Attachment 05SAFETY ENGINEERING LLC
BUILDING AND FIRE SAFETY ENGINEERING
AND CODE CONSULT ANT
6010 BREIT DRIVE, SACRAMENTO, CA
(916) 214-1179 Cell Email: bfoster-fireexpert@hotmail.com
March 15, 2017
Los Gatos City Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Attn: Mayor Sayoc
Re: Letter in Support of the Proposed Sahadi Subdivision
15215 Shannon Road, Los Gatos, CA
Dear Mayor Sayoc and Councilmembers,
Safety Engineering LLC has been retained to examine and opine on the fire safety merits of
the proposed Sahadi subdivision. I have examined the plans and diagrams, and visited the
site on March 11, 2017. I would like to offer the following fire and life safety observations
and opinions, as a Safety Professional and as a former CA Deputy State Fire Marshal
Supervisor for almost 15 years with over 7 years in the Los Angeles area and 7 years in
Sacramento.
I have been on numerous major fires in California and Nevada and have been an expert
witness on numerous fires, describing how fires start, spread and grow until they engulf
everything in their path. We in the fire service have learned valuable lessons over the
years, at the cost of human life, homes, businesses and valuable wild land resources and
water shed.
One of the lessons we have learned is that not every fire can be prevented and, with that, it
is critically important to promote fire safety and fire prevention and provide options for
reducing a community's ri sk , not only to fire , but the unintended consequences of fire.
Community Risk Reduction (CRR) programs are becoming more and more prevalent in
communities that are pro-active in identifying and reducing hazards within their
community. Such programs reduce the severity of incidents to prevent them from
becoming major disasters.
The proposed project includes measures that are akin to a CRR program. The property is
located in a high fire risk area. First, the ongoing effort on this property to keep it clear of
weeds and other undergrowth is an excellent fire avoidance strategy. There is currently one
access drive onto this 13 acre site, providing a meaningful firebreak but it is not ideal for
firefighting access. There are short sections that are too narrow and too steep, which can
cause difficulties for larger fire-fighting vehicles.
Second, we in the fire service have learned that having only one way into a fire area is
inappropriate and should never be done. Our tragedies have turned into code changes and
firefighting tactics and strategies that have been taught at the state and federal levels for
years . The project includes two additional entry and egress paths that are both thoughtful
and unique. I believe that having these access roads into and out of this area could possibly
be the difference between a resident and/or a firefighter surviving a wildland fire in this
area or becoming a victim and another statistic.
ATTACHMENT IS
March 15,2017
Page2 of2
Sahadi Project
Third, the project proposes to provide a fire service main on this new main access road that
will bring water with firefighting capacity to the site. Currently, the closest water main is
over 3000 feet away and would have to be pumped up hill if the firefighters could even get
to them, considering the fences, gates, narrow walking paths that would have to used and
traversed. As proposed, this main will have a valve for each of the five homes that ties into
a water storage tank at each home.
Fourth, in addition to each house being fire sprinklered, the project proposes that each lot
be provided with a minimum of a I 0 ,000 galJon tank for domestic and firefighter use.
Fifth is the fact that in developing the site as proposed, the roads, fire resistive houses and
fire safe landscaping and brush maintenance will provide significant fire breaks . This fact
should in no way be under estimated or glossed over. I have personally seen hand cut fire
breaks that were no more than 6 feet wide, stop a fire. The fire break created with the
proposed development will provide a significant benefit to the existing surrounding homes
and hillside areas consistent with CRR principles, further emphasized by the strategically
advantageous location of the fire break created at this intennediate ridgeline crossing.
Last but not least, the added access routes the project provides serve as significantly
valuable firefighting and emergency egress routes in the event of a fire . Multiple access
points are critical in effective firefighting strategies. In particular, the added connectivity
for the adjacent development to the northwest to another point on Shannon Road could save
lives . It not only provides for another way out for that local community, but also provides
another route for those in the immediate area around Shannon Road to get out.
