Attachment 04LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A P P E A R A N C E S:
Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:
D. Michael Kane, Chair
Matthew Hudes, Vice Chair
Mary Badame
Melanie Hanssen
Kathryn Janoff
Tom O'Donnell
Town Manager:Laurel Prevetti
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney:Robert Schultz
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 4
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P R O C E E D I N G S:
CHAIR KANE: We move to the public hearings
portion of our agenda. We consider tonight’s Agenda Item 2,
which is Twin Oaks Drive/Surrey Farms. It’s Planned
Development PD-10-006; it’s Environmental Impact Report
EIR-12-001; it’s General Plan Amendment GP-12-001; and the
Williamson Act Contract WA-11 Cancellation. This item is
requesting approval of a General Plan Amendment from
Agriculture 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
subdivision of the one lot into 10 lots, and construction
of 10 new single-family residences, and removal of large
protected trees. This is APN 532-16-006, and Ms. Armer,
will you be giving the report tonight?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes, good evening, Chair, Vice
Chair, Commissioners.
The project in front of you tonight is a request
by Tom Dodge of Surrey Farm Estates to develop his 17.5
acres of vacant land. His proposal is to amend the General
Plan and zoning designations to allow a ten-lot residential
subdivision.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The project before you involved a multi-step
process. The first step in their process was a meeting of
the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee on September
8, 2010.
The current proposal before you this evening is
to amend the General Plan designation, change the zoning,
including a Planned Development Overlay, cancellation of
the existing Williamson Act Contract, and the Environmental
Impact Report associated with those proposals.
They come as one decision, because they are
intertwined, but they also set the stage for future
applications. The future applications would include a
subdivision and roadway improvement construction, ten
Architecture and Site Applications as currently proposed,
and associated building permits.
This current proposal before you has gone to the
General Plan Committee in 2012, 2014, and 2015. The final
decision will be made by the Town Council based on your
recommendation.
As described in the Staff Report, the Williamson
Act Cancellation findings have been reviewed by the State
Department of Conservation. The General Plan Amendment is
necessary for the proposed development, because of the
agricultural designation applied to all Williamson Act
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lands. The Planned Development zoning is required in the
hillsides of subdivisions of five lots or more. The HR-1
designation that’s proposed as the underlying zoning below
the Planned Development Overlay is based on the surrounding
zonings. Approximately half of the perimeter is in the HR-
1, but the other properties also include some in the HR-2½,
R-1:12 and R-1:10.
The exceptions that are requested as part of this
PD are depths of cut and fill, and construction outside the
LRDA for portions of the roadway and one of the proposed
driveways.
An EIR was prepared, and that included the Draft
EIR, recirculation of the Biological and Alternative
sections, and a Final EIR. All potential impacts were
reduced into less than significant with mitigation.
There are numerous concerns, as you have seen in
your written comments from the nearby neighbors. In the
written Staff Report Staff recommendations approval of the
proposed project, but Staff also supports consideration of
the two-access alternative described in the plans and in
the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The two-access
alternative is different from the proposed project in the
following ways: The single-access roadway would be split to
create two separate cul de sacs, one with access off of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Cerro Vista Court, getting access to four of the lots.
Second, from Twin Oaks Drive, which gives access to the
lower six lots. This would avoid the riparian area at both
ends of the riparian area, and reduce the cuts and fills
depths that are requested.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission review
the findings in Exhibit 5 and consider recommending
approval of the EIR, the GP Amendment, Williamson Act
Cancellation, and the Planned Development Ordinance
rezoning in Exhibit 15. In addition to Planning and Public
Works Staff, we also have the Town’s peer review
consultants available to answer any questions.
This concludes Staff’s presentation, but I’d be
happy to answer any questions.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you for that report, and
before we begin, let me try framing it. That was an
excellent report. I want to boil it down to a few words.
We’re not voting to accept or deny the project per se,
we’re either recommending a go or a no go to Town Council
on five items: the General Plan item, the Williamson Act,
the PD Application, the EIR, and I intend to put in a
comment on the alternatives. Does that frame our work
tonight?
JENNIFER ARMER: That does summarize it, yeah.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: We have questions for Staff?
Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: This is probably for the Town
Attorney. I want to be respectful of the information that’s
provided to us for consideration, and we received a Desk
Item at around 11:00am today that was 62 pages. It’s hard
for me to tell what’s new, but it seems important. I just
want to make sure that this framework makes sense, that
this material needs to be considered, but that it’s
appropriate to put the weight on the consideration that’s
somewhat related to the amount of time we have available to
consider this, and we wouldn’t, for instance, stop the
hearing for everyone to analyze 62 pages before proceeding,
is that correct?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That correct, yes. You can give
it weight that you feel necessary. You can ask questions
about that, and hopefully we can answer those, but you
received at 11:00am. I didn’t realize it was in there until
much later in the day, so I barely had time to review it,
too, but our consultants here, many of the issues that were
raised in that letter were also raised in the Final EIR as
response to comments.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Right, okay. So it will be
helpful when we get testimony perhaps to ask the Applicant
what’s new in here compared to what we received previously?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Yes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Aside from that, do we talk to the
Applicant or the citizens about the value of getting those
letters in earlier so we can study them perhaps over the
weekend? I, too, didn’t open my mail until 3:00 o’clock. I
almost hit print and I didn’t have enough paper. But it’s
horrible to write important letters like that and have an
hour or two to go over them. Do we encourage that these
guys come in earlier?
JENNIFER ARMER: We do. On this particular
project we sent out email to everyone who had contacted us
via email with comments on the Environmental Impact Report,
and between that time and now, so that they would be aware
when the project plans were up, and that gave them the ten-
day notice, in addition to the notice cards that were sent
out. In that email we do state that deadline to get into
the Staff Report is the Friday before the hearing, and
encourage that, although comments are accepted until 11:00
o'clock on the day of the hearing.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Well, it’s a shame, because they
looked important, they looked passionate, and I couldn’t
give them the full attention they deserved. Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I want to hear the
comments from the public, so I won’t ask too many questions
right now. We also heard this at the General Plan
Committee, that the Williamson Act Contract is the first
step, even though it kind of all goes together, and so just
a couple of questions on the Williamson Act.
My understanding is I know they filed a notice
two years ago, or two-and-a-half years ago, and then they
are now asking for cancellation. There was some mention in
the Staff Report, and I thought at the General Plan
Committee meeting if there wasn’t approval for the
cancellation that the notice would allow the Williamson Act
to automatically expire on that property in ten years, or
did I get that wrong?
JENNIFER ARMER: The Notice of Non-Renewal does
result in expiration of the Williamson Act Contract after
ten years. In this case I believe the expiration would be
February of 2025.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So supposing that this
didn’t get approved, regardless of any approval process in
the Town the Williamson Act Contract will expire in 2025?
JENNIFER ARMER: Unless the Notice of Non-Renewal
is taken back by the Applicant.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Then just one other
question on the Williamson Act. The findings that were
listed in our Staff Report are really very similar to what
I found online from the State of California, but there was
also mention of a resolution that the Town Council had
created in 1979, Resolution 150. Are the findings in that
resolution similar to or exactly the same as the state?
JENNIFER ARMER: The findings that are required
for cancellation of the Williamson Act are the ones that
were listed in the required findings you have in I believe
it’s Exhibit 5, and those are true for the Town as well as
the state. I believe the resolution that you’re referring
to has to do with the zoning and General Plan designation
of Williamson Act lands, rather than the findings, or maybe
the review process. There were a couple of different
resolutions referred to the Staff Report, but no specific
findings were added in that resolution.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Would the Chair be
interested in asking for disclosures from Commissioners,
because I would need to make one?
