sidewalks and very narrow streets with numerous blind
spots. Construction traffic for many years to come would present incredible danger to our kids and cause all
parents to have to stop the kids from using the streets and interacting in the neighborhood.
Pollution: The Surrey Farms property has absolutely no light or environmental pollution today. We bought
our home in part because of this condition. A development of 10 homes brings incredible light, noise,
exhaust, water and other pollution. In short, it dramatically and negatively alters the quality of life for
everyone in the Cerro Vista community.
Cerro Vista Access: When we purchased our home, we clearly reviewed the site map of the
neighborhood . The land controlled by 15955 Cerro V ista Court and 15975 Cerro Vista Drive blocked any
access to Cerro Vista Court or Road by the Surrey Farms land. We stringently object to any effort to override
this map and covenants. We made a $4.SM purchase decision (raising your tax income by 50%) based on
these maps and covenants. You can 't just redraw map and lot lines after people put millions of dollars of
investment into your community. It's patently wrong and something we believe legally actionable if it occurs.
Cerro Vista Traffic Safety: The danger of traffic leaving Cerro Vista neighborhood is well understood by our
residents here. You have daily near misses of cars flying down Shannon road around one blind corner or
coming up Shannon road on another blind corner. It's simply a death trap intersection and someone is go i ng
to get badly hurt there. To add traffic to this intersection and neighborhood knowing this danger is simply
unacceptable . You would have to add a traffic light and rework the road angle to accommodate this
increased traffic and to mitigate the risk. I put this in writing so it is clear to everyone at this commission that
I hold them personally responsible for this safety risk and that allowing access to Cerro Vista for additional cars
and traffic cannot be done without mitigating this risk before allowing the huge amount of construction
vehicles, personal vehicles and additional traffic to the neighborhood.
In summary, as a Williamson Act land owner and member of this special community, I urge in the strongest
terms that you reject this proposal and defend the Conservation status of this land. I believe generations to
come will thank us for following in the footsteps of the Yarboff's, Bob Dodge and past Los Gatos leadership
who set us on a long path toward maintaining a beautiful, green and protected East Los Gatos community.
Kind Regards,
Scott A. Brown
15961 Cerro Vista Court
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Mobile: 408-931-5948
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Sara Brown <mamabrown4@gmail.com>
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 3:23 PM
Jennifer Armer
Dodge Property Development
Dear Town Council members,
I am writing today to state my strong opposition to the Surrey Farms Hillside
development project and to urge you to consider the significant and far-reaching impact
such a development will have on our current and future town and residents.
We recently moved to Los Gatos from Singapore and quickly discovered that we loved
the small town vibe with upscale charm. We loved the fantastic areas to walk, bike and
enjoy nature, and the beauty of the hills and mountains that surround us. After renting
for a year in one of the historic areas of Los Gatos, we were beyond lucky to find our
way to a little hill top with views of the town, the valley, and rolling hills. This property,
at the top of Cerro Vista Court, was once owned by the Yarboff family. The five acre hill
we sit atop can be seen from innumerable streets and homes below. It is a beautiful lush
green hill right now where deer, fox, birds and even wild turkeys can be seen. This land
is part of the Williamson Act and when we bought the home we were impressed to
learn that it was set apart some fifty years ago to be protected from development 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." There is another parcel of land,
adjacent to ours, that covers three acres and makes up the eastern edge of our hillside.
We were happy to learn that several other sweeping hillsides in our view are part of the
Williamson Act and that these gorgeous hillsides would remain untouched
by development. We were under the impression that the hillside owned by the Dodge
family would remain protected under the Williamson Act as well.
For many reasons, the creation of a 10-home neighborhood covering nearly the entire
hill that is adjacent to our court and which is a backdrop to many other neighborhoods,
homes, and a school, is nothing less than shameful. At what point do we stop sacrificing
the beauty and natural spaces of our town in the name of individual wealth and town
income?
Besides how the destruction of this hillside would completely destroy the wildlife
and ecosystem that thrive there and forever alter the beauty of the hills we love, here
are several other concerns we have should such a development be built: drainage,
erosion and flood ing issues; construction noise and pollution for years; increased traffic
and dangers of more traffic entering and exiting Cerro Vista Drive onto the already
perilous intersection at Shannon Road, light pollution and the increase use of public
works, schools, and infrastructure.
It is crucial for our town to put a halt to unnecessary development in order to preserve
the beauty and appeal of Los Gatos for everyone who lives here and visits. We need to
consider the quality of life for all residents, the impact future building will have on our
environment (air, water, land) and the creatures that inhabit our natural areas. -Fifty plus
years ago Los Gatos townspeople decided that this 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." (The Land
Conservation Act) I implore you all to uphold this view, deny the cancelation of the
Williamson Act Contract and stop any development on this site .
Thank you for your time,
Sara Brown
15961 Cerro Vista Court
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Jennifer.
William Meleyco <wmeleyco@comcast.net>
Tuesday, February 27, 2018 5:03 PM
Jennifer Armer
jafordyce@aol.com
Dodge Development proposed Surrey Farms Estates
ltr 2 27 2018 Planning Commission.pdf
Please bring my letter to the Planning Commissions attention.
I'm sorry I will not be able to attend this meeting as I am traveling for work at this time ...
Thank You.
Bill
William Meleyco
189 Longmeadow drive
Los Gatos, CA
95032-5655
408 497 7180 Cell
408 358 3600 Office
WilliA-M A-r.Jdr ft!A-tJ.irLfr.J Me.l~c.o
uaq Lo~9Me.Ad..c~ '"'brive.
Los 6Atos> C-Ali(or~iA qso32.-S"SS
L..cs 6A-tcs .P/~,.,,;,.,,9 C!.oMMissic,.J
c./ c Je,,.,,,.,,;(e.r ~Me.r
UO 6'. MA,;,.,, Strc..e.t
L..cs 6A-tcs) c.A viA-6'MA-il : jA-v-Me.r@f csSA-tcSCA.90v
Sirs:
We. A-re. writi,.,,9 re..9A-rdri""9 tk tO-hcMe. .P/..,.,,,Jc.d,
"De.ve.ictMe..,.Jt, °"" the. 'Dc~e. trOfe.'r't.j A-t tk e..,.Jd, o(
'-°""9M~ "Drive.. We. live. A-t 18Cf L..c""9M~w A-,.Jd, A-re.
~e.t-Jt tc tk S&J~e.c.t fV-Cfe..Y"tj·
We.. A-re. strc,.J9~ CffCSe..dr tc tk re..z.c,.Ji,.J9 o( The.
"Dcdr9f!. trote.rl.j A-s it lt)Cc)/d, c.~9e.. the. c.MrA-c.te.r o( tk
t-Je.i9~crhccdr:
t. Tk cte.,.J SfAC.e. (e.e./i,.,,9 ~oje.di bj A-II o( L..os
G>..tos A-tJdr Sfe.c.W.c.A-l~ tk Surre..~ -F'>..rMs
Ne.i9hborhoodr wouldr be. lest.
2.. The. N~ hoMe.s whic.h wCcJldr be. b&Jilt will lilc~
,.Jot be. siMilA-r ;,.,, size. A-,.Jdr c.MrA-c.te..r ,.Jor will the.j
be.. >..rc.hite.c.turAl!.!:J siMil>..r to e.xisti,.,,9 hoMe.s ;,.,,
Surre..~ -F'A.rMs.
3. It will dre..ve.lct A-si9,.,,i.ftc.NJt ;,.,,c.ruse. ;,.,, trM'-'ic.
(roM ,.Je.&tJ hoM~,.Je.rs) house.Jce.~rs) 9A-r~e.rs)
Jre.live.~ true.ks A-s &tJe..11 A-s c.o,.Jstruc.ti°"" worke.rs
ove..r A-ve..~ tossib/e. to jf!Ar b&Ji/dr o&Jt tiMe. (r,v...e..
+. It will driSflAC.e. All o( tk e.xisti,.,,9 wild,/i(e.. dre.e.r)
rA-c.c.oo,.Js> sAiA.MA-,.Jdre.rs> bobc.A-ts) turkf!.js r..bbits>
WilliAM MJci. 1'.Art"r-"f..J MeJ~c.o
Jsq L.ot-J9M~c.i..> ~rive.
L.os GA-tos> CA/i.rort-JiA-q4So32.-4S"SS
(ro9s> t.r~IAs, +ro9s, drove.s, ~Ail, oc.)ls, ~Jes>
~d, C.OjOte.s.
I. It will c.re.Atc. t. si9,.,i{ic.MJt t...OSS OF f>RIVAC.'f to us Ars
the.se. ~Me.s ~ou/dr look drire.c.t.~ i~o our ~kjArdr AS
c.)e..11 AS ;~ our be.drrooM, d,;,.,;,.,9, kitc.k,J A""dr .Ct.l*'\i~
rool*'\ ~;,.,d,o~s. The..se. k>Me..s t.re. e.le..vArt.e.dr ,.,.,d, c.)ill be.
lo0Jci""9 drire.c.t~ droc.),J t.s us.