In conclusion, I would like to say that it is my sincere belief and conviction that allowing
this development to occur will improve safety for residents and firefighters, provide much
needed access and water and will ultimately reduce the risk of a fire from spreading
throughout the immediate vicinity. I strongly support this project both as a safety
professional and fonner fire chief and hope the Town Council of Los Gatos will agree with
me .
Sincerely, -f J~
"BJ" Foster, ASP
puty State Fire Marshal (Ret.)
Fonner Fire Chief, Walker Lake Fire Department
Certified Safety Professional/Safety Engineer
Attachment: Resume
March 15, 2017
To the Town Council of Los Gatos,
My husband Dirk and I have been residents at 15280 Shannon Road in Los Gatos since 1986. We
have experienced at first hand the problems created by storm-water run-off due to
new development and paving in our watershed. We have brought the issues of creek bed
erosion and flooding to the attention of the Town Council every few years since 1996.
(Jamshidi, Top of the Hill Road).
We have three main concerns regarding Mr. Sahadi's planned development application for
15215 Shannon Road: run-off, views and traffic. In this letter ! will focus mainly on run-off, since
it has the greatest impact on the community at large : storm water run-off from this new
hillside development will affect us, our downstream neighbors along Shannon Road and Short
Road (see pictures below), residents along Ross Creek, those who live in the flood prone areas
of the Guadalupe River, as well as the taxpayers in general. Please see the attached map of the
Guadalupe watershed.
The negative effects of dense hillside development, such as that proposed by Mr.Sahadi, are
due to the increase in impervious surfaces, to the loss of tree cover, and to the cutting of roads
in steep slopes .
1. Run-off: The increase in impervious surfaces (roofs, pavement, and driveways) leads to an
immediate increase in surface runoff (since the rain can no longer be absorbed into the soil).
The increase In surface run-off from the roofs and pavement causes an increase in water
velocity because there are no plants or absorptive soil to slow it down. The increased water
velocity leads to increased stream power (i.e. ability of flowing water to move material such as
sediment and rocks), and the increased power leads to the increased erosion capability of the
stream. The muddy water running down our creek and along Shannon Road Is just one
indication of how much soil and sediment is lost from the hills above our house during
rainstorms. The sediment scours our creek, and is finally deposited in the flood plain and the
Bay. When the reservoirs and the river bed of the Guadalupe are silted in, the low lying areas
are in danger of flooding more frequently.
The increased run-off from the currently proposed high-density hill-side development will not
be insignificant: It will increase the impervious surface by more than 66,000 square feet (more
than 11/2 acres). The drive-ways of lots 1 and 5 are sloping toward the existing cul-de-sac, and
even though on the plans It looks like the drive.;way is saddled across the ridgeline, in reality the
entire pavement is sloping toward the steep existing drive-way, channeling the run-off toward
Shannon Road . The proposed cut and fill of the cul-de-sac may change this profile and channel
the run-off from lot 5 toward Santella Drive (from where it will still end up in Ross Creek and
the Guadalupe River), but the hard surface of the driveway and parking area of lot 1 is located
in our watershed. Since the house location of lot 1 is on a narrow ridge, at least halfthe run-off
from the roof will also flow our way (to redirect run-off toward an adjacent watershed is illegal,
1
and therefore not a solution). This additional run-off will come down along the existing
driveway and swale at a steep slope (29% at places), with greatly increased velocity and greatly
increased stream power.
Mr.Sahadl's high density hillside development will increase the storm water run-off in spite of
design measures that are supposed to mitigate the effect. Infiltration trenches will fail for two
reasons. In the first place they will fail during the more intense rain storms because they lack
the capacity of a natural ridge with a canopy of coast live oak trees, and In the second place
they will fail over time for lack of maintenance. To prevent infiltration trenches from silting up
the sediment needs to be trapped in a pre-treatment area (such as a pond or swale) which is
not included in the Sahadi plans. The sediment and debris need to be removed from the traps,
and if the system is not inspected twice a year by the Town at the taxpayer's expense it Is
unlikely the homeowner will keep it functioning properly. Maintenance is the weak spot for
drainage systems on private land, especia!!y along the ridges where the owners do not feel the
effect of neglect.