CHAIR KANE: I was coming to that.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: First, let’s have a show of hands
for people who were able to visit the subject property. And
are there any disclosures?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I had incidental contact
with Jill Fordyce at 191 Longmeadow while visiting the site
from her location.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Separately, but I did
the same thing, and Ms. Fordyce was very gracious, said
hello, showed me your back yard, and that was the end of
it.
CHAIR KANE: I likewise had incidental contact
with some of the neighbors. They simply led me to where the
project was and I listened; I didn’t otherwise engage. Then
Commissioner Hudes and I, he climbed on top of the
mountain; I wasn’t going to do that. But we found the
riparian corridor, we walked around, and we got as good a
look as you possibly could get.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Anything else? Thank you. Questions for Staff?
Seeing none, I’ll open the public portion of the public
hearing and give the Applicant an opportunity to address
the Commission for up to ten minutes. Mr. Griffin, will you
be speaking on this matter?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, I will.
CHAIR KANE: State your name and address for the
record.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Good evening, Chair, Members of
the Planning Commission. I’m speaking on behalf of the
Dodge family, and I have a little bit of history to start
out the presentation.
What we have here is a photo from 1953 that shows
Bob Dodge up on the highest portion of the property, and
this is the high knoll on the property. You can see the cut
for the Longmeadow Drive, and these are pads for the homes;
the construction has already begun on the property. This is
the Witkin (phonetic) residence at this point, and
approximately in this location is the site of the Witkin
subdivision, which has four lots on it. Then you can see a
building here that at that time was called the Hillside
Country School, and that followed along and soon became the
school that is there right now.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This is a map that was prepared for a Tentative
Map in 1959, and it demonstrates that the map prepared by
Hunt Engineering and labeled as a (inaudible) map. This
map, as I said, was in 1959 and it was intended to be the
last phase of Surrey Farms. There are 15 lots; 14 lots in
the lower section here. This is the Witkin property at this
point, and Twin Oaks is right here, this is access road,
and Bob was reserving this 15th lot for his home up there.
Zoning at that time was R-1:20. The plan demonstrates that
the Dodge family and Bob always planned to subdivide the
site, and it was the last phase of Surrey Farms.
This is a study that we prepared and submitted to
the CDAC in 2010. You can see that it clearly shows that
development has taken place all around the property. This
is the Hillbrook School, and this is Cerro Vista and the
other homes at the top of Cerro Vista. This is a large
parcel with two-and-a-half-acre zoning in this area in
here, and then this goes down to Brooke Acres at this point
right here. Twin Oaks is right along this point, this being
Longmeadow and the Witkin subdivision is right in this
position here.
The hillside boundary for this designation in the
Zoning Ordinance is approximately this point across the
property. This area is in the hillside; this area is not in
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the hillside development. The two-and-a-half-acre zoning,
as I said, is in the upper portions here. The one-acre is
adjacent on Brooke Acres, and then this is R-1:10 in the
Twin Oaks area, the original subdivision, and this is R-
1:12 for the Witkin subdivision. As I said, that’s four
sites that were subdivided later from the Witkin property
here, and the Hillbrook School sides of the property as
well.
For preliminary discussions with staff in 1959
Bob revealed that he has over the time reviewed it with
Staff, and at one point Bob granted an easement across the
property for allowing the development of the Brooke Acres
subdivision, and most recently the Witkin subdivision that
utilizes that sewer. When placed in the Williamson Act it
was a simple ten years at the time, a ten-year contract; at
the end of ten years it would automatically expire. Along
the way the law was changed to a rolling ten years.
The Town placed the property in an RC zoning
designation as a holding zone for future development. At
one time the Town envisioned connecting Brooke Acres across
to Shannon Road, but that was before Cero Vista was
developed.
Our proposed plan uses access from Twin Oaks.
This is the Witkin property and these are the four lots
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that were developed and split off from the Witkin property.
The site proposed has 3.5 acres of open space, and it
preserves the highest point of the site. It provides for
extension of the county trail from Cerro Vista; that trail
would follow from here, around this point of the riparian
habitat area, comes down around and connects to Brooke
Acres. Access to the upper four lots requires a crossing of
the riparian area, and this is where the largest amount of
fill, approximately 13 foot, would occur, and it provides
access to the open space.
We originally submitted for a straight R-1:40
rezoning, and we resubmitted as a PD and showing private
streets, as required by the Public Works Department. We are
not, I want to emphasize, we are not using the Planned
Development Ordinance or zoning to increase the density
allowed in the ordinance. The trail extension connects with
a 3.5-acre dedicated open space, and this project as
presented qualified for a Negative Declaration. The EIR was
a voluntary preparation by the Applicant. We have conducted
three outreach sessions with our neighbors along the way.
During the EIR preparation we found an easement
for public road access from Cerro Vista. This area right
here is an easement that was offered to the Town, and the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Town Counsel reviewed it, and it was deferred for a future
acceptance.
So utilizing that access we developed this two-
access version, and this would be through this section
right here off of Cerro Vista and would serve the upper
four lots, and Twin Oaks would serve six homes on the lower
side of it. The alternate plan eliminates the need to cross
the riparian habitat corridor area here, but it still
allows for the trail extension to come up the road here and
follow through and around the habitat area and connect with
Brooke Acres. The trail also connects to the dedicated open
space.
We are also providing space for a new water pump
station off of Cerro Vista access point; that would be
approximately in this location right here. As stated in the
EIR, this plan is considered environmentally superior. Four
homes would have access via Cerro Vista, and six homes
would have access via Twin Oaks. This site reduces traffic
on Twin Oaks by 40%.
San Jose Water has indicated to us that there is
a current need for a new pump station, as the existing
pressure on Cerro Vista and the homes above is below the
minimum needed pressure. This pump station is needed now,
and it’s not because of this application.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
After being denied by other property owners, we
have offered San Jose Water Company a location for this
station. The site shows dedicated four acres of open space,
and there is no road crossing the riparian habitat. Each
home will be processed for a separate A&S review.
We believe that there are community benefits that
we have provided with this. Direct community benefits
offered by this application are extending the public trail
from Cerro Vista to Brooke Acres; connecting this trail to
the open space; providing a much needed emergency access to
and from Brooke Acres that currently is a dead end;
providing land for building the much needed pump station,
serving the homes above the site, and it provides a
dedicated four-acre open space.
In summary, this proposed alternate plan provides
for-sale housing that will add to the Town’s Housing
Element commitment. We respectfully request that you
recommend approval to the Town Council, and we are
available to answer questions. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Mr. Griffin, when we go to the other
portion of the public hearing, would you fill out a speaker
card, please?
RODGER GRIFFIN: I will do that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Questions for Mr. Griffin?
Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: As I understand it from
the Staff Report, we’re being asked to approve the single-
access version, and maybe I misunderstood that, but since
the two-access version is environmentally superior by the
EIR, and you noted all the benefits of it, why wouldn’t we
being looking at that instead?
RODGER GRIFFIN: That’s our recommendation. Our
request would be to approve the two-access plan.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, we can talk to Staff
about that, because the conditions kind of lined up more
the one-access alternative.