2.. It. ~ill c.re.Atc. A si9""i{;CNJt Al"\ou~ o( NOISE:. Tk
e..xisti,.,9 ";//sidre. t.c.ts liJce. A,., f'rMf'°'itkAtre. ~,.Je./i""9 All
e.)Cisti""9 ,.Joise. toc.)Arrdrs our ~Me.. As ~ e..>eA1'1-ple.. A,.J
e.)Cist.i""9 ~se. Arbove. us iOCAte..dr °"" &.rro VistA Ms Ar
P"°""e. loc.Arte.dr bj t"e.ir outsidre. pool. I..( t.Mt P"°""e.
ri,..,9s we. c.Ar,J br it +roM our kitc.k,J c.);,.,~~ Ars ~e.ll
Ars tk c.o,Jse.NAtio,J tMt tAke..s plt.c.e.. IMA-5i,.Je. ocJt.d.oor
st.e.re..o SjSte>is > 9ArrA-9e.. droor ope.,Je.rs, A4Jto bA-CJc-up
be..e.pe..rs Ar""dr A4Jto droor /oc.k be.e..pe.rs tiMe.s te.,.J. Not
i,.Jc./udri""9 tk possible. te.,.J je.Arr c.o,Jstruc.tio,J ,.Joise.
(roM su,.J up to su,J drow,J.
3. It. ~ill c.re.Ate.. Ar si9""i{i~ AMou~ o( NIGi-iT TIME'
t...IGl-lT ~ GC...~. ~ tkse. k>Me..s Are. I'S -2.0
dre.9re.e.s ~OVe. &JS tk /i9"t (roM t~ ~ill O«Jt~i,.Je.
tk ,.,;9ht tiMe. sJcj ,.,.,d, /e.Arve. us ~it" A bri9'°'t 910~.
t...i9'°'ts +roM the.se. ~Me..s ~ove.. us c.)il/ shi,Je.. drire.c.t~
i~o our wi,.,drows.
+. It will c.re.Arte. Ar si9,Ji{i~ AMOU~ o( WA-Tu~
'DFaA-INAGE' ONTO OU~ ~OPb~TI. C.U~~ tk e..t.Jt.ire.
"illsidre. drrAi,.,s °"" our p rope.Y'"t.j t.hrou9h ~ e.>Cist.i""9
c.u/ve.v-t./e.Arse.M~ ~";~ is bA.r/f:.j Adr~Arte.. to ~drle..
Willi~ M-Jd. 14t'-'v-'1"" Me.lt!.jC.O
t(~q C....ot-J91'-\e.Ado~ ~rive.
C....os GA.tos, CA.li(ort-JiA. qso32.-S~SS
tk e.><istitJ9 wA-te..r tMt s~s of( tk hillsick druri""9
he.AVj rA-i,.,,s. The.. 'De..ve..lctM~) with its IA1Jdr c.ove..rASe..
will sure.~ i,JC,re.Ase.. this +low. The. dre.ve..lote..rs tr°toS,\-1
o( A-te-rc.olA-tio"" wA-te.r ret~io"" tOf.Jdr will or.J~ A-llOllJ
tk wA-te..r to se..e.t i~ tk 9rou,Jdr be.."i""dr our
trcte..rl:.j whe..re it will ree..'4-\e.V"9e. ;,.,, our b~ jA-rdr. We..
A-re Attro><iMA-te..lj " (e.e.t lowe.r t~ tk trcto~
tor.Jdr Af.Jdr A-lre.Adrj Mve. st.A,.Jd,;,.,,9 wA-te.r ;,.,, our ~
~A-rc:i. druri""9 11Je.t 11Je.Athe.r. The. c:i.e.ve.lote.r (urt.kr ti~
~ 18 ;,.,, urt.~ wive.rt/be.~ to ~drle. tote.,.Jt.iAI
ove...,{low (roM tkjr SjS~· It will ru"" (roM our
e..xisti,.,,9 ,.Je.i9~r' s trote.rt.j to 2./3 w,\.j Ac.ross tk
re.Ar o( our trote.rt.j. Tlws t"'e. c.ulve.rt/be.r'4-\ will
drirec.t. wA-te.r i~o our bACJc jA-rdr w"ic." is t"'e.. 1011->e.st
e.le..vA-tiOf.J M°'""9 our tr°te..rt.j li..Je.. As we.II As lowe.st
e.le..vA-tio"" o( t"e. "ilisick.
We. A-lso u,.Jc:i.e.rs~dr tkre is tJO trotose..dr 14-\e..c,M,.,,isM
to t~ (or MA-i,.;t.e.,JArtJc.e.> rE:.f>Air) or c.le.A,.J o&Jt o( ~is
SjSte.M. Not to M~iOf.J t"'e. Mo~ito AbA-te..14-\~ or
sMe.11 tMt this to""d.. will c.re.Ate... Whe.r.J A-ske..dr At t"e.
rec.~ CoMMu""itj Me..e.titJ9s t"e. be.ve..l~r A""c:i. tk
Arc."'ite..c.t dridr ,Jot Jc,.,,ow ~ IA-~ ~e. tr~ose.dr
c.ulve:rt. or w~r'4-\11 would.. be..
'S. It will c.re.Ate. A si9,.,,~c.A""t (...0$~ O+= VIEU). The. ove.rA-ll
l~o&Jt o( t"e. hoMe..s Of.J the. "illsidre. will c.re.Ate. A-vie.w
o( A-rA-Mb/i,.,,9 ove..rlAfti""9 struc.ture tMt 11Ji11 Aff'!AV" A-S
A lAr9e. residr~iAI c.o,Jdro c.oMtie.x. -Fro'4-\ our v~e.
roi...rl:. tkse. struc.ture. ove.rlAt ve.rt.ic.Ai~ Af.Jdr
"orizo,.,X:.A./ I~·
Willi~ ~~ lt!A.thrLf,.J Mele:1c.o
Jaq (..ot-J9Me.Adrow brive.
C..os GA.tos> CA/i(or~iA. Cf~032..-S"SS
AGAftJ uJe. Arre. stro..J9~ OffOSedr to t"is trC>foSA.I Arf.)dr /lrre. ;,.,,
~ArVOr or {uvi..J5 tk zo,.)i,.)'J ~ tk tArrfleJ A.S is. T1'e.
PlA,f.),.)e.J.. "De.ve.l°tMe...Jt ,µill rc.druc.e. our ~Arlitj or li+e. /lrS ,µe.J/
Ars tMt ~ tk e...Jtire. .Je.i5"bor"ood... S~uldr jO&J re.c.oMMe...Jd..
/Jrff'r'OVA.I> tluse. re.d..uc.e. its size. AAJdr ste.c.i.r.ul~ e.liMi,.,,A.t.e..
t"ose. "oMe.s loute.dr flrt tk ~ottoM ~ tk site..
T~k Cfou>
WI'-\ Me.le.jC-o Ar,.)d ft!Art"~"" Me.le:t=-o
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Members of Council,
Sydney Brown <sydneyb313@gmail.com>
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 AM
Jennifer Armer
Letter for the Town Council via hill construction
The separation between irritation and inconvenience is slight, but it is significant to address. In my
opinion, as a resident of the Cerro Vista Court community, this construction project is far beyond the irritation of
construction trucks and workers that will be flooding the area throughout the day. It is beyond the irritation, and
frankly it saddens me, to consider destroying a beautiful hill in the midst of our tucked away community.
Building these ten houses will do much more harm than good.
Deer, foxes, bobcats, coyotes , bunnies, and other animals cross the roads up by my house everyday. I
need to drive safely to avoid hitting them . As an AP Environmental Science student, I know their importance in
our ecosystem. Destroying this (currently) protected land would leave so many animals homeless and it would
cause our area to loose its green. It is important to consider the environmental impacts that this project will
have on our community. I could go into details, but it is also common knowledge that looking around Los
Gatos: green areas are becoming more and more sparse . I have always appreciated this untouched green
space.
This will not only affect the small communities and neighborhoods around Cerro Vista Court, Happy
Acres, and Shannon, but it will affect the entire Los Gatos community. The traffic is already atrocious in our
area. Building this new neighborhood will bring around 20-30 more cars into the hills around us. It will bring
about 40-60 more people into the area. We don't have room for all the people, don't have enough space in our
compact town for the extra pollutants, and time for the construction projects. Without considering the
environmental consequences, the local difficulties already display how negative this new neighborhood would
be to Los Gatos.
I know I only moved here last year and I know that I just recently turned into an adult, but I also know
that my generation will soon be running the country. My parents have raised me to believe in the power of my
voice and the importance of standing up for what I believe in. Here is what I believe in: the future . I want there
to be a future Los Gatos that does not have houses packed together like sardines . I don't want to look at the
once green hills and only see construction projects and houses being built. Everybody around here loves the
balance between community life and nature. There are plenty of houses and areas being built in other parts of
the city, so the need to build 10 mare houses in the hills is simply greedy. My mind is not built to think in an
business advantage, but even my dad, a salesman, and I agree that this project's marginal cost is greater the
marginal benefits. Economically and environmentally speaking, this procedure is not advantageous.
Please do not allow this land to be built on. There are too many families who will be negatively affected
by this decision. This is about the greater good . The Earth is showing us how our greed to keep building new
. complexes is impacting climate change. We need to protect these pockets of green spaces in cities to help
maintain a balance so that your children, grandchildren, and even great-grandch ildren can see blue skies and
fields with bunnies, coyotes, bobcats, and deers.
Thank you for hearing out my perspective . Sincerely,
Sydney Brown
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Los Gatos Planning Commission,
Karen Brown <jksmdbrown@earthlink.net >
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:11 AM
Jennifer Armer
Surrey Farm neighborhood
We are writing to request that you consider the total impact on the Surrey Farm neighborhood and the families living
here when considering the approval of the new development in the open space adjacent to our homes.