The proposed Sahadi development will aggravate an already existing problem. Since the 1980's
we have struggled with increasing run-off and erosion problems on our property due to new
development on the hilltops above Shannon Road. Any increase in impervious surfaces In the
watershed above us will inevitably lead to erosion and flooding of our property and specifically
of our 100 year old redwood barn, adjacent shed, and historic garden. The increased run-off
will also add to an already dangerous situation all along Shannon Road, where drainage systems
fail even during minor precipitation events, causing sheet flooding across the pavement at
several locations toward Short Road . During the latest winter storms, the run-off exceeded the
capacity of at least three of the culverts between Short Road and our house, jumping the creek
bed and flooding the road with over half a foot of fast-flowing water. It made driving
conditions exceedingly hazardous (see pictures below}. Who will be financially responsible for
upgrading the lnfrastructure?The 1 X foot concrete culvert under our barn, which Is at
capacity, is 26 feet in length, and that is just the beginning of a long watercourse. (This pipeline
was not under dimensioned when the barn was built, that is when the watershed was still
largely natural, decades before Mr. Sahadi built his current house and paved the long driveway
leading up to It).
2. Loss of tree and plant cover: The proposed removal of 16 protected oak trees will aggravate
the increase in run-off from the Sahadi property. This is for several reasons. First, due to a
reduction in plant transpiration (trees take up water to perform photosynthesis). Tree and plant
cover is a very significant term In the 'water budget' for a lot of watersheds. For example, in the
Hubbard Brook experimental forest (New Hampshire, very famous set of whole-watershed
experiments), runoff increased by 30% following clearcutting. The Impact is likely to be greater
in California, where the soil is composed of sandstone and clay rather than bedrock granite. In
addition to increasing the surface run-off, cutting down the oaks will also lead to soil loss, due
to the removal of root structures that hold topsoil together. The result is more erosion (for
examples of this, see entire Mediterranean region or the Hawaiian Islands, and various hillsides
along Shannon Road that have been grazed or plowed, or which continue to be raked downhill
2
•
rather than along the contour lines). Furthermore, replacing the tree canopy with impervious
surfaces (roofs and pavements) will increase temperatures and dryness (trees maintain cool,
moist microcllmates), making it even more difficult for the remaining old-growth native oaks to
survive.
Then there is the loss of animal habitat. As noted earlier, we have seen a nesting pair of kites in
the trees along the ridge on the Sahadi property almost every spring season since we have lived
here. There are also owls and several species of hawks.
Moreover, the dense development, with inevitable fencing, will block the existing wildlife
migration corridor between Sierra Azul and the hills toward Heintz Open Space . (Why doesn 't
Los Gatos have an ordinance against perimeter fencing, unlike communities such as Los Altos
Hills?).
In 2003 my husband Dirk and I donated an Open Space and Conservation Easement over 11
acres on our property with the intent to preserve the land in a natural state and to maintain the
existing wildlife habitat. This open space dedication was not tied to a development proposal. It
was something we wanted to do for the Town of Los Gatos, in support of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines put in place to preserve the natural open space
character of hillside lands, natural vegetation, wildlife habitats and migration corridors, and
view sheds. The Town Council of Los Gatos accepted the grant jointly with the Mid-Peninsula
Regional Open Space District on December 1st, 2003 (Resolution 2003-138}. The Sahadi
subdivision would undermine the intent of our easement donation as well as the longstanding
Open Space policy of the Town .
3. Roads: Cutting roads into steep slopes, as Mr.Sahadi proposes to do with the new driveway,
creates inherently unstable hill slope angles. Disturbing the angle of repose, which is simply a
function of gravity, causes massive i ncreases in sediment and soil loss and can lead to slope
failure. This has been well established. For examples of what happens when rainstorms meet
steep mountain roads in a wet year, remember recent events in the Santa Cruz Mountains this
winter {Highways 17 closed, Skyline Road closed, Highway 9 closed, Bear Creek Road closed
etc.). As soon as you cut a road into a hill, you are guaranteeing an increase in erosion and
mudslide potential.