Then I had a question about the open space. I
think you answered my question. There’s a question of
maintenance, and then there’s access. I understand the
maintenance is you would be maintaining the private roads,
because that’s the way we do PDs in the hillsides, and then
also you would be maintaining the open space, as opposed to
the Town?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, the homeowners association
would be set up for not only maintaining the streets, but
also the drainage systems, and it would also include the
trail and the open space.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And your intent as far as
public access, it sounded like the public trail was going
to connect to the open space, so are you intending for the
residents who live in the neighborhood on either side to be
able to access that area if they…
RODGER GRIFFIN: I think that’s one of the
requirements of the trail is that the public be allowed to
access and utilize the trail, and we have purposely put it
through the open space area so that it can be utilized as
well.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I didn’t see a public
access easement in there, but maybe I missed that. Okay,
thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Just to clarify, does that mean that
the open space is available to people who don’t live there?
RODGER GRIFFIN: It’s not available to live
there, it’s available to use on an incidental basis.
CHAIR KANE: I mean people who don’t live there.
I can go up and use that open space?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I have a follow up question to
that. I’m looking at sheet 1-A, and I’m looking at Street
B, which seems to be the access closest to the open space.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
It appears to me that that street ends maybe a couple of
hundred feet short of the open space, so how would that
access be achieved?
RODGER GRIFFIN: The trail follows along the edge
of the roadway. It follows right along here and it runs
around the edge of the habitat area, and this is the open
space abuts that street.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Could you put up A-1-A?
RODGER GRIFFIN: This one?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: This A-1-A.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Oh, I don’t have that one.
(Staff puts A-1-A on the overhead.) So this is the open
space.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yes.
RODGER GRIFFIN: And this is the trail following
right along here, and it circles around the end of the
habitat area, comes down along here, and then connects with
Brooke Acres.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, but Street B ends,
correct?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Street B ends at this point
right here, but the trail continues on through. So this is
the trail, and it comes up, and it crosses over, and then
comes around this point.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, and is there access to
that trail from Street B?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, this is access. It follows
along this Street A, and it also follows along the edge of
Street B.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I was concerned that someone
might put up a fence on Lot 7.
RODGER GRIFFIN: On this lot?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Because there’s a driveway,
they could do a gated driveway or something, and…
RODGER GRIFFIN: Access to the trail along Street
B would be right along this portion here, but it also comes
from Cerro Vista Court; there’s an easement right here for
utilities, and this trail begins here. Currently the trail
runs in this dash line all the way down the side of Mrs.
Hoffner’s property next door, and this part could be
abandoned, because the trail was originally coming down the
side here, and it comes down to Hillbrook School.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, I think you’ve answered
my question. There might be a condition related to it, but
it looks to me like there is access to the open space for
the community from Cerro Vista by means of a trail.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, and any gate that would be
so erected for this lot would be in this vicinity right in
there, which is separate from the trail.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Right. Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the speaker?
Maybe this is the time to do it.
The EIR, the Draft and the Final, are really
extraordinary documents. The issues of potential
significant impact, because this is so rural and currently
pristine in its ruralness, a lot of the conditions that are
addressed in the EIR had to be mitigated, and the
mitigations were admirable, creative, seemed to address the
issue, but time and time again it said that the continuance
of these mitigations would be under the responsibility of
the HOA. Then I got concerned. Mr. Griffin, do you know how
that works? Are there ten members of the HOA, and do they
all have rakes and barrels? I mean how do we manage their
management of all the many, many mitigation items in the
EIR?
RODGER GRIFFIN: What we tried to do is address
that in such a way that some of the items are in place on a
more permanent basis.
One issue, for instance, is there is a very large
oak tree that’s in this position right in here, and we are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to be putting some very large rock boulders that we
worked out with the Town’s arborist, so as to eliminate any
possibility of grading or modifications around that tree,
and it’s on the cover of her report as well. It’s a
magnificent oak tree that should be preserved, and
rightfully so.
In addition to that, we have a 10’ setback from
all of the habitat area that allows for the building space
and the roadways to be constructed outside of that. The
mitigation factors involved there are the responsibility of
the homeowners association, as you say, but they will be
under auspices of the Town to see that they are enforced.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I had a question about Lot 7,
which is the one that adjoins the open space. Have you done
the calculations on the LRDA on that lot? I’m just looking
at whether, due to the steepness of that side of the hill,
you’ve been able to be completely in accordance with the
LRDA?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, I believe that’s like a 28%
average slope on that site, and what we’ve done is this
property line here has been modified to allow for
preservation of the highest areas of the site, the
highpoint. The building site is in the LRDA. The request is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for this roadway to be graded up, which is outside of the
LRDA; that is one of the exceptions. However, that is also
following a roadbed that’s already cut there, so it’s an
existing access road that’s on the site right now and we’re
utilizing that.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I walked that today and it
didn’t strike me that it was a road. It struck me that
there was some grading there at one time, maybe a long time
ago, but do you really consider that to be a road?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Well, I would consider it the
beginnings of a road. I know that I’ve driven on it before,
so it is passable.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the speaker?
Thank you, Mr. Griffin.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: We now invite comments from the
public, and this is going to be a short meeting. I need
speaker cards, on the benches in front of you. Are there
any others? All right, Ms. Cindy Shanker. Ms. Shanker,
adjust the mike, and for the record give us your name and
address, please.
CINDY SHANKER: My name is Cindy Shanker and I
have lived on Cerro Vista Court, #15949, for over 27 years.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I feel very strongly that the Planned Development
is highly incompatible with the General Plan Goal LU-6, “To
preserve and enhance the existing character and sense of
place in residential neighborhoods.” Both the Cerro Vista
and Twin Oaks neighborhoods are long established
neighborhoods whose character and sense of place would be
adversely affected by this development. I’m sure you’ll
hear about that from others through written comments and
here tonight, so I’ll only say that I believe the Planned
Development will destroy much of what has made our
neighborhood a place that we love, and that is my number
one position.
Number two, I do have a question, I guess, to
pose to you. I don’t necessarily expect you to answer it
tonight, but I hope that you will think about it. Why are
you being asked to approve the two-access EIR when, “The
original project’s environmental impacts identified in
Chapter 4 would be less than significant, or less than
significant with implementation of specified mitigation
measures”? Think about that statement. If impacts are less
than significant, why is there a whole new EIR?
I don’t think it has anything to do with the
environment. The reason is that opposition to the project
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from the Twin Oaks side has been so vocal that the
developer will do anything to try to appease them.
Cerro Vista Court is a small cul de sac that
doesn’t have enough residents to compete with the level of
opposition from the other side. As a result, we now have
only a two-access proposal to consider, and it involves
constructing a road on Cerro Vista Court. So our cul de sac
of five houses would now have a road across one neighbor’s
property to access four more houses. That’s a huge increase
for a small neighborhood.
I believe there are potential issues with the
easement, which was never intended to be used for access to
the Dodge property, other than the separate utility
easement. This property was never part of our development,
and should not become part of it by taking land from one of
our neighbors for the road. Tom Dodge is willing to provide
access for the entire development through his own property,
and has noted the environmental impacts would be less than
significant, or less than significant with mitigation. You
should think about that before you approve a plan that
involves taking land from an owner who hasn’t offered it.
Then I wanted to comment that the owner of the
property proposed for the road hasn’t moved into their
home. They had no knowledge of this development; it was not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
disclosed to them. Not your fault, but it seems a little
inappropriate to be discussing it without their knowledge.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Ms. Shanker, I read your
letter that we received today at 10:58am, and you talked
about ten lots being too dense, and that the number of lots
should be reduced overall. How many lots do you envision
being developed on that site?