As you know, this is a very special neighborhood.
We have lived here for over 20 years. What we love most about Surrey Farm is the peace and tranquility and the way
that the homes are situated close enough to know your neighbors but in a way that we do not look into each others
w i ndows. As you walk along the streets, it's clear that the original design and placement of the house lots was very
carefully thought out so that each house is just high enough above the one below as to not look into our windows or
impede the views of the beautiful trees and green hills around us. It was our understanding when we purchased our
home that this is why we would never be allowed to build a second story addition .
We walk these quiet streets mostly every day, whether it's with our dogs or grandchildren. I can't imagine how deeply
our quality of life will be impacted by huge trucks driving by all day long, moving earth to carve out new lots or the loss
of privacy by havi ng 10-15 giant homes built above us looking down upon our homes.
We are also quite concerned about the water issues that have always been a problem in this neighborhood. We are
currently trying to solve a water issue under the road in our cul-de-sac (Blueberry Hill Drive). Possibly due to the minor
construction to the house next to us, the water has been rerouted and is creating a hazardous situation on the street in
front of our driveway. How can we be assured that by carving up the hills beyond this neighborhood, the water table will
not be disturbed and create bigger issues for this well established neighborhood?
We also hope that you will consider the historic trees . There are few neighborhoods left in Los Gatos that reflect the
beauty of this area. Once it's gone, it's gone forever!
Please consider these concerns and the impact, not only on this neighborhood, but on our beautiful, unique town.
Thank you for your time,
Karen .and Jim Brown
126 Blueberry Hill Drive
Los Gatos
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Kay Briski <kaybriski@gmail.com>
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:19 AM
Jennifer Armer
Hillside Development
Hi, Just wanted to let you know that as a resident of Surrey Farms I am against the development under consideration for
the hills above Twin Oaks. The hills are gorgeous as they are and we do not need houses up there scaring the
hillside. Please leave the hills in their natural state and do not allow the development to be built.
Thank you,
Kay Briski
100 Olde dr
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Jennifer,
Jill Fordyce <jafordyce@aol.com>
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:37 AM
Jennifer Armer
craig . fordyce@col liers .com
Proposed Surrey Farms Development
FEIRFordyceResponse228.docx
Attached hereto, please find our comments for the Planning Commission with regard to the Proposed Surrey Farms
development. Can you please confirm receipt of the complete 27-page document?
Kind regards,
Jill Fordyce
Dear Members of the Planning Commission,
We are writing to you regarding the proposed "Surrey Farm Estates''
development. On October 9, 2016, we submitted comments in response to the
DEIR, citing numerous inadequacies with the DEIR, and objecting to the project
as a whole as inconsistent with the General Plan, Zoning, Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines (HDSG), Hillside Specific Plan (HSP), the Guidelines
and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, and the Williamson Act. Those
comments are incorporated into the Final EIR as "Letter D -Fordyce Family"
(pages 2-44 to 2-92). The Town has responded to our comments in the Final EIR
on pages 2-93 to 2-108. It should be noted that, the Town response consists
primarily of the statement: "The Town does not concur with this comment."
There are no additional studies or mitigation efforts, and no response to
information included in our letter in order to provide context, history, and a deeper
understanding of what it would mean to our neighborhood to build another
neighborhood on the hill above us. Instead, there is a litany of "exceptions" that
are being asked to be made in order to fit this ten-home development on this
pristine hillside above an existing, established neighborhood. The applicant is
asking for an exception to the grading requirements mandated by the HDSG; the
applicant is asking for an exception to the setback requirements mandated to
protect the Ross Creek by the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near
Streams; the applicant is asking for cancellation of a Williamson Act Contract that
has been in existence for over forty years, instead of going through the normal
nonrenewal process.
The question we are left with 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? We all purchased homes in the Surrey Farms
neighborhood because of the rural feel, the family-friendly streets, the farm fences,
1
the cul de sacs, the serenity, the wildlife, and the view of the grassy hillside. This
development would greatly alter each of these features.
The following is in response to the Town's response to our "Letter D". We
have followed the Town's paragraph enumeration for ease of reference. We
appreciate the time you are taking to read and consider our concerns, articulated
below.
PART ONE. Why Surrey Farms Matters to Us
[D-1 to D-5]
In this section of our original response, we articulated specifically why we
purchased a home in our neighborhood, what is unique about the neighborhood,
and the history of the neighborhood. We detailed past efforts to create a pass-
through street in the 1970' s, and did our best to define the aesthetic of Surrey
Farms, so that the decision-making bodies in the Town would have an
understanding of what the development of a ten-home project above us, would
mean. We also included our efforts since 20 I 0 to stop this development, including
a petition signed by approximately seventy Surrey Farms households, since we
were not included as interested parties in the DEIR, and our numerous efforts were
not mentioned in the DEIR.
The Town responded that the comments are not at variance with the content
of the DEIR and no response is required, and that further, the petition did not need
to be included since it wasn't submitted in response to the NOP. We urge the
planning commission, if you have not already done so, to read the section of our
letter in response to the DEIR entitled "Why Surrey Farms Matters to Us" to
provide context, history, and understanding of both our neighborhood and the
potential effects of this development. We also encourage you to spend some time
in Surrey Farms, walk to the end of Longmeadow and see what we see, so that you
can assess this project from the perspective of the neighborhood.
2
PART TWO.
[D-6]
Why the Draft EIR is Inadequate
In this section of our letter, we noted that, 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.
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 less 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.
[D-7 to D-8]
We also argued that there were no other alternatives to development
discussed in the Draft EIR, and that the no-development alternative and the less-
development alternative were not discussed because of an allegation that to do so
would be contrary to CEQA. The Town "does not concur" with this comment, but
a review of the DEIR, specifically section 5.5.3 "Reduced Density Alternative"
(which consists of two paragraphs of this over 700-page document) states
unequivocally that a Reduced Density Alternative was not considered because "the
project would be consistent with the proposed zone and consistent with the
adjacent densities, lot sizes and setbacks." (DEIR section 5 .5.3, p. 5-190). The
"No Project Alternative" contains no analysis. It states that the Williamson Act
would remain in effect, but that agricultural uses were likely not viable. Section D-
8 also lists our specific concerns with regard to the proposed development, which
are individually addressed throughout this document (e.g., open space, hillside
preservation, environmental quality, natural plan and wildlife conservation).
3
[D-9]
THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL
PLAN AND THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND
GUIDELINES
The DEIR claims that this project is consistent with the 2020 General Plan
because, prior to Mr. and Mrs . Dodge putting it into the Williamson Act in 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
Act was to preserve it and prevent development. We also do not understand why
the Town would rely on the 1961 General Plan, which was in effect prior to the
development of our neighborhood. What we should be focusing on is the 2020
General Plan.
[D-10]
As stated in our response to the DEIR, the proposed development requires
an amendment to the General Plan precisely because it is in conflict with the
General Plan Goals and Policies. As the Town correctly pointed out, the goals
referenced were taken from the Open Space chapter of the General Plan, which, it
alleges, is not specifically applicable to Resource Conservation space. That section
makes an explicit statement, however, that reaches beyond the four designated
open space areas. It states: "The Town's hillside areas are unique and add to the
quality oflife of Town residents and visitors. While much of the Town is
considered built out, opportunities to develop in the hillside areas remain.
Furthermore, it defines the "Open Space" designation as including public parks,
open space preserves, private preserves, and stream corridors.
4
The Town's HSP and HDSG ensure that open space areas in the hillsides
are "preseived to the greatest extent possible by the Town. The viewsheds and
exiting 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).
Additionally, below I have listed several additional areas of the General
Plan that are helpful in considering whether or not this development is consistent
with the vision of the Town of Los Gatos.
To be considered consistent with the General Plan, a project must not only
b~ 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. INT-I). The Los Gatos 2020 General Plan supersedes previous General
Plans. (General Plan 2020 at p. INT-I). 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).
Since the Town is relying on a land use designation that predates the 1975
Williamson Act contract, it is worthwhile to note the difference in our Town from
then until now. 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).
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
5
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).
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-I). 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 I 0-year rolling term contracts, with
counties and cities also acting voluntarily." (General Plan 2020 at p. LU-9).
"Approximately 136 acres ofland 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
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
6
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.
[D-11)
In this section, we noted and the Town agreed with the statement
that the project would utilize roughly 81 % of the site, destroying the beauty
of the hillside area. The Town responded 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.
7
[D-12 to D~14J
In this section, we referenced a September 12, 2012 General Plan
Committee meeting, wherein the committee deferred action until there was
the following: a Draft EIR, a noticed meeting with a larger venue, criteria
on Williamson Act cancellation, input on the General Plan amendment and
zoning, required findings on the General Plan amendment and zoning, an
understanding of the historical perspective with Hillside developments, and
whether or not they are providing an opinion on the PD, by providing an
opinion on the zoning . We noted that, even with a full DEIR, many of these
land use issues remain not fully addressed.
The Town concurs that the project is subject to both the HDSG and
the HSP, and restates the objectives 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 prov ide a way to
achieve these objectives with this proposed development.
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).