4. Climate Change: predictions for California include both an increase in drought severity and
frequency, and an increase in the frequency of extreme rainfall events (since the warmer
atmosphere can hold more moisture). This means that even if developments meet engineering
standards developed within the last several decades, they will not necessarily perform well
under a rapidly changing climate. Engineering standards are developed based on our
knowledge of regional climate and geology, but the length of data records are extremely short
relative to many climactic processes (for example, the Pacific Decadal Osclllation, which occurs
on a 30-50 year frequency), and our 'baseline' understanding of climate is likely inadequate
given the rapid pace of change we are seeing, both regionally and globally. Recent events such
as the damage to the Oroville spillway during this winter's storms highlight that our current
3
infrastructure and approach to water management l_s poorly suited to deal with current and
future climate conditions in California. Practices that 'worked' in the past are unlikely to be best
adapted to future conditions. Climate change will most certainly mean an increase in flash
flooding in our area as intense rainfall events become more frequent (see Dettinger 2011. I
have copied the abstract and included the citation below). Also, California has always had
extreme rain events in the past, but now that we have urbanized the environment, water has
even fewer places to go. Even disregarding the effects of climate change, flooding problems will
Increase in magnitude as we increase the area of impervious surfaces. We are creating our own
future problems here. There are examples all over the world of the negative effects of hillside
development and hillslope deforestation on downstream human safety and water quality. This
is not a new concept. We can only try to be more cautious going forward and adapt to the
climate and habitat we have, not the one we wish we had. We need to be extra vigilant to not
exacerbate t .he hillside problems we have created already.
Not to be forgotten are other adverse effects of this dense hillside development. As I noted in
my previous letter, there is nothing in the Sahadl plan that will prevent Increased traffic on
Shannon Road. If there were a gate-only to be used for emergency access--it might redirect
traffic to the new access toward Santella Drive and Shady Lane. But since this route is long and
windy, how will the new driveway become the "primary" access if there are no traffic
restrictions on the old one? The future owners of the additional lots will prefer to come down
the existing driveway and race down Shannon Road, adding to the endless stream of cars that
have made this a dangerous street for residents, pedestrians and bicyclists alike. Even picking
up my mail across the street has become a challenge .
Last but not least, building three houses on the main ridge has a detrimental impact on the
view shed from our property and from other places within the foothills and from Sierra Azul.
The Sahadi ridge can be seen from many places on our hillside property, which includes part of
the ridge above Kennedy Road. The attached picture shows the view from the lowest point, at
our house. Even if more trees are planted to shield the view of the proposed development as
seen from our perspective, light pollution will be Inevitable. Since we have chosen not to
develop our 21 acre property of oak woodlands since we acquired it 30 years ago, we provide a
spectacular unspoiled view to all our surrounding neighbors. We ask in return that a high-
density hilltop development designed to maximize view lots is not approved by the town at our
expense.
For all these reasons, please do not allow any exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards
and Guidelines ..
In conclusion I would like to submit the following quotation from Scott Herhold's column
entitled S.J.Coyote Creek flood echoes past about the governments' growing liabilities:
The Mercury News Ill Sunday, February 26, 2017
"The takeaway? Pay attention to the immediate needs, yes. Help those in distress. But ask the
longer questions too. If not, we're condemned to see the same thing in another 20 years.'
4
Based on the best available scientific evidence, it is likely that we will face these problems
sooner.
We appeal to you not to approve the rezoning.
Dirk and Joslne Smits
15280 Shannon Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Flooding of culverts under two driveways at 15285 Shannon Road.
5
The worst flooding was downstream at 15871 Shannon Road where the run-off jumped the
culvert and crossed the road toward 18890. While driving through It I felt my car being pushed
to the side.
Flooding at 16331 Short Road, February 2017:
I will forward the videos by Ms.Tami Senner at 16331 Short Road, where run-off came close to
the foundation of the house.