CINDY SHANKER: I would say half of that number.
I’m throwing that out, but I think that ten is pretty
dense, so that would be a number that to me would seem more
reasonable, and more in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood, and would have less of an impact.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: What is the size of your
lot?
CINDY SHANKER: One acre. It’s a little over an
acre, but about.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you for your thoughts on
this, and again, as some of my fellow commissioners have
expressed, it’s a little strange that we’re considering an
option that wasn’t the one that was the proposed option.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But to be explicit, what is your explicit preference
between the two-access and the proposed one-access?
CINDY SHANKER: Well, my explicit preference is
for the proposed one-access, because I live in a house that
is right across the street from where the two-access road
is going to go through our neighbor’s property.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CINDY SHANKER: Okay. Anybody else?
CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Maggie Li.
MAGGIE LI: Hi, my name is Maggie Li. I’m here on
behalf of the new owner of 15955 Cerro Vista Court.
Actually, Cindy alerted us about this coming issue last
Friday, so this has come to us as a complete surprise. It
was never disclosed to the new owner, and so this afternoon
they actively engaged a new legal counsel to look into it,
because during the transaction we knew there was a utility
easement. We did not realize the Town could use an easement
to create an access road. So that’s the current stand of
the new owner. They will oppose this two-access proposal
and they have engaged legal counsel to look into this
issue.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I assume that the
easement we’re talking about is recorded?
MAGGIE LI: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Have you read the
easement?
MAGGIE LI: Yes, we did.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Did you see that it does
permit vehicular and pedestrian access?
MAGGIE LI: No.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: You think it doesn’t, or
you didn’t see it, which?
MAGGIE LI: The preliminary title said there was
a utility easement.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Did you read the
easement? Not what the prelim said, but did you read the
easement?
MAGGIE LI: No, I did not.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Just to clarify, which
property are you talking about? I’m looking at, again, A-1-
A, and I’m looking at the entrance from Cerro Vista Court.
MAGGIE LI: Yes, 15955.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Unfortunately I don’t have
that. Is it the one that’s on the east side or the west
side?
JENNIFER ARMER: It’s just west of the pathway.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, so it’s the one to the
west.
MAGGIE LI: That’s the lot that will be affected
by this two-access road, because part of their lot you
would create that access road, and basically make a portion
of their lot probably not usable at all.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, I’ll have a question for
Staff on it later. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the speaker?
Thank you very much. Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Lee Quintana, 5 Palm Avenue. I do
not live in the area, and so my comments do not reflect the
issues that some of the neighbors have brought up. I’m just
looking at the EIR and the project itself.
When I read the EIR I was surprised that it said
that it was not possible legally to not approve a lower
density alternative. Unless there are new laws that I’m not
aware of, from my professional experience of about 15 years
ago or so, I don’t understand that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, in the EIR it implies that while Town
Council has the authority to approve the environmentally
superior alternative, that it’s stated in such a way to
make you believe… I had to read it several times. I thought
what, they can’t approve the superior alternative? That
didn’t make any sense to me, and I think what is being said
is that the Town Council has the authority to approve the
environmentally superior alternative, but they’re not
required to. That information is provided so that the
Council and the Planning Commission can make informed
decisions on the project itself. That’s one of my comments.
The other comment that I’d like to make is that
given what is in the documents, the two-access alternative
clearly is a superior alternative environmentally. Now,
that’s environmentally, and other issues come into
approving or not approving a project.
I was also surprised that there wasn’t a
discussion of reduced density, or reduced number of lots,
to give a full range of possibilities, and it was
interesting to me that some of these things that I’m
saying, when I looked at the Desk Item for tonight, and I
didn’t pick it up until about 5:00 o'clock, seemed to raise
some of these same questions that I’m raising.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The last thing I would say is that the two-access
alternative is much kinder to the trees, and on top of that
I would say that the number of trees that are being removed
and transplanted is a pretty high percentage of the trees
that are supposed to be protected, and transplanted trees
are supposed to be considered removed.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? I have one. You expressed concerns over density
and intensity as coming from the EIR. As I read the EIR I
was surprised that it said the density and intensity was
consistent and compatible with the surrounding
neighborhood. Did I read that wrong?
LEE QUINTANA: You read that wrong. What I was
saying is that there was no reduced density alternative
seriously discussed in the alternative sections, not in
terms of compatibility with the neighborhoods, but in terms
of reduced environmental impacts.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Jill Fordyce.
JILL FORDYCE: Hi, I’m Jill Fordyce; I’m at 191
Longmeadow Drive. I live there with my husband and five
children since 1999. Thank you for taking the time to visit
the site, and also, I hope that you’ve had the time to read
our lengthy comments, which we were instructed were due by
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11:00 o'clock today, which is what we tried to meet after
reading the thousand pages.
When we purchased our home the primary features
were both the quiet, family-friendly streets and the rural
setting, backing up to land that is known resource
conservation space. With our many issues with regard to
this project, many of which I’ve written about, I’d like to
focus on the fundamental change to the aesthetics of our
neighborhood and the natural habitat, and the overall
inconsistency of this proposed development with the Town’s
stated goals of sustainability and preservation.
The EIR surprisingly found no aesthetic issues at
all with this Planned Development, although the entire
backdrop to Surrey Farms would be changed from an open,
grassy hillside to a neighborhood with ten homes, or
possibly a ghost town of infrastructure, of streets and
house pads that never get built, managed by a homeowners
association that we don’t know about. It will irrevocably
change our neighborhood.
The hillside is home to Ross Creek, which will
also be adversely impacted by the development. In order to
develop the streets the Applicant is asking for an
exception to the riparian setback requirement. Those
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
setback requirements exist to protect both the waters and
the amphibians that rely on the waters.
The hillside itself will be damaged and degraded,
and the Applicant is also asking for an exception to the
hillside grading requirements. In the Staff Report released
February 23rd it states the Applicant is proposing cut and
fill depths greater than those permitted by the Hillside
Standards. Both protected and non-protected species will
lose their habitat forever. Seventy trees are being
removed, a half acre of ancient oak forest. Eighty-one
percent of the land is being developed. The land is home to
deer, owls, migratory birds, wild turkeys, and other native
wildlife.
The EIR asserts that the project is consistent
with the 2020 General Plan, because prior to putting it in
the Williamson Act the property was zoned for residential
use. This rationale relies on land use from a 1961 General
Plan, which was in effect prior to the development of our
neighborhood and prior to it being placed in the Williamson
Act. The 2020 General Plan supersedes all preexisting
General Plans.
According to the Hillside Specific Plan, placing
lands in the Williamson Act Contract should be encouraged
by both Town and County. It logically followed that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cancellation should be discouraged. The Applicant is asking
the Town to take the extremely unusual step of cancelling
the Williamson Act Contract. I am unaware of a circumstance
where the Town has taken this step. It is appropriate in
emergency situations, not where the objectives could
instead be served by non-renewal.
The land was placed in the Williamson Act
Contract in 1979 and has remained there for more than 40
years. The intent was to preserve the rural quality of the
land, recognizing that the maintenance of open space and
land of rural character holds significant value. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Clearly your comments are
quite strong about the project itself, but I wanted to ask
you if you would comment on the two alternatives, the two-
access versus the one-access? Do you have an opinion about
one of those in terms of a preference?