Finally, the Town's response makes the exceptional suggestion that
the HDSG and the HSP aren't necessarily meant to apply to this particular
hillside. The Town states that the documents are to provide guidance to
8
"preserved larger, scenic hillsides [sic] areas such as the Blossom Hill
Ridge Line Area or the Aztec Ridge Line Are a." This statement simply
cannot be supported, as it is patently clear that this particular parcel of land
is subject to both the HDSG and the HSP, and this is stated specifically at
p. 5-18 of the DEIR. The Town then concludes that: "no significant impacts
on wildlife, aesthetics, biological resources, Ross Creek, scenic vistas,
habitat, vegetation or open space have been identified."
Development plans must demonstrate full compliance with all
standards. (HSDG at p. 10). The Staff Report, released on 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. 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 fills 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'
9
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)
[D-15]
THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES ARE INCONSISTENT WITH CURRENT
LAND USE OBJECTIVES
Zoning
Although the project requires a change in zoning from Resource
Conservation Space to a Planned Development, this was found to have a "less than
significant impact" with no mitigation measure required. We pointed out in our
letter that the DEIR incorrectly states that the current zoning is "Agriculture." The
current zoning, however, is "Resource Conservation Space." In its response, the
Town states that "ifthe project is approved and the underlying General Plan land
use designation is changed from RC (Resource Conservation) to HR: 1 :PD
(Hillside Residential), 1 unit/acre ... the project would not be in conflict with the
General Plan." We do not understand this reasoning. It essentially states that "if
we change the land use, the land use won't conflict anymore." The Town then
argues that the property isn't suitable for agricultural operations, which it has
never been used for the entire time it has been in the Williamson Act, and for the
entire time the Surrey Farms neighborhood has been in existence. This is a non-
issue.
10
j
[D-16]
In this section, we stated the definition of Resource Conservation Space as
per the Town Code of Los Gatos section 29.40.155: "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."
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. The Town responded by saying that, though they
concur with the definition of Resource Conservation Space, "because the
Williamson Act would be cancelled, the RC designation is no longer appropriate
for the site." This clearly does not address the issue. The land is in the Williamson
Act. The Williamson Act contract has not been cancelled. It was put in the
Williamson Act to restrict development and protect open space. 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.
[D-17to D-19]
Williamson Act Cancellation
In this section, we set forth the criteria for cancelling a Williamson Act
contract, noting that 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).
A board or council may only approve a canceJlation of a Williamson Act contract
11
if it finds that cancellation is consistent with the purpose of the Williamson Act or,
that the cancellation is in the public interest. In order to find that cancellation is in
the public interest, a council or board must make the following findings: (I) that
other public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter; and (2)
that there is no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable
for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put, or that development
of the contracted land would provide more contiguous patterns of urban
development than development of proximate noncontracted land.'.
The Town responded by concurring that a Williamson Act contract
cancellation is an option under "limited circumstances and conditions." It then set
forth reasons why, in this case, "'the Williamson Act no longer services the public
interest in that site [sic] does not currently support agriculture, and has not
supported any agricultural uses for many decades." The Town then lists all of the
various reasons why a large-scale agricultural operation on the site would not be in
the public interest. The Town sidesteps again, however, the actual reason the land
was put into the Williamson Act and zoned as Resource Conservation space.
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. As detailed in our comments to the DEIR, the land
was placed in the Williamson Act pursuant to a Land Conservation Contract
entered into between the Town and Bob and Dorothy Dodge in 1975.
The Land Conservation Contract itself states: '"The o-wners and the town
wish to limit the use of the property to agricultural uses and uses compatible with
agricultural uses in order to presen1e 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
12
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.
It should also be noted that the Town did not put forth any showing on the
second prong of Williamson Act cancellation, i.e., that there is no proximate
noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which it is
proposed the contracted land be put, or that development of the contracted land
would provide more contiguous patters of urban development than development of
proximate noncontracted land.
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.
(D-20 to D-221
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL DESTROY THE AESTHETICS
OF THE SURROUNDING AREA
In this section, we noted that the DEIR finds 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
13
become a constant construction zone, a busy neighborhood, or even a ghost town
if the lots are not sold as expected. We noted that the hillside does not contain any
current unnatural source of light and that the construction of a neighborhood on
the hill will create multiple new sources of substantial light and glare, and that the
development would substantially impact scenic vistas, damage scenic resources,
and degrade the visual character of the site and its surroundings .
In its response, the Town again contends 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 oflight. However, this fails to take into account three things: (1) this
is a natural hill that is currently I 00% 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.
14
THE PROJECT WILL IRREVOCABLY HARM BIOLOGICA L RESOURCES
[D-23}
White Tailed Kites and Other Special Status and Migratory Birds
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 . The Town
responded that, the White Tailed Kite was not observed onsite, and that mitigation
during breeding season would be required and sufficient. As with all the wildlife
affected or potentially affected by this proposed development, the destruction of
their natural habitat cannot be mitigated. The DEIR notes that White Tailed Kites
are designated as fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code and
that there have been five occurrences of the White Tailed Kite within 20 miles of
the site. 13 7 trees will be "impacted" by the development and 71 of those will be
removed. Over 80% of the land will be developed. The white-tailed kite is a
protected species and this is an insufficient way of ensuring its habitat is
preserved.
[D-24]
San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
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. Instead, it disassembles nests and moves them to the next place, and
then the next, which will be hard to come by on this fully developed hill that used
to be their habitat. The Town response is that there are "no restrictions on
impacting habitat for [sic] Dusky-Footed woodrat.'' The Dusky footed woodrat is a
protected species.
15
[D-25]
California Red-legged Frogs and Foothill Yellow-legged Frogs
According to section 4.3-5, the project development could have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or though habitat modification, to
California red-legged frogs and Foothill yellow-legged frogs. Various mitigation
measures are proposed, with no acknowledgment that the frogs' habitat is being
modified, limited, and destroyed.
[D-26 to D-28)
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 section 4.3-8, the project development would adversely affect
the riparian habitat of Ross Creek and an unnamed tributary to Ross Creek located
within the project site. The mitigation measure is to conform with the Guidelines
and Standards for Land Use Near Streams.
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
16
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. The Geotechnical Survey provided by
the developer is from 2010. It is unclear whether it even did provides the proper
analysis and justification to qualify for an exception to the setback. There is no
justification in the DEIR for granting an exception to the setback requirement.
[D-29)
Protected Trees
According to the 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 there are less of
them being planted than are being removed. Additionally, all animal species who
rely on these trees for nesting or food or habitat will be irrevocably harmed.
[D-30 to D-31]
Loss of Habitat for Native Wildlife
According to section 4.3-11 of the DEIR, the project development would
result in the "loss of habitat for native wildlife." In Part Four of the Fordyce Letter
in Response to DEIR, we submitted photos of some of the 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
17
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." Isn't this a reason to preserve this particular habitat? If there is no
known connective wildlife corridor, where will all the wildlife go? After reading
the DEIR and the Town's response, we are left with the question: Why is this not
more important? The project development will result in the loss of habitat for
native wildlife forever.
Other Affected Species
As articulated in our response to the DEIR, the presence of two special-
status species were determined to be on site: the San Francisco dusky-footed
woodrat and the oak titmouse. Another ten target species were determined 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-homed owl and two barn owls
were also observed. Both are protected raptor species. Although they are not
expected to occur on site, the presence of an additional 16 target species could not
be entirely ruled out. The Town concurred with this description of the wildlife
surveys.
18
[D-32 to D-35)
THE PROJECT WILL HA VE A DETRIMENTAL AFFECT ON THE SITE
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
As stated in our comments to the DEIR, 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 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 Town has clarified that this is not a "pond," but a detention basin, which
would be designed to drain within 48 hours after a storm. The Town also states
that the project would construct an 18-foot wide earthen berm overflow channel
along the adjacent property boundaries of the northwestern comer of the site to
contain overflow from the proposed stonndrain 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. Finally, 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
19
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.
[D-36 to D-37]
THE PROJECT WILL ADD TO ALREADY-EXISTING TRANSPORTATION
AND TRAFFIC PROBLEMS
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.
We also expressed concerns about changing the nature of our neighborhood
roads entirely by connecting Twin Oaks to a new road. The town responded,
clarifying that there will be no pass through roads from Twin Oaks, and no access
between Twin Oaks and Cerro Vista. Additionally, we are deeply concerned that
these new roads will not be maintained by the Town, but rather, will be private
roads maintained by a Homeowners Association. We have been informed that
these roads will be private because the Town doesn't want to maintain any public
roads on the hillsides. There is nothing to suggest that these roads will be
appropriately maintained by an unknown private entity, and no one to hold
accountable should something go wrong.
20
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 24 7 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
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.
21
{D·38 to D·39]
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
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.
22
We stated in our response to the DEIR that the construction of the project
will drastically affect our way of life. We noted that the construction won't do this
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.
[D-40 to D-43]
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.
23
[D -44 to D-47)
THE PROJECT WILL CREATE A FIRE HAZARD FOR THE
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND 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.
[D-48)
THE PUBLIC SERVICES, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS OF THE
TOWN OF LOS GATOS WILL BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED BY THE
PROJECT
The DEIR says that the project would cause a less than significant impact
on our schools. In our comments, we suggested that this assessment does not
appear to take into account all the other "less than significant" impacts of new
construction in Los Gatos, and requested that there be further study to the impact
on our schools. The Town responded that schools won't have to be expanded and
that the project would pay the required school fees. This does not address the
fundamental problem caused by burdening our schools and other public resources.