Paper on flood frequency in CA:
ABSTRACT: Recent studies have documented the important role that "atmospheric rivers" (ARs) of
concentrated near-surface water vapor above the Pacific Ocean play in the storms and floods In
California, Oregon, and Washington. By delivering large masses of warm, moist air (sometimes directly
from the Tropics), ARs establish conditions for the kinds of high snowlines and copious orographic
rainfall that have caused the largest historical storms. In many California rivers, essentially all major
historical floods have been associated with AR storms. As an example of the kinds of storm changes that
may influence future flood frequencies, the occurrence of such storms in historical observations and in a
7-model ensemble of historical-climate and projected future climate simulations is evaluated. Under an
A2 greenhouse-gas emissions scenario (with emissions accelerating throughout the 21st Century),
average AR statistics do not change much in most climate models; however, extremes change notably.
Years with many AR episodes increase, ARs with higher-than-historical water-vapor transport rates
increase, and AR storm-temperatures increase. Furthermore, the peak season within which most ARs
6
occur is commonly projected to lengthen, extending the flood-hazard season . All of these tendencies
could increase opportunities for both more frequent and more severe floods in California under
projected climate changes. (KEY TERMS: climate variability I change; meteorology; atmospheric rivers;
flooding.)
Dettinger, M . (2011 ), Climate Change, Atmospheric Rivers, and Floods in California - A
Multimodel Analysis of Stonn Frequency and Magnitude Changes ·~. JAWRA Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 47: 514-523. doi:10.1111/j.1752-
1688.2011.00546.x
7
LEGEND
-s.._. ...-...-and..,...on
ri;ht*-r~ ... -......
·-Flood praMlion pniject .......
.W,, .... or CllllllrUdion
...,,.. lllsen<Gln
0
N
http:Uwww.vaIleywater.org/uploadedlmages/Services/HealthyCreeksEcoSystems/Watershed lnformatio
n/Guadal upe/Guada lu pe2005Ma pXL. jpg?n=3906
8
9
To: Town Council, meeting of 3/21 /17
Re: 15215 Shannon Road, PD15-001
From: Dave Weissman, 3/16/17
I have comments on several areas of this application.
A. This 13-acre property, now located in the unincorporated area of Santa Clara County, is
presently zoned A-20s-dl. As such, the minimum lot size is 20 acres , and the present lot is
classified as a "substandard" County lot that cannot be subdivided. The Town pre-zoned this
property as HR-5 , in 1980, which would permit a 2-lot subdivision, upon annexation, or double
what the applicant was capable of if the property were to remain in the County. Now the
applicant wants to rezone the property to HR-2.5, yielding a possible 5 lots or five times what he
was able to do in the County. This is a major step backward in our hillside protection at a time
when most citizens want increased protection, and less development, in the hill sides .
Additionally, this 13-acre property is surrounded to the NE, E, and S by other properties zoned
HR-5 and RC and some properties to the near south are zoned HR-20. The initial 20-acre
minimum zoning reflected the County's desire to protect its open spaces -in fact, the "A" in the
current County zoning classification designates this as "Exclu s ive Agriculture" (Santa Clara
County Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 2.20.010. A).
The applicant's proposed rezoning is an abuse of the annexation process and should be
denied. Keeping the zoning HR-5 , given that only two logical and obvious building sites (Lots 2
and 5) occur on the property, is appropriate for the rural character of this hillside area. And
given this property's location on a significant ridgeline, now finally acknowledged in the
applicant's latest letter, may have been another reason that this property was originally
pre-zoned HR-5. Why would the Council want to approve a subdivision that creates four
additional lots on a ridgeline when the HDS&G want to preserve critical ridgelines? The
Blossom Hill Open Space Study "High Visibility Slopes and Ridges" foldout (between pages 11
and 12), shows the Sahadi property to be a "High Visibility Ridge."
Additionally, the HDS&G are very clear as to the purpose and intent of the PD designation (page
56):
l
"The intent is to s ignificantl y reduce the amount of grading, roads , and other alterations to the existing
environment, to minimize the visual impact of the development, and to reta in the maximum amount of
continuous open space in its natural state."