JILL FORDYCE: Well, I don’t want to get in a
thing with our Cerro Vista neighbors, who I absolutely
appreciate what they are experiencing. I do believe the
two-access alternative is less onerous to our neighborhood,
and it’s also apparently environmentally superior, because
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it saves more trees and stays out of some of the riparian
areas.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your
detailed letters. I noted that you had written a detailed
letter in response to the Draft EIR, and then there was
also one in our 62 pages that we had today.
I was able to scan through it, but I was hoping
you could maybe kind of net out relative to the comments
you made about the Draft EIR and what you sent in today
what were the main points that you wanted to convey?
JILL FORDYCE: With regard to the EIR?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Well, I think that your
comments on the EIR pertained to the EIR, and I think a lot
of your letter today, if I understood it, was related to
the EIR as well.
JILL FORDYCE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So what are the main
differences that you wanted to convey to us?
JILL FORDYCE: I think the main difference that I
wanted to point out today are the exceptions that are being
asked. The mitigation, which is managed by this homeowners
association is not sufficient to protect us. There are now
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
three exceptions that are being asked for. There’s a
grading exception, there’s a setback exception, and there
is this Williamson Act Cancellation.
A large portion of my response today also focused
on this argument that’s in the EIR that states that this is
Agricultural land. It can’t be used that way, because it’s
not suitable for agriculture, but it’s never been used that
way. In 1948 apparently the last orchards were there. Our
neighborhood was developed in the late-sixties, early-
seventies. It was put into the Williamson Act in 1975, and
ever since then myself and my Surrey Farms neighbors have
believed that it was put there as feature of the
neighborhood, that Dodge, when he developed it, he devoted
this resource conservation space as… It makes the
neighborhood what it is, and so I did spend a long time
talking about the fact that this was never truly an
agricultural operation; it was zoned that way as resource
conservation space.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: You mentioned that the developer was
requesting an exception on the riparian corridor. Now, that
would be of great concern to me, only I didn’t see that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JILL FORDYCE: It’s asking for a setback
exception; it’s in the EIR. I could look and point you to
the right place. The Vice Chair might know.
CHAIR KANE: Was that more of mitigation?
JILL FORDYCE: No. In fact, it was offered as
mitigation… The mitigation is the granting of the exception
to the requirement, if that makes sense.
CHAIR KANE: All right, thank you. Commissioner
Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Maybe I could just follow up
on that for a minute. I’m looking at page 10 of 45 in the
Staff Report, the findings from the EIR, and it says that
mitigation for this issue…and it offers three options, and
one option is to use a mitigation bank, another option is a
grading permit with plantings, and a third option is a
wetland restoration plan, and we’ll come back to the
Applicant on those options, because it seems they’re
offered to them. Do you have an opinion about which of
those options would be the best one?
JILL FORDYCE: Yes, and just to be clear, we know
this is a separate issue. This wetlands issue is a separate
issue than the setback issue, is that your understanding?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Correct. It’s the issue around
Biological Resources Mitigation Measure 4.37-B.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JILL FORDYCE: Yeah, so our opinion, our beliefs
with regard to wetland restoration is that they shouldn’t
be able to pay for wetlands to be restored somewhere else,
that it should happen onsite if at all possible.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, so that would be two or
three?
JILL FORDYCE: Yes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Scott Brown.
SCOTT BROWN: Good evening, I’m the third of the
four houses on Cerro Vista, so our little four-hour court
is now in kind of a difficult situation.
CHAIR KANE: Sir, I’m sorry. Give us your name
and address.
SCOTT BROWN: I’m sorry, Scott Brown, 15961 Cerro
Vista Court.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you, sir.
SCOTT BROWN: No problem. So I’m the third on
Cerro Vista Court. I’m very, very empathetic to the
concerns of Twin Oaks. I am an owner of a Williamson Act
land that is right next door to this that has five acres
that I’m preserving, and four acres that my neighbor is
preserving, and I believe very strongly that you should not
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
cancel Williamson Act land. I believe that covenant is
something I should abide by, and so should they.
Relative to Cerro Vista there is a property line
that runs down Cerro Vista Court, and there’s another one
that runs up Cerro Vista Road. It was clearly put there to
protect the Cerro Vista community. None of us had any idea
that there was a horse trail there. I mean the little line
that goes to that court, the road that they’re proposing is
actually halfway down it; it’s a very small road, and the
traffic going out to Shannon Road is dangerous. We were
talking about it among the neighbors. Turning onto Shannon
Road, if you’ve done that from Cerro Vista, is a life and
death experience, because people are flying down Shannon
Road at high speed, or coming around the blind corner up,
and so to add traffic to that very small road in that very
small community is a huge issue.
But I think it also comes down to fairness. All
of us bought the homes and we looked at the property lines,
and yeah, maybe we didn’t do our job to know there’s a
horse trail there, but you know what? There are no horses
that I’ve ever seen there, and there’s a fence, in fact,
put in place by these property owners that have been there
forever, blocking any access to that trail, so it’s clearly
not been used, and I think for those new owners that just
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
spoke, it’s an incredibly difficult thing to say we’re
going to pave a road across the land that you just bought,
and the property lines that are there that we all kind of
bought against and believe fundamentally that all of you
are defending in your very important role.
I believe fundamentally as a Williamson Act
owner, I’m going to defend that, and the hill that looks up
from Hillbrook School in addition to this one is mine, and
I will protect it, the five acres that’s there and the four
acres that my neighbors have, and I believe that punching a
hole through our neighbor’s land and Cerro Vista Court is a
very bad idea for the traffic and for the safety of our
children; it’s not prepared for it. I don’t think due
diligence was done on this option two and it surprised all
of us, but mostly I think it’s just about doing the right
thing for the four people of Cerro Vista Court. I’ll take
any questions.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? I have a comment. Thank you for your educational
letters on the Williamson Act, and thank you for your
choice to continue your lands inside that act.
SCOTT BROWN: Thank you, sir.
CHAIR KANE: Craig Fordyce.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CRAIG FORDYCE: My name is Craig Fordyce; I live
at 191 Longmeadow Drive, and I just have a few items here
for you.
As far as light, the hillside does not contain
any current unnatural source of light. When you look out
our back window at night, there’s only what you can see by
the moonlight. The development of a neighborhood on a hill
will create multiple new sources of unnatural light and
glare from houses and cars and streets, substantially
impacting scenic vistas and degrading the visual character
of the site and its surroundings.
Noise. The hillside also does not contain any
unnatural source of noise. The EIR acknowledges that the
project will cause a permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project site vicinity. Instead of hearing
birds, frogs, coyotes, and the wind in the trees, we’ll
hear the car door alarms, cars, people, phones, stereos,
and televisions.
Construction. The construction alone of this
project will drastically affect our way of life. The
construction has the potential for going on indefinitely.
The mitigation measures provide no relief. Construction,
with its accompanying dirt, dust, pollution, and noise is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
allowed for 12 hours a day on the weekdays, and 10 hours a
day on weekends and holidays.
Traffic. We’re all aware of the traffic problems
in Los Gatos. According to the EIR this project would add
approximately eight additional trips in the AM peak hour
and ten trips in the PM peak hour when the project is fully
developed. This seems like a startling low estimate, as
from my household alone there are generally at least six
trips, and upwards of 12 trips during peak hours.
We have also asked the Town to consider the
effects on construction traffic on our neighborhood. We
anticipate that the development of the infrastructure in
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 EIR. It would change the landscape of our
neighborhood for this generation of residents and beyond.
Our children would not be allowed on the streets. We’d have
to plan our trips out according to the construction
traffic.