24
[D-49)
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 comer of Los Gatos, which used to
be backed by a small country day school and open space, will now be backed by a
larger school and an entire new neighborhood. The Town stated that it does not
concur that the proposed project would result in cumulate 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." The Town then stated, without objective
authority, that these impacts can be reduced to "less than significant."
[D-50 to D-52]
THE DEIR INADQUATELY CONSIDERS ALL APPROPRIATE
ALTERNATIVES
According to the Draft EIR, four possible project alternatives could be
considered: (1) no project alternative; (2) reduced density alternative; (3) two
access alternative; and (4) two access+ 2 EVA alternative.
The DEIR states that the reduced density alternative was reviewed on a
preliminary basis but was rejected because the significant impacts identified in the
DEIR could be mitigated "though implementation of specified mitigation
measures." In other words, it was never considered or analyzed. Why was this
25
project looked at from the beginning as only being no project or a ten-home
project? In it's response to this question, the Town maintains that: "The purpose of
the project alternativ e is to identify alternatives that 'would avoid or substantially
lessen any of the significant effects of the project' The proposed project does not
have any significant effects." I hope that, after reading these comments and those
of my neighbors, you will find this statement unsupportable. Clearly there will be
significant effects , and a reduced density alternative should have, at a minimum,
been considered.
According to the DEIR, "Under the no project alternative, the proposed
project would not be developed and the significant environmental impacts
identified in this report, as well as the less-than significant impacts identified in
Ch. 4 (including visual impacts), would be avoided. There is no support for the
statement that this property could only be used for "marginally viable" agricultural
operations. As discussed herein, this property is zoned as Resource Conservation
space. It is our understanding that it was intended to remain as open space, in
order to provide a pastoral setting to the neighborhood developed by its original
owner. The DEIR should have provided at least a statement that a no project
alternative would eliminate all of the negative impacts caused by the development
of this property.
CONCLUSION
According to the General Plan Vision Statement: "When residents drive
south on Highway 17, cross over Highway 85, see the beautiful Town of Los
Gatos nestled at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains, they know they are home.
Los Gatos is an oasis of calm within one of the major economic engines of the
world ... people feel safe here." (General Plan 2020 at p . VIS-2). This is precisely
how we feel when we drive down Longmeadow, into the Surrey Farms
neighborhood, nestled at the base of what we all call "the hill."
26
We encourage those of you who have not yet been out to the proposed
development site, to spend some time there and in our neighborhood. To see
photographs of the site and the neighborhood, please go to our Save Surrey Farms
Face book page: https ://www .facebook.com/Save-Suney-F arms-
220965074599839/photos/. You can also search the hashtag #savesurreyfarms on
Instagram. These photos provide a glimpse of the beauty of the wildlife, the feel of
the neighborhood, and the serenity of the hillside. We urge you to take action to
protect both the habitat on the hill and our neighborhood. Thank you for your time
and service to our Town.
Sincerely,
The Fordyce Family
Jill, Craig, Jennie, Jack, Daisy, Will and Hope
191 Longmeadow Drive
February 28, 2018
27
LAW OFFICE OF DONALD B. MOONEY
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
.TArmer@losgatosca.gov
Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
417 Mace Boulevard, Suite J-334
Davis, CA 95618
530-758-2377
dbmooney@dcn.org
February 28, 2018
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Comments on Environmental Impact Report Surrey Farm Estates
Dear Commissioners:
This office represents _Jill Fordyce , Jon Fordyce, Bill Meleyco , Kathy Meleyco,
Jon Witkin and Marsha Witkin and submits the following comments on the
Environmental Impact Report on Surrey Farm Estates Project. As an initial matter, the
commentors object to the proposed project on the grounds that the Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR") fails to meet the legal requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq. and the CEQA
Guidelines, section 15000 et seq . (Title 14 California Code of Regulations§ 15000 et
seq .) Many of the following comments were submitted on the Draft EIR , but they were
not included in the Final EIR and the Town did not provide a response to the comments.
I. THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
"CEQA is a comprehensive scheme designed to provide long-term protection to
the environment. [Pub. Resources Code, §21001.1 In enacting CEQA, the Legislature
declared its intention that all public agencies responsible for regulating activities
affecting the environment give prime consideration to preventing environmental damage
~hen carrying out their duties. [Pub. Resources Code,§ 21000(g).l CEQA is to be
interpreted 'to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the
reasonable scope of the statutory language.' [Friends of Mammoth v. Board of
Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal .3d 247 , 259]". (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish & Game
Com . (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 112 .) "The environmental impact report, with all its
specificity and complexity, is the mechanism prescribed by CEQA to force informed
decision making and to expose the decision-making process to public scrutiny. (Planning
and Conservation League v. Department of Water Resources (2000) 83 Cal App .4th 892,
910; citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 86.) This
interpretation remains the benchmark for judicial interpretation of CEQA. (Laurel
Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California ("Laurel
Heights I") (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 390, quoting Bozung v. Local Agency Formation
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page2
Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 274.) As the Laurel Heights I court noted, "lilt is, of
course, too late to argue for a grudging, miserly reading of CEQA." (Laurel Heights I,
supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 390.)
The EIR is "the heart of CEQA" and "an environmental alarm bell whose purpose
is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they
have reached the ecological point of no return ." (Id . at p . 392.) The EIR is the "primary
means" of ensuring that public agencies "take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate,
and enhance the environmental quality of the state ." (Id ., quoting Pub . Resources Code,
§ 21001(a).) The EIR is also a "document of accountability," intended "to demonstrate to
an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the
ecological implications of its actions." (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 392
(quoting No Oil, Inc ., supra, 13 Cal.3d at p . 86.) Thus, "[t)he EIR process protects not
only the environment but also informed self-government." (Ibid.)
The central purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant environmental effects
of the proposed project, and to identify ways of avoiding or minimizing those effects
through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures or the selection of feasible
alternatives. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21002, 21002.l(a), 21061.) "An EIR provides the
public and responsible government agencies with detailed information on the potential
environmental consequences of an agency's proposed decision." (Mountain Lion
Foundation v. Fish & Game Commission, supra, 16 Cal.4th at p . 113 .) Thus, the primary
purposes of CEQA is to inform government decision-makers and the public about the
potential significant environmental effects of proposed projects (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15002(a)(l)) and to disclose to the public the reasons for approval of a project that may
have significant environmental effects . (CEQA Guidelines ,§ 15002(a)(4).) Informed
decision making and public participation are fundamental cornerstones of the CEQA
process. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v . Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553 ~
Laurel Heights/, supra, 47 Cal.3d 376.) With this primary purpose of CEQA in mind,
the California Supreme Court has stated that "ltlhe environmental impact report ("EIR")
is the primary means of achieving the Legislature's considered declaration that it is the
policy of this State to take all action necessary to protect, rehabilitate , and enhance the
environmental quality of the State." (Sierra Club v. State Board of Forestry (1994) 7
Cal.4th 1215, 1229 (emphasis addedl.)
Thus, when an agency fails to comply with CEQA 's informational requirements
of CEQA, an agency has failed to proceed in 'a manner required by law . (Save Our
Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99,
118 . If the deficiencies in an EIR "preclude[ I informed decision.making and public
participation, the goals of CEQA are thwarted and a prejudicial abuse of discretion has
occurred." (Id . at p. 128 .)
As discussed in these comments as well as the comments submitted by the
Fordyce Family and Save Surrey Farms, the EIR fails to satisfy CEQA's legal
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 3
requirements and fails as an informational document. Thus, the EIR is legally deficient.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
The EIR fails to provide a legally adequate Project Description . CEQA requires
that environmental review document contain an accurate description of the entire project.
(See County of Inyo v . City of Los Angeles (1977) 71CalApp.3d185, 193 .) In County of
Inyo, the court stated that "fain accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine
qua non of an informative and legally sufficient BIR." (Id .) CEQA requires a complete
project description to ensure that all of the project's environmental impacts are
considered. (City of Santee v . County of San Diego (1989) 214 CalApp.3d 1450, 1454.)
As stated by the court in County of Inyo, "[al curtailed or distorted project description
may stultify the objectives of the reporting process . Only through an accurate view of the
project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit
against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantages of
terminating the proposal (i.e., the "no project" alternative) and weigh other alternatives in
the balance." (71 Ca1App .3d at pp. 192-193; see also Communities/or a Better
Environment v . City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 82 [court found project
description inadequate where EIR concealed, ignored, excluded, or simply failed to
provide pertinent information" regarding a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the
project).) A curtailed, enigmatic or unstable project description draws a red herring
across the path of public input." (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of
Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App .4th 645, 656; quoting County of Inyo, supra, 71 Cal.App.3d
at pp . 197-198 .)
An accurate project description is essential as it allows the public and the decision-
makers to evaluate the project's benefits against its environmental effects. (County of
Inyo v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 71 Ca1App.3d at pp. 192-193 .) An inaccurate project
description may result in an EIR that fails to disclose impacts associated with the project.
(See Santiago County Water Dist. v . County of Orange (1981) 118 Ca1App.3d 818, 829.)
Moreover, an accurate project description provides for full disclosure and informed
decision-making . (See Kostka & Zischke, Practice Under the California Environmental
Quality Act (Cont. Ed. Bar 2013) § 12 .. 7, at p. 580.) "[OJnly through an accurate view of
the project may the public and interested parties and public agencies balance the
proposed project's benefits against its environmental cost, consider appropriate mitigation
measures, assess the advantages of terminating the proposal and properly weigh other
alternatives .... " (City of Santee v. County of San Diego , supra, 214 Cal.App.3d at p .