In 3 separate places (pages 5, 10 , and 56), the HDS&G also caution that:
··s ite characteri stic s and constraints a long with the implementation of the HDS&G may not a ll ow a
s pecific s ite to achieve the m ax imum dens ity or intens ity otherwise permitted by the Zoning Ordinance."
As Council members have noted in the past, landowners are not always ab le to make the mo st
profitable use of their land. As the deciding body, you have the prerogative and discretion to
modify this application to limit the number of lots in the subdivision to more closely met the
intents and objectives of the HDS&G.
B. At the PC meeting of 12/14/2016, Mr. Paulson told the Commissioners (at 2:30:40 on the
Town video) that the applicant may be able to go to 2 houses and exclusively utilize the existing
driveway off Shannon. T he Town Attorney also noted that an emergency easement is not
required for a subdivision. I acknowledge that both road alternatives present problems but u s ing
the present road has fewer, and might also save over a dozen trees, according to the Consulting
Arbori st 's report. Additionally, the 1989 Blossom Hill Open Space Study (BHOSS) "Vehicle
Circulation" foldout (between pages 27 and 28); and the Hill side Specific Plan, fold-out Fig. 2,
show no proposed road where the applicant wants to construct one.
C. Mr. Paulson also told the PC that the Negative Declaration didn't look at Shannon Road
as the primary access. The environmental costs of constructing a new, private road were not
evaluated and compared, in the Initial Study (IS), versus simply utili z ing the existing driveway.
This is a viable alternative and should have been considered. While the applicant says that "The
proposed access road from Santell a Drive has far fewer impacts (than using the current access
driveway)," they provide no evidence to back up thi s claim.
D. It appears that using the Shannon Road access , as the main access , was always the plan,
since the road was significantly upgraded and improved, in 2014, according to the applicant 's
2
CDAC 2014 comments. The applicant shows, on page 9 of his 317/2017 letter, that ingress and
egress distances are equal using Shannon Road vs. the new proposed road. But given the faster
and straighter nature of the Shannon Road connection, residents will preferentially use that
direction. Plus, the applicant says that all construction will enter the site via Shannon Road.
The applicant says in his 317/2017 letter that the Shannon Road driveway is "too steep (2 9%
at places) and too narrow (typically 12 ') to comply with Town and County Fire requirements.for
suitable access (C ounty Fire requires access no steeper than 20% and 24 'total width.)" Yet, Fi g .
3 Site Plan shows the Shannon Road access as being from 14-17' in width , not "typically 12
feet." as the applicant states. And the existing 20 ' wide easement results in the potential to
widen. There may be a 29% steep section but it is not indicated where on the Site Plan nor is its
length. And, significantly , the applicant 's proposed road also doesn 't meet either Town and
County Fire requirements as there are two sections greater than 20% grade. It is (purposely?)
unclear from the applicant's narrative if these two sections greater than 20% slope total 250 ' or
500' in length. Plus the proposed road is only 20' wide, not the County Fire required 24 '. The
applicant can't have it both way s depending on what is most convenient for their argument. And,
as noted above, Mr. Paulson told the PC that the applicant may be able to go to 2 houses and
exclusively utili z e the existing driveway off Shannon, while still satisfying the Fire Department.
E . The applicant's visibility analys is methodology is inadequate and incomplete because it
does not even meet the current, required criteria in the HDS&G (page 13) whereby " ... trees or
large shrubs [to be] removed, significantly pruned , or impacted by construction" are to be
considered. I appreciate that this hearing is not to consider any A&S applications, but should you
approve this requested rez oning, then there will eventually be 4 new houses on this lot and their
locations will be fairly set given the topography and the location of the LRDA. Thus, these
d ecisions should be linked now and not separated.
F. The Town 's Consulting Arborist ha s said that she is not able to accurately evaluate many
tree impacts because the Grading Plan s cale is 1 :50, many trees are missing on the plans, and the
plans are confusing in many places. Ms. Ellis says that she " ... requires more detailed plans at a
larger scale (e.g. 1: 10 or 1 :20) in order to more accurately estimate construction impacts to the
trees." This information should be required before you make your decision.