The EIR estimates that during the initial phase
of road and infrastructure construction approximately 494
one-way truck trips of excess excavated material would be
hauled offsite. It estimates the grading phase as taking
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
approximately 15 days, generating 33 trick trips per day,
or approximately six truck trips per hour. This is not a
relatively small amount of construction traffic, as stated
in the EIR. Is one truck every ten minutes on a quiet
residential street a relatively small amount? Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Just real quick, so you have
an explicit preference between the two-access and the one-
access options?
CRAIG FORDYCE: My explicit preference is none.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I understand. Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you for your note that you
left on your door today giving us access to your property
and your back yard. My question is how big is that dog?
CRAIG FORDYCE: He’s about 70 pounds, I think.
CHAIR KANE: See, I thought the note was sort of
baiting me in, so I sent Commissioner Hudes in first. Sara
Brown.
SARA BROWN: Hello, my name is Sara Brown and I
live at 15961 Cerro Vista Court. We’re at the top of the
hill; my husband spoke earlier.
I think we have an interesting perspective,
because we just moved to Los Gatos a year-and-a-half ago.
We have four children and we’ve moved around a fair amount,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
most recently living in Singapore, and prior to that my
husband and I grew up in Wisconsin, which is a lot of
rolling hills and beautiful farmland, and in Raleigh, North
Carolina, which is also a beautiful area with a lot of
nature and trees and oceans and mountains.
So one of the reasons why we love Los Gatos, I’m
quite sure, is because of the beautiful area and the
mountains that surround us, and the rolling hills, and
parks, and lots of places to go and ride bikes, and walk on
trails, and walk our dog.
When we were lucky enough to find this beautiful
property at the top of Cerro Vista Court, which is one of
the original properties in that whole area—the Yabroff
family built it in 1970—we were astounded with the views
that we have, but also the view that our hill has. We have
five acres of this gorgeous, grassy hill, and when I walk
around all the way from my house all the way down to
Blossom Hill Park, you can see our hill from different
spots, and right now because of the rain, because of the
winter, it’s bright green and it’s beautiful. We have these
apricot trees that dot the hillside.
And the hill that we are talking about for this
development is three times as large as ours, and it’s
beautiful. There are deer there, there are fox there, there
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are coyotes there that freak us out often, and it’s just
such a shame, it’s such a shock to me to think that the
Town would approve destroying that hill to put ten houses
up for the benefit of who? It doesn’t benefit any of us
that see this beautiful grassy hill. It made me sad to see
that picture of Mr. Dodge with his dog. I stand on my hill
with my dog. You can probably see me if you have access to
binoculars; you can watch me play on my hill with my dog.
And that was him in 1950. That’s going to be gone.
There is no trail right now through the property,
although I guess they say that’s an advantage that there
would be a trail there.
So I implore you to not rescind the Williamson
Act. In fact, I’d like to try to read something really
quickly. This is from the conservation.ca.gov, so I didn’t
make this up. “The State of California’s attorney general’s
office has opined that the cancellation of the Williamson
Act Contract is impermissible, except upon extremely
stringent conditions.” There are all kinds of numbers there
for you lawyers. “The attorney general has also opined that
non-renewal is the preferred contract termination.” There’s
more; you can read about it on here.
CHAIR KANE: How much more?
SARA BROWN: One more quote.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Go ahead.
SARA BROWN: “If a landowner desires to change
the use of his land under contract to use as other than
agricultural production and compatible uses, the proper
procedure is to give Notices of Non-Renewal, pursuant to
Section 51245.” I sounds to me, and Jill mentioned this and
she’s so much more knowledgeable than I am, because I again
have just arrived on the scene in Los Gatos, that there’s a
lot to this Williamson Act.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Do you have an opinion about
the two-access versus the one-access?
SARA BROWN: I would prefer no access at all.
Yeah.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you.
SARA BROWN: Thank you for your time.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Jan Schwartz.
JAN SCHWARTZ: I’m Jan Schwartz and I live at
15966 Cerro Vista Drive, so if you go in Cerro Vista Court
and you make a left actually on that sort of side street
there.
My appeal is, really, we’ve heard it here a lot.
It’s a very rural area. I’ve been there since 1989. I’ve
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
been in Los Gatos since 1974; I lived father up on Suview.
It’s just a beautiful rural area. We have deer, and coyote,
and owls, that already are being squeezed, and this would
be more. The hill is beautiful. To put another road up
across that hill would just be devastating.
Also, I’m not sure what the relationship of the
homeowners association of the new homes would be to
existing homeowners, because they will be traveling down
our road, and I’m not sure what say we would have. That’s
just a question I have.
CHAIR KANE: Questions? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I have two questions.
JAN SCHWARTZ: No access.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Is your street a public street
or is it a private road?
JAN SCHWARTZ: Cerro Vista Court, where it comes
in, is a public street, but then my Cerro Vista Drive is a
private road.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And is that one that would be
encountering public traffic?
JAN SCHWARTZ: No, but we would on the bottom. I
do want to also second, or third or fourth, the concern
about traffic coming of Shannon Road onto Cerro Vista. That
is a very dangerous and busy area already.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And do you have an opinion
about the two-access versus one?
JAN SCHWARTZ: I would prefer no access.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Questions? Ma’am, you brought up the
dangerous intersection.
JAN SCHWARTZ: Yes.
CHAIR KANE: Tell me—it’s been in other letters—
specifically what streets are we referring to?
JAN SCHWARTZ: As you’re exiting Cerro Vista
Drive onto Shannon Road, you’re on a corner and the traffic
is coming down the hill towards town. People come very
quickly. I mean my ex-husband actually was totaled in the
car on that curve. It’s dangerous, and putting more traffic
there is not going to help.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. David
Greenfield.
DAVID GREENFIELD: Hi, Dave Greenfield. I live at
140 Longmeadow Drive, and I just had a couple comments.
The first is its seems like there’s an
opportunity for improvement, to get the input from us, the
neighbors, earlier. If we’d been asked to get it in
yesterday as opposed to today, we would have been happy to
get it in and it would have given you ample opportunity to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
read it in advance, so potential opportunity for
improvement there.
Unlike some of my neighbors, I’m not completely
opposed to some building, and I think it would be helpful
if the number of units was reduced, and if building is
going to happen, ideally it would be when the Williamson
Act expires, but if it’s going to happen, fewer would be
better than more.
From my perspective the big issues are noise,
safety, and construction truck traffic in particular, and
it does change the character of my street, the street of
all my neighbors, and the resulting peace and solitude. I’m
home a lot on weekends, not as much during the weekday, but
to have my weekends disrupted the same way would be
frustrating and changes the character.
I certainly think that having preservation of
open space is great and that’s what I appreciate about our
neighborhood, and the beauty, the solitude, and I think
that it would be a shame for that to disappear in a
unidirectional manner where it could never come back.
That’s it. Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Any questions?
Commissioner Badame.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Mr. Greenfield, I did read
your letter dated February 26th, receipt date of 11:34pm,
and you did talk about your preference for fewer lots, as
you just communicated to us. So how many lots do you
envision from a reduction of the ten?
DAVID GREENFIELD: Six would make me happier.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Do you have an opinion about
the two- versus one-access?
DAVID GREENFIELD: I’ll be less politically
correct than all my neighbors. I’d love to share the pain
across two different entrances and not have it all
inflicted on one side. Obviously, both have problems.