1454.) If the description is inadequate because it fails to discuss an aspect of the project,
the environmental analysis will probably reflect the same mistake . (See San Joaquin
Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus (1994) 27 Cal.App.3d 713, 722-
723 .)
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page4
A. The Project Description Lacks Critical Information
The EIR's Project Description fails to provide information regarding the size of the
homes, the amount of impervious surface resulting from the construction of the homes,
streets and landscaping . (See DEIR§ 3 .4 .) Without knowing the extent or amount of the
impervious swface it impairs the ability to evaluate the potentially significant impacts to
homes and residential areas from drainage. Nor can the public adequately evaluate
whether the detention ponds and drainage facilities are adequate to avoid potentially
significant environmental impacts.
B. THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION CONTAINS OVERLY NARROW PROJECT
OBJECTIVES
The EIR's Project Description contains overly narrow project objectives that the
adequacy of the environmental review. The project description must state the objectives
sought by the proposed project. (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15124(b).) The statement of
objectives must include the underlying purpose of the project. (Id.) The statement of
objectives is critical to the environmental review as its drives the agency's selection of
alternatives for analysis and approval. (Id.; In re Bay Delta Programmatic
Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1143 , 1164
[objectives chosen should be broad enough to permit a reasonable range of alternatives].)
Thus, when an agency defines a project and its objectives too narrowly, the EIR's
treatment of alternatives may also be inadequate . (See City of Santee v. County of San
Diego (1989) 214 Cal.App.3d 1438, 1455.) Thus, an applicant cannot artificially confine
the range of available alternatives by adopting an overly narrow statement of project
objectives. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221Cal.App.3d69,
736; s e e also C ity of Carmel-by -the-Sea v. U.S. Department of Transportation (1997) 123
F.3d 1142, 1155 (the project objective" necessarily dictates the range of 'reasonable"
alternatives and an agency cannot define its objectives in unreasonably narrow terms.").)
To allow an applicant to do so would render CEQA's mandate "meaningless." (Kings
County, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p. 737 .)
The Applicant provided an overly narrow set of project objectives that are simply
to develop 10 residential lost at the project site and to provide emergency access
connections to adjacent roadways where feasible . (DEIR! 3.3 .1.) The Town provides a
separate list of project objectives that are not limited to the development of 10 homes, but
with the development standards and Hillside Specific Plan. (DEIR 1f 3 .3 .2 .) In
preparation and evaluation of the alternatives, however , the BIR focuses on the
applicant's overly narrow objectives. These narrow project objectives unnecessarily limit
the range of alternatives in the EIR. A review of the EIR's alternative section confirms
this concern. The EIR only analyzes two alternatives : 1) the Two-Access Alternative
(DEIR at p . 5-20); and 2) the Two Access+ Two EV A Alternative (DEIR at p. 5-36).
Thus, the two alternatives only deal with the project's circulation design and not the
number of lots and/or the size of the lots.
Planning Commission
February 28 , 2018
Page5
C. The Project Description Inappropriately Incorporates Mitigation
Measures
The EIR incorporates what amount to mitigation measures regarding stormwater
drainage into the project description . (DEIR at p . 3-11 .) The project description
provides for two water quality/flow control basins to treat drainage from new impervious
surfaces as well as catch basins to collect and direct surface runoff to two basins. (Id.)
These constitute avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures designed to reduce
or eliminate the impacts to flood risk and water quality. "By compressing the analysis of
impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue, disregards the requirements of
CEQA." (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.41h 645, 656, citing
Pub. Resources Code,§§ 21lOO(b),21081, CEQA Guidelines,§ 15126, 15091.) In
Lotus, the court held that actions such as restorative planting, removal of invasive plants,
and the use of an arborist and specialized equipment were "plainly mitigation measures
and not part of the project itself," resulting in the improper compression of environmental
impacts and mitigation measures into a single issue in the EJR. (223 Cal.App .4'h at p.
656, fn. 8 .)
D. Cancellation of Williamson Act Contract
The Project description includes the cancellation of the Williamson Act contract
for the project site . (DEIR' 3 .4.) The Legislature intended cancellation to be approved
only in the most extraordinary circumstances. (See Sierra Club v . City of Hayward , 28
Cal.3d. 840, 852.) Thus the Legislature intended nonrenewal as the ordinary contract
termination method; no evidence appears in the record to demonstrate that compliance
with the nonrenewal process would have interfered with the city's orderly development or
defeated any other purpose served by cancellation. (Id.) Substantial evidence must
support the circumstances that give rise to the cancellation request. (Id.)
"The Williamson Act authorizes approval of a cancellation request only if the
relevant agency finds '(a) That the cancellation is not inconsistent with the purposes of
(the act); and (P) (b) That cancellation is in the public interest.' (Gov't Code § 51282.)"
Section 51282 further states: "The existence of an opportunity for another use of the land
involved shall not be sufficient reason for the cancellation of a contract. A potential
alternative use of the land may be considered only if there is no proximate, noncontracted
land suitable for the use to which it is proposed the contracted land be put." (Sierra Club
v. City of Hayward (1981) 28 Cal.3d 840, 847-848 ; see also Save Panache Valley v. San
Benito County (2013) 217 Cal.App.41h 503, 516.)
Cancellation is a disfavored method to remove lands from contract while
nonrenewal is the preferred method. (Sierra Club v. City of Hayward, supra, 28 Cal.3d at
p . 853 .) An agency may grant tentative approval for cancellation of a contract only if it
makes one of the following findings: (1) the cancellation is consistent with the purposes
of the Act or (2) cancellation is in the public interest. (Gov't Code,§ 51282(a).) "For
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page6
purposes of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) cancellation of a contract shall be in the
public interest only if the council or board makes the following findings: (1) that other
public concerns substantially outweigh the objectives of this chapter; and (2) that there is
no proximate noncontracted land which is both available and suitable for the use to which
it is proposed the contracted land be put, or that development of the contracted land would
provide more contiguous patterns of urban development than development of proximate
noncontracted land." (Id. subd . (c).) "As used in this subdivision 'proximate,
noncontracted land' means land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter, which
is sufficiently close to land which is so restricted that it can serve as a practical alternative
for the use which is proposed for the restricted land. As used in this subdivision 'suitable'
for the proposed use means that the salient features of the proposed use can be served by
land not restricted by contract pursuant to this chapter. Such nonrestricted land may be a
single parcel or may be a combination of contiguous or discontiguous parcels." (Save
Panoche Valley, supra, 217 Cal App .4th at p . 516.)
In the present matter, the EIR fails to identify any alternative site that would be
noncontracted land in proximate location to the proposed project. Moreover, the EIR fails
to identify the extraordinary circumstances that would justify cancellation of the
Williamson Act contract. Nor does the EIR identify that compliance with the nonrenewal
process would interfere with the Town's orderly development. Finally, the EIR fails to
identify what public interest would be served by cancellation. While cancellation of the
contract may serve the applicant's private and economic interests, that does not constitute
a public interest.
Ill. ALTERNATIVES
The EIR contains a legally flawed alternative analysis as it fails to contain a
reasonable range of feasible alternatives . (DEIR at pp. 22-31; see Pub. Resources Code,
§§ 21001(g); 21002.l(a); CEQA Guidelines,§ 15126.6; Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board
of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 566.)
A. CEQA REQUIRES AN EIR TO CONSIDER A REASONABLE RANGE OF
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
CEQA mandates that a lead agency adopt feasible alternatives or feasible
mitigation measures that can substantially lessen the project's significant environmental
impacts. (Pub . Resources Code,§ 21002; Guidelines,§ 15002(a)(3); Citizens of Goleta
Valley v. Board of Supervisors, supra , 52 Cal.3d at p. 566.) For that reason, "[t)he core of
an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections." (Id . at p . 564.) "The purpose of an
environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a
project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those
significant effects can be mitigated or avoided. (Pub. Resources Code,§ 21002.l(a)
(emphasis added); see also Pub . Resources Code, § 21061 .) Thus, a lead agency must
ensure "that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are thoroughly assessed."
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page?
(Wildlife Alive v. Chickering (1976) 18 Cal .3d 190, 197; Pub. Resources Code,§ 21001(g)
(lead agency must "consider alternatives to proposed actions affecting the environment");
Laurel Heights/, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 400.)
The determination of whether an alternative is feasible is made in two stages . (See
Mir Mar Mobile Community v. City of Oceanside (2004) 119 CalApp.4th 477-489-490
California Native Plant Society v . City of Santa Cruz (2009) 177 Cal App.4th 957, 981;
CEQA Guidelines,§ 15126.6(c).) The first step involves identifying a range of
alternatives that will satisfy basic project objectives while reducing significant impacts.
(Ibid.) Alternatives that are not "potentially feasible" are excluded at this stage as there is
no point in studying alternatives that cannot be implemented. (Ibid.) In the second stage,
the final decision on the project, the agency evaluates whether the alternatives are actually
feasible. (California Native Plant Society, supra, 177 Cal App.4th at 981; see CEQA
Guidelines,§ 15091(a)(3).) At this point, the agency may reject as infeasible alternatives
that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible. (California Native Plant Society,
supra, 177 Cal App.4th at 981.)
The EIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15126.6(a).) The alternatives discussion must focus on alternatives that avoid or
substantially lessen any significant effects of the project. (Id.,§ 15126.6(b); Goleta
Valley, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 566 (EIR must consider alternatives that "offer substantial
environmental advantages").) The range must be sufficient "to permit a reasonable choice
of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned." (San Bernardino Valley
Audubon Soc'y v. County of San Bernardino (1984) 155 Ca1App.3d 738, 750; see also
Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992) 10 Cal App .4th 1212, 1217-18 , 1222 (EIR that
only considered two alternatives for less development was not a range of reasonable
alternatives).) Although no rule governs the number of alternatives that must be
considered, the range is governed by the "rule of reason." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v .
Board of Supervisors, supra, 52 Cal.3d at p . 576; CEQA Guidelines,§ 15126 .6(a)(f).)
Marin Municipal Water District v. KG Land Corp. (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1652, 1664
("CEQA establishes no categorical legal imperative as to the scope of alternatives to be
analyzed in an EIR").) The range of alternatives, however, must be selected and discussed
in a manner that allows for meaningful public participation and informed decisionmaking .
(Id.) The fact that CEQA does not require a specific number of alternatives does not
excuse an agency's failure to present any feasible, less environmentally damaging options
to a proposed project. (See Sierra Club v . Contra Costa County, supra, 10 Cal.App.4th at
1217-18, 1222 (EIR that only considered two alternatives for less development was not a
range of reasonable alternatives).)
In Watsonville Pilot Association v. City of Watsonsville, supra, 183 Cal App.4th at
pp. 1086-1088, the court held that an EIR was legally inadequate because it failed to
consider a reduced project alternative . The court rejected the City's argument that no
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 8
discussion of an alternative is required if that alternative would not meet a project
objective. (Id.) The court held "it is virtually a given that the alternatives to a project will
not attain all of the project's objectives." (Id. (emphasis in original).) The Court also
rejected the City's argument that the EIR adequately addressed a reduced development
alternative by considering the no-project alternative. (Id. at pp. 1088-1089.) The court
recognized that "the core of an EIR is the mitigation and alternatives sections" and that the
purpose of an EIR is to identify the significant effects of a project on the environment, to
identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant
effects can be mitigated or avoided." (Id.)
B. THE EIR'S REJECTION OF THE REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
The EIR states that it rejected the reduced density alternative because CEQA
Guideline section 15092(c) does not allow a reduction in the number of housing units as
mitigation if it determines that there is another feasible specific mitigation available that
will provide a comparable level of mitigation. (See also Pub. Resources Code, §
21159 .26.) The EIR then concludes that the Reduced Density is legally infeasible as there
are mitigation measures available. The EIR's Reduced Density Alternative, however,
only reduced the project by one building lot. The EIR did not consider or evaluate any
alternative less than nine home sites. An adequate alternative analysis should have
included a true reduced alternative of only five or six lots for homes. Under Public
Resources Code, section 21159 .26, however, the decision that another mitigation measure
or alternative will provide a comparable level of mitigation and that it is feasible can only
be made at the project approval stage. Thus, the EIR cannot rely upon CEQA Guidelines
section 15092(c) and Public Resources Code section 21159.26 to exclude an analysis of a
reduced density alternative from an EIR.
It should also be noted that the EIR' s reliance on CEQA Guideline section
15092(c) is misplaced as it applies to mitigation measures, not an alternative analysis.
Thus, nothing in section 15092(c) precludes the Town from evaluating a Reduced Density
Alternative.
C. THE EIR FAILED TO INCLUDE A REASONABLE RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES
Contrary to CEQA's directive, the Town fails to consider a "reasonable range" of
alternatives that would reduce and avoid the Project's significant impacts. (See Pub.
Resources Code,§§ 21002 and 21002(a); Guidelines§ 15126.6(b); Goleta Valley, 52
Cal.3d at 566 (EIR must consider alternatives that "offer substantial environmental
advantages").) Other than the required No Project Alternative (Guidelines ,§ 15126.6(e)),
the EIR's alternative analysis contains only two alternatives, both of which have to do
with access roads to the project and not the number of lots, size of lots or the location of
the lots.
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page9
A project proponent, however, cannot artificially confine the range of available
alternatives by relying upon an overly narrow statement of project objectives. (Kings
County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford, supra, 221 Cal.App.3d at p . 736; see also City of
Carmel-By-the-Sea v. U.S . Department of Transportation, supra, 123 F.3d at p. 1155 (the
project objective "necessarily dictates the range of 'reasonable' alternatives and ·an agency
cannot define its objectives in unreasonably narrow terms.").) To allow the project's
objectives to be unreasonably narrow renders CEQA's mandate to consider a reasonable
range of potentially feasible alternatives meaningless. (Kings County, supra, 221
Cal.App.3d at p . 737 .) When an agency rejects one or more alternatives as infeasible
during the scoping process does not mean that the EIR need not contain a range of
alternatives to the project. (See In re Bay Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact
Report Coordinated Proceedings, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1164; California Native Plant
Society, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at 981; Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors,
supra, 52 Cal.3d at p. 559 (EIR examined 4 development alternatives); La.urel Heights I.
supra, 47 Cal .3d at 403 .)
Failure to provide a range of potentially feasible alternatives means that the EIR
fails to provide a choice to the decisionmakers. (San Bernardino Valley Audubon Soc 'y v.
County of San Bernardino, supra, 155 Cal.App .3d at 750 (range must be sufficient to
provide a reasonable choice of alternatives); California Native Plant Society v . C ity of
Santa Cruz, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at 981 (the decisionmaking body evaluates whether the
alternatives are actually feasible); CEQA Guidelines ,§ 15126 .6(a) (EIR must consider a
reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed
decisionmaking and public participation .).) The decision makers may reject as infeasible
alternatives that were identified in the EIR as potentially feasible. (Mira Mar Mobile
Community v. City of Oceanside , supra, 119 Cal App .4th at 489 .)
The EIR's failure to consider a reduced project alternative violates CEQA's
requirement to include a reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce and/or avoid
the Project's significant impacts . As such , the Town needs to prepare a revised EIR that
considers a reasonable range of alternatives .
III. THE EIR FAILS TO ADEQUATELY ADDRESS IMPACTS AND LACKS ADEQUATE
MITIGATION MEASURES
A. Land Use and Planning
The EIR recognizes that a project will result in a significant land use impact if the
project conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project. (DEIR at pp. 4.1-15; CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G; see
also CEQA Guidelines,§ 15125(d).) An EIR must evaluate any inconsistencies with
plans . (North Coast Rivers Alliance v . Marin Municipal Water District (2013) 216
Cal.App.4th 614, 632.) Moreover, an inconsistency with a plan or regulation may indicate
the likelihood of environmental harm. In the present matter, the EIR contains an
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 10
inadequate and incorrect discussion regarding the Project's consistency with the Town's
governing land use documents. ·
1. The Project's Inconsistency with the Zoning
The Project will result in a change of zoning from Resource Conservation to
Hillside Residential with a Planned Unit Development Overlay . (DEIR 4.1-2.) According
to the Town:
The Resource Conservation zone 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 land forms, 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 opens space in the form of
parks, pJaygrounds , and other community facilities .
The Hillside Residential zone is intended to provide for orderly,
harmonious development of the foothills and mountains. The HR zone
provides a means to minimize the amount of disturbance of the natural
terrain and encourages excellence in design principles and engineering
techniques. The HR zone also provides for a variety of dwelling types
where land assembly and a unified development scheme are more
appropriate .
Based upon the very definition and purpose of the zoning designation, there is a
potentially significant environmental impact that the EIR has not addressed. Currently,
the zoning provides for the protection of open-space and the management of land for
scenic areas, watershed, wildlife and vegetation. Upon being rezoned, the zoning provides
for the development of property. The BIR fails to recognize this change. Moreover, the
EIR fails to mitigate for the significant loss of open space protected by the Resource
Conservation zone.
2. The Project is Inconsistent with the General Plan's Goals and
Policies Governing Open Space
The proposed Project is also inconsistent with the goals and policies of the
General Plan. The general plan is "at the top of "the hierarchy of local government law
regulating land use ." (DaVita v . County of Napa (1995) 9 Cal.4th 763, 773 . The
Supreme Court described "the function of a general plan as a "constitution," and labeled
it the "basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use" in the locality .
(Lesher Communications, Inc. v. City of Walnut (1950) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540, De Vita,
supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 773 .) Thus, land use decisions must be consistent with the general
plan. (Gov't Code,§ 65860(a); Lesher Communications, Inc., supra, 9 Cal.3d at p. 541.)
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 11
An action is consistent with the general plan if it furthers the objectives and
policies of the general plan and does not obstruct their attainment. (Friends of Lagoon
Valley v. City of Vacaville (2007) 154 Ca1App.4th 807, 817.) While a court accords
deference to an agency 's interpretation of its general plan and various elements, an abuse
of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law,
its decision is not supported by findings, or the findings are not supported by substantial
evidence. (See Code Civ. Proc.,§ 1094.5; Pfeiffer v. City of Sunny vale City Council
(2011) 200 Cal.App .4 1h 1552 , 1563 .) An action, however, must be consistent with the
very specific and mandatory policies of the general plan. (Endangered Habitats League,
Inc . v. County of Orange (2005) 131CalApp.4tb777 , 785-786, 789.; Families Unafraid
to Uphold Rural El Dorado v. Board of Supervisors (1998) 62 Cal.App .4th 1332, 1342.)