3
G . In the applicant's letter of 317/2017, page 12 , he employs semantic obfuscation when
discus si ng how their "access road " to the project, from Santella Drive , is not regulated in any
Town document with reference to slope and cut and fill standards. Thus, the applicant doesn 't
have to ask for any exceptions because there are no Town requirements being violated. The term
"access road " is defined on page 68 of the HDS&G as a roadway greater than or equal to 20 ' in
width and serving more than two single family dwellings. On the other hand , "access roads " are
assigned development standards on page 9 of the Hillside Specific Plan and defined as " ... roads
connecting a parcel of land being con si dered for development to the nearest improved public
road ." The applicant acknowledges that Town staff have informally treated such private "access
roads " as staff has treated driveways , but they maintain that such a policy doesn 't necessarily
apply to them. Nothing like telling the Town to go fly a kite. I suggest that this TC firmly state
that they stand behind staff and that past precedence regarding access road requirements will be
enforced in this application. You have the discretion to modify the PD to limit the number of lots
in the subdivision. You also have discretion not only to allow exceptions but also to add
restrictions if it results in a project more consistent with the hillside objectives.
So , the proposed access road , or private street, or private road, or driveway (if going to
two lots or less), or whatever the applicant wants to call it , is regulated by Town codes, as
discussed above, and staff history.
I thu s request that you uphold the unanimous Planning Commission decision and reject
the proposed HR-2.5 rezoning and PD subdivision, and leave the property as HR-5 as the Town
pre-zoned this parcel 37 years ago. To permit a change to HR-2.5 sets a bad precedent for future
development in this area. And as development marches farther west into the Santa Cruz
Mountains, minimum parcel sizes should increase, not decrease, as the County and Town
planned many years ago.
4
Jennifer Armer
From: lazykrancho@aol .com [mail to: laz yk rancho@aol .com]
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: Re: 15215 Shannon Road
Hi Jennifer
I hope all is well!
After going over the letter from HMH reg arding PD-15-001 , the following issues have come to mind :
-The Town of Los Gatos is under no obligation to change the Pre-zone 5 designation to 2.5 , thu s allowing more than one
home to be built on the subject site.
-The number of lots allowed under the HR 2.5 zoning would allow 5 lots per HM H's slope density calculations (the
number was 5.02, if I remember correctly). The contour lines are variables that can make thi s number go up or down,
therefore this "fact" should be scrutinized, thoroughly, to make sure the 5.02 is correct.
-My view is that the Planning Commission was asking for a reduced number of lots and more continuous Open Space IN
EXCHANGE for granting a new zoning for the parcel.
-My recommendation to the Town of Los Gatos Town Council is as follows :
Approve the app lication with the following conditions:
-Allow UP TO four (4) buildable lots for a SFR for each lot (includes existi ng home)
-Dedicate 5 or more continuous acres of Open Space (not located on individ ual building sites)
-Cluster homes toward the West
-Abandon any and all easement right over Tzanavaras parcel
Notes : I have professional experience in site acquisition and development. My three attempts to contact HMH via email
went unanswered. A plan to have 4 lots and over six acres of relevant open space for the 13 acre parcel , as well as
cutting back the necessary road needed by 50% is possible, as I have done it in my spare time .
The Planning Commission recommended denial for a few clea r re asons, none of which r esu lted in a plan change from
HMH. Again, I would like to stress that the Town Council has no obligatio n to change the zoning, although I do agree with
the re asoning that HMH provides for the zoning change . With no change, they are stuck with one lot. With a change , they
can have up to four lots (my opin ion after doing my own slope density ca lcul ation). So , the Council has the ability to
negotiate, at this time, how many lots will be allowed and how much open space is permanently granted.
I am out of time to send this .
Sincerely,
Ken Anderson
408-571-9860
lazykra nch o@a ol .com
Please send a confirmation that this letter made it in time to be entered into the documents for the Town Council meeting
on March 21, 2017 -Thank You!