CHAIR KANE: Mr. Greenfield, your opening remarks
were about notice, one or two days or something. That made
me think. Have you or anyone you know been contacted by the
developer regarding this project to discuss neighborhood
input?
DAVID GREENFIELD: Only invitations to the town
hall meetings that we’ve had over the last couple of years.
I don't know whether those came from the builder or from
the town hall or from the Fordyces, but that’s the only
input that I’ve gotten.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Thank you very much. Mark Weiner.
MARK WEINER: Commission, Mark Weiner, not with
Cerro Vista; Surrey Farms neighborhood, Twin Oaks Drive,
two doors down and across the street from the potential
entry to that new neighborhood.
I don’t have a lot of prepared or written
comments, just a few perspectives. I spent eight years
myself on the General Plan Committee working on the
Hillside Plan and others, and a little perspective as well
from being a neighbor, not as long, but 18 years in the
neighborhood, and having walked the neighborhood with Mr.
Dodge, Sr. from the photo.
At least in my perspective, I think, having been
in Los Gatos most of my 52 years, about 49 of them, eight
years on the committee here and working on the plan, having
walked the neighborhood, walked that property many times
with Mr. Dodge, I don’t see that as the vision that we had
in the General Plan for how a layout like that would be in
some of our remaining open hillsides.
Personally, walking with my kids, walking the
area with Mr. Dodge, I never at least, and obviously Tom
would know better, I never saw that as the vision he had
for the neighborhood in the time that he took me around the
neighborhood and showed us around, and at least in my time
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
being in Los Gatos, again, for a long time. That’s not the
vision at least that I heard both growing up and again
being involved in different groups here and volunteered in
Town government as to what that plan should be.
I think a lot of the folks here have brought up
it’s certainly not what many of us that came into the
neighborhood, spending even 20 years ago millions of
dollars to buy in that neighborhood, people that have been
there 30 and 40 years, I don’t think it was any of their
views that happened to know the Dodge family a lot better.
It was never the plan to be or they wouldn’t have purchased
in the area either.
I think it’s a financial goal, it’s an open
capitalistic society, but the financial goal of certain
people that own it now, but that wasn’t the plan for 10,
20, 30, or 40 years probably, hence all us coming in the
neighborhood.
That’s just my personal view from being here a
long time and having been involved in writing some of the
plans, or updating some of the plans, for the 2000 General
Plan Committee, and being on that until 2005. Just my
personal perspectives, not any quantitative or looking at
the EIR.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner Hudes
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Two questions. Do you have a
vision from your work on the Hillside Plan and the General
Plan that this property would in fact be developed?
MARK WEINER: That was not either my
understanding looking at it both as a resident or in my
time in the committee. That had never come up unfortunately
until Mr. Dodge passed and there was a commercial aspect
looked into after that. I had never understood or seen it
prior, and I was off the committee many years prior to Mr.
Dodge, Sr. passing away.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And, if I may, what was the
mechanism for preventing any development on that property?
MARK WEINER: That was the zoning and the
Williamson Act.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay. And the question is do
you have a preference on the two- versus one-access?
MARK WEINER: I think there are two different
sets of answers here. Certainly I think there either
shouldn’t be access, and I think looking at it, if there’s
a reduced number of development, and I think perhaps there
is a right to have and allow a development before I can
predict, maybe it’s three, maybe it’s four properties, it’s
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
certainly not ten, but if it’s a limited number, perhaps
cutting through my street of Twin Oaks might be acceptable,
but I think there should not in hell be any way to have ten
homes either way and let them mess up both neighborhoods,
but there is probably a fairer, smaller number in there is
my practical view.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And the access would be from
Twin Oaks?
MARK WEINER: If it was a much significantly
reduced number, perhaps, if there has to be, but
significantly reduced number of homes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
MARK WEINER: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. I have no further cards.
Going once, going twice. I’ll now give the Applicant up to
five minutes to add any further comments about the
application.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Hello, again. Either plan is
acceptable to us. I don’t mean to infer that we wouldn’t
accept the single-access plan. Either plan is acceptable.
The alternate plan was developed as a response to the
mitigation issues raised in the EIR. It’s very normal for
CEQA processing to work on an alternate plan to address
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
those issues, and this two-access plan does eliminate
significant portions of the mitigation required.
Also, cancellation of the Williamson Act is not
unusual and the Town has cancelled it as recently as the
North 40 that was cancelled.
Resource conservation was placed on this property
at the time that it was put into the Williamson contract,
because the Town had no other zoning or plan designation to
put it in at that particular time.
We are not disturbing the wetlands. It’s about
365 square feet of wetlands at the very lowest portion of
the site, again Hillbrook School, and we are actually
boring underneath that a minimum of 30” to not disrupt the
existing wetlands at that point.
We are improving the trail, because the trail is
a commitment to the county, and when the Cerro Vista
subdivision went in they were required to clear and improve
the trail down to Shannon Road.
A comment about no light being on the property.
The Fordyces have a light at the gate that they put in to
access the Dodge property at the rear of their property.
Further, the two abutting lots to our property,
when they were developed there was a very high berm that
was put at the back of the property, and one property owner
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has kept that berm. The Fordyces have removed that berm,
and that was put there to keep any drainage from flowing
onto their property when that subdivision was put in.
Construction has been going on nearly continuous
since 1953. The last home on Twin Oaks was built in 1994,
and the four homes at the end of Longmeadow were
constructed after that. Remodeling projects are currently
underway. We plan to work with Staff on a construction
mitigation traffic plan, and I want to also state that the
four-acre open space preserves a significant number of
trees and provides shelter for animals on the property.
Traffic addressed with recirculation of EIR. The
level of service at Shannon Road would not change with the
four homes that are being proposed at that point.
JOLIE HOUSTON: Jolie Houston with Berliner Cohen
speaking on behalf of the Applicant.
There were some comments about the notice and
getting the attorney’s letter from Mr. Mooney today at
4:00pm. I’d just like to note for the record, pursuant to
the Fordyce responses to the EIR, they put in a timeline.
This attorney was involved since October 2014, so getting
the letter today at the last minute, I don’t understand,
because we didn’t get a chance to respond to it.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
But I will briefly respond to it. He makes some
comments about, “The Williamson Act authorizes the approval
of cancellation request only if it finds that the
cancellation is not consistent with the purpose of the act
and it’s in the public interest.” That is not what we are
coming forward with with our non-renewal. We’re coming
under 51282(b); He’s citing 51282(c). I have our findings
that were sent to the Department of Resources, and they
concurred with our findings.
The other issue I’d like to say is under the CEQA
Guidelines 51092 you cannot reduce density for a housing
project as a CEQA mitigation, so the attorney’s letter was
incorrect and there was a statement tonight that was
incorrect. That section says, “With respect to a project
that includes housing development, the public agency shall
not reduce the proposed number of housing units as a
mitigation measure if it determines there are other
feasible mitigations.”
I can respond to some other comments, especially
about the Cerro Vista easement, because that dedication, I
researched that as far back as 2014 for the Town.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Questions for the
speaker? Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Your last comment is
something I’m interested in. You have read and studied that
easement?
JOIIE HOUSTON: Yes, I have, and one of the
speakers even referenced the Yabroffs. They dedicated to
the Town that land, the property, to be used for a public
thoroughfare and to become a portion of the public street
system in the Town, and that was in March of 1973. This
dedication was made that it could be rejected, but at the
option of the Town it could be accepted any time in the
future, and that’s pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act;
it’s kind of counterintuitive.