The General Plan's Open Space Element provides:
The Town's hillside areas are unique and add to the quality of life of
Town residents and visitors. While much of the Town is considered built
out, opportunities to develop in the hillside areas remain . The Town's
Hillside Specific Plan and Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
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. (2020 General Plan at OSP-5 .)
To facilitate the protection of Open Space within the Town, the General Plan
identifies several Goals and Policies designed to maintain and achieve those goals. As
discussed in the Fordyce comments, the proposed Project is inconsistent with the General
Plan's Goals OSP-2 and OSP-5 . (See also Fordyce Comments at pp. 6.) Goal OSP-2
provides for the preservation of open space in hillside areas as natural open space. The
Project also violates OSP Policy 2.1 , which provides that for the preservation of natural
open space character of hillside lands, including natural topography, natural vegetation,
wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and viewsheds.
The Project is also inconsistent with OSP Goal 5. OSP Goal 5 requires the Town
"to create and maintain open space areas and parks that enhance and blend into existing
natural habitats, residential neighborhoods, and other Town features." (2020 General
Plan at OSP 14.) In implementing OSP Goal 5, the OSP Policy 5.4 provides for the
Town to "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.
As discussed in the Project Description the proposed Project preserves only 19
percent of the property as open space, while residential lots comprise 74 percent of the
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 12
site and roads comprise 7 percent. (DEIR at p . 3-4.) The EIR fails to identify or discuss
how a 81 percent loss of Open Space bordered in part by residential neighborhood and in
part by hillside residential complies with the goals and policies of the General Plan's
Open Space Element.
3. The EIR's Impact Analysis Regarding Land Use is Legally
Inadequate
Impact 4.1-2: In evaluating the Project's consistency with the applicable General
Plan and other planning documents, the EIR compares the project's consistency with the
1%1 General Plan prior to have been under a Williamson Act contract. (DEIR at p. 4.1-
20.) The EIR concludes that the Project's uses and density would be consistent with the
1961 General Plan at the time the property was designated agricultural preserve under the
Williamson Act. The EIR applies the wrong standard and/or baseline for making this
determination .
When a project involves the revision of a plan or policy, the project's impacts are
assessed against existing conditions. (CEQA Guidelines,§ 15126.6(e)(3(A); see also
Woodward Park Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Ca1App.4th683, 707.)
Thus, the EIR must base its consistency analysis on the existing land use designations and
land use, not upon an outdated General Plan from 50 years ago. The baseline for
evaluating impacts is the date of the Notice of Preparation, not a zoning or land use
designation from many decades past. (See CEQA Guidelines, 15125(a); Save Our
Peninsula Comm. v. Monterey County Board of Supervisors (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99,
125; see also Woodward Park Homeowners Association v. City of Fresno (2007) 150
CalApp.4th 683, 707 (EIR for planning and zoning changes for a new commercial
development rejected because EIR compared proposed development only to hypothetical
office park that could be developed under preexisting plan but did not compare proposed
development with existing physical conditions on site.).) The EIR's reliance on the
zoning prior to the Williamson Act contract to evaluate impacts violates CEQA 's baseline
requirements .
Impact 4.1-3: The EIR concludes that the Project's conflict with current zoning of
Agriculture and the Williamson contract does not constitute a potentially significant
environmental impact. The impact analysis states that the current zoning is Agriculture.
This contradicts the statement in Impact 4.1-2 that states the current zoning is Resource
Conservation. (See DEIR at p. 4.1-19.) For this impact analysis, the BIR does not rely
upon existing zoning of Resource Conservation, but the zoning that may exist at some
future point in time when the Williamson Act contract is cancelled and the property is
rezoned from Resources Conservation to Agriculture. The impact analysis must be
revised to address existing conditions. (See CEQA Guidelines, 15126.6(d).)
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 13
B. Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 45-4 states that the Project will not create or contribute to runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage. As discussed
above the "project features" regarding stormwater drainage should be mitigation
measures. (Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 CalApp.4m 645, 656, citing
Pub. Resources Code,§§ 21100(b), 21081, CEQA Guidelines,§ 15126, 15091.)
C. Aesthetics
The Final EIR dismisses comments on the Project's significant impacts to aesthetic
values, specifically scenic views of the project area. (FEIR at pp. 2-98 to 2-99.) The Final
EIR dismisses these concerns based upon the assumption that the views are only "private
views" and not "public views". This assertion is not supported by substantial evidence or
case law . As indicated in Jill Fordyce 's comments, these are not private views enjoyed by
only a few property owners, but scenic views enjoyed from many points of view and
several neighborhoods. Thus, the Project's adverse impacts to views are upon the
environment of persons in general. Moreover, case law is clear that aesthetic impacts can
be impacts on a neighborhood or neighborhoods. (See e.g. Pocket Protectors v. City of
Sacramento (2005) 124 Ca1App.41h 903, 928.) Additionally, Appendix G to the CEQA
Guidelines states in relevant part that a project will normally have a significant effect on
the environment if it will have a substantial, demonstrable negative aesthetic effect. Thus ,
"the CEQA Guidelines essentially establish a rebuttable presumption any substantial,
negative aesthetic effect is to be considered a significant environmental impact for CEQA
purposes" (Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29
Cal.App.4th 1597, 1605.)
In Pocket Protectors, the court accepted as substantial evidence the lay testimony
of neighbors regarding the potential land use and aesthetic impacts of a proposed housing
development in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The court held that the relevant
personal observations of area residents qualified as substantial evidence of potential
adverse environmental impacts of minimizing the open space and landscaping required by
the PUD are substantial evidence . The Court concluded that that where the neighbors
offered detailed factual observations about what they regarded as deficiencies in the open
space and landscaping requirements applied to the proposed project, such testimony
constituted substantial evidence of both land use and aesthetic impacts. (124 Cal.App.4th
at pp. 928-932.)
The Town's reliance upon Association for Protection of Environmental Values in
Ukiah v. City of Ukiah, 2 Cal.App.4th 720, 735 is misplaced. (See FEIR at pp. 2-98.) In
Association for Protection, case involved the construction of a single-family dwelling on a
lot, which was the last to be developed in a neighborhood of single-family residences .
The court found that there was no evidence such construction of that single family
residences in an already developed neighbor would -would adversely affect the
Planning Commission
February 28, 2018
Page 14
environment of persons in general would adversely affect the environment of persons in
general. (Id.) That is not the facts regarding this Project. This Project involves the
development of open space that is currently under a Williamson Contract. not a single Jot
in an already developed neighborhood . Moreover, the Project's visual impacts wiH
experience not by a single or even a few property owners, but the community as a whole.
VII. CONCLUSION
As demonstrated in these comments and the comments submitted by the Fordyce
Family, the EIR fails to meet CEQA' s minimum requirements. Moreover, the EIR fails
as an informational document to the decisionmakers and public.
cc: Clients
Sincerely,
Donald B. Mooney
Attorney
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cindy Shanker <cshanker@comcast.net>
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:58 AM
Jennifer Armer
Comments fir Planning Commission Meeting 2/28/18
Here our our comments regarding agenda its at tonight's hearing.
We object to this land being developed. Our reasons are substantially similar to those submitted in comments by many
other residents of the area so it does not seem necessary to elaborate, other than to make you aware that we share
many of their concerns .
In the event that you choose to proceed with consideration of the rezoning, we have the following comments:
Ten lots is too dense and the number of lots should be reduced overall. Specifically with respect to Cerro Vista Court,
our cul-de-sac only has 5 homes on it and the developer proposes to add access to 4 more with a road through our
neighborhood. This is a disproportionate impact.
The easement proposed to be used for constructing the road from Cerro Vista Court to the Dodge property was never
intended to be used for that purpose . Records related to establishment of our subdivision mention only a utility
easement to serve the Dodge property. Other historical documents, including the Final Subdivision Public Report make it
clear that our subdivision was intended to be a separate entity. The Dodge property was never part of our development
and should not become part of it by virtue of a road created by taking land from one of our neighbors.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Cindy and Philip Shanker
15949 Cerro Vista Court
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cindy Shanker <cshanker@comcast.net>
Wednesday, February 28, 2018 10:58 AM
Jennifer Armer
Comments fir Planning Commission Meeting 2/28/18
Here our our comments regarding agenda its at tonight's hearing.
We object to this land being developed. Our reasons are substantially similar to those submitted in comments by many
other residents of the area so it does not seem necessary to elaborate, other than to make you aware that we share
many of their concerns.
In the event that you choose to proceed with consideration of the rezoning, we have the following comments:
Ten lots is too dense and the number of lots should be reduced overall. Specifically with respect to Cerro Vista Court,
our cul-de-sac only has 5 homes on it and the developer proposes to add access to 4 more with a road through our
neighborhood. This is a disproportionate impact.
The easement proposed to be used for constructing the road from Cerro Vista Court to the Dodge property was never
intended to be used for that purpose. Records related to establishment of our subdivision mention only a utility
easement to serve the Dodge property. Other historical documents, including the Final Subdivision Public Report make it
clear that our subdivision was intended to be a separate entity. The Dodge property was never part of our development
and should not become part of it by virtue of a road created by taking land from one of our neighbors.
Thank you for considering our comments.
Cindy and Philip Shanker
15949 Cerro Vista Court