But I did research that and it is a valid… It
does show up on title reports, and it was a dedication for
a public roadway, and I have these documents. I didn’t make
copies for everybody, but the recorded document says, “The
property so dedicated to be a public thoroughfare and to
become a portion of the public street system in the Town of
Los Gatos,” and that document was recorded in 1973.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Does it give the width
of the roadway?
JOIIE HOUSTON: It’s shown on a map.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, do you recall
approximately the width? Mr. Griffin can answer, either one
of you.
RODGER GRIFFIN: It’s very wide; it’s well over
100’.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The roadway?
RODGER GRIFFIN: No, the easement.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, but the easement
is for a roadway and other things?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, that’s correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, I guess what I’m
really wondering is does it specify the width of the
proposed roadway?
RODGER GRIFFIN: The proposed roadway is 24’.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, thank you.
JOLIE HOUSTON: I have these documents and I can
provide them to the Town. Do you have any other questions
about the Williamson Act or the density?
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Thank you for your
comments. I just wanted to make sure I understood what you
just said. You were responding to the letters that were
received late today. All right, so the findings that we’re
being asked to—and I actually got it from the Conservation
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Act (inaudible) but it also in our packet—is that we’re
being asked to consider the findings under provision B.
JOLIE HOUSTON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: And you were saying that
they were looking at provision C?
JOLIE HOUSTON: C. There are two ways of
cancelling a Williamson Act Contract. There is Section C
and there’s Section B, and they we’re coming under B, where
a notice of nonrenewal has been issued, and then you go
through that process and you make the certain findings, and
there are a lot more findings. In the letter from the Town
to the State Department of Resources it listed all the
findings, approximate agricultural use, it’s surrounded by
urban uses, all those findings, and the state concurred and
said we’ve made these findings. The state will be notified
again before this goes to the Town Council, because they
will be the legislative body that will approve a tentative
cancellation, and then from a tentative cancellation it
will go to become a cancellation, if the conditions are
met.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Can I just ask a
clarifying question on what you just said? You said that
the state made the findings for cancellation, but what I
read—but maybe I heard it wrong, so tell me if I did—is
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that they said that they felt that the deciding body could
make the findings, but they’re not in a position to
actually do that at this time. They wanted us to do it in
conjunction with the other…
JOLIE HOUSTON: With the General Plan Amendment
and the zoning, yes. If they don’t believe that it’s going
to make these findings, they will opine and they will give
conditions and let you know that they don’t agree. They
said that based on the information submitted it appears the
Town is able to make the required findings, however, the
Department recommends zoning and General Plan Amendment
changes occur prior to at the same time. So that’s what
we’re doing, because then that way we are consistent with
the General Plan and the zoning.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the speaker?
Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a clarification on the
Williamson Act. Who owns the contract? What are the parties
to the contract, and who has the authority to cancel?
JOLIE HOUSTON: The property owner and the Town,
they are in the contract, and like any other contract, the
parties can…in the contract, but because it’s a Williamson
Act contract it’s evergreen, it goes on and on, kind of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like the ones you do for historic homes, a Mills Act where
they renew every year of the ten-year cycle keeps going.
That’s why you give notice to nonrenewal, but the contract
is between the Town of Los Gatos and the property owner.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: And are they equal parties
to the contract so that either the Town or the property
owner could issue a cancellation, or is it the burden of
the property owner, and does the Town have that authority
to also cancel?
JOLIE HOUSTON: The Council can rescind…
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: (Inaudible).
JOLIE HOUSTON: Yeah, they can end the contract,
but we can petition for a cancellation, and then the
town…then we petitioned and we did that, and we also issued
notice of nonrenewal, so there’s cancellation and there’s
nonrenewal, so we’re going both tracks. So we’re requesting
a tentative cancellation.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So along the line of the
nonrenewal, which was initiated in 2015 and will
automatically expire in 2025, is there any recourse for the
Town to step in to prevent that cancellation if the
property owner has initiated that track?
JOLIE HOUSTON: No. And what happens with the
notice of nonrenewal and when we start that path, what
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
happens at the assessor’s office, I don't want to get into
the weeds, but they start ramping up the assessment, so at
the end of the ten-year period you’ve paid the cancellation
fee. A lot of people think it’s a tax, but it’s a fee, and
it goes to the assessor’s office, so it’s 12.5% of the
value.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I have another question,
not related to the Williamson Act, but for the Applicant.
This is a question about the HOA. I’m not an HOA
involved person, so I don’t truly understand how they work.
My question is if the HOA is responsible ultimately for the
EIR mitigation responsibilities, how does that work when
there is no property sold, or one property sold, or two
properties sold? How do the mitigation acts get undertaken
such that the preservation as recommended in those
findings?
RODGER GRIFFIN: The best way to handle that is
there are firms that specialize in management of the
homeowners association, so that instead of it being managed
by the residents of the project who… Let me put it this
way. They would be officers in the association, but a firm
would be hired to actually manage it and give them all the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
rules and laws and tell them what their obligations are
along the way.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a follow up. If there
are no homeowners yet, or there is only one, how does the
full burden of mitigation plan get borne?
RODGER GRIFFIN: The property owner, whoever owns
the property of those parcels, would be responsible.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: They haven’t been sold.
Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That was my point.
CHAIR KANE: All right, Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I have some questions about
the trees, and the trees to be removed. I had a very, very
difficult time mapping the trees to the plans. The schedule
was illegible in tiny print, and it was very difficult, but
I did find five trees from my walk and from blowing up the
plans as much as I could, that I would ask to be considered
for retention, and I can read those off to you now.
Tree 18, coast live oak, 2016. Tree 62, coast
live oak. Actually, two trees, Trees 302 and 303, and
actually there are two here as well, Trees 336 and 337, and
Tree 561, they look like all of these… Again, it was
difficult to place them, but it looked like they were on
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the edge of a road where potentially reorienting the road
slightly might preserve the tree, but it was extremely
difficult, because the exit has actually X’d the tree
numbers.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Some of the tree numbers; I
concur with that.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So I mean I assume we’re going
to get some of this back during the A&S if they do come to
us, but they may not, and so I wonder if you’d consider
retaining those particular trees?
RODGER GRIFFIN: I see no reason why we couldn’t
strive to save those trees with a reorientation of the
road; I will take a better look at those particular trees.
We do have to come back for a tentative map, and revisions
to the roadway that we have on the site right now can be
modified between now and the tentative map preparation.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, I’ll provide this to
Staff, and maybe there would be a way for us to get a more
legible tree inventory as well.
Then with regard to Lot 7, that has a stand of it
looks like Aleppo pine and cedar that are very visible on
the hill that are pretty much all being removed. I don't
know that much about Aleppo pine, whether they are truly
native, but they are a distinct feature of that hill, and I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
was wondering if there was a way to potentially either
recreate that with similar plantings, or to preserve there
are a list of about, I don't know, 20 or 30 trees that have
an X through them that although they’re not large, they’re
very visible when you look at that hill, and they’re a very
distinguishing feature of it?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Mr. Dodge planted those trees.
They’re not intrinsic to the site in the sense that they
were not there before he bought the property; he put those
in. They’re in poor health for the most part. I’m not an
expert in this area, but it would seem to me that in
talking with the arborist that we could probably save those
trees. Our intention with the siting of the building that
we have on Lot 7 would not require grading in the vicinity
of those trees.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I guess my final comment,
again maybe to look at, is why not transplant more trees
rather than cut down 71? You’re transplanting some of them,
but if it’s feasible to transplant, why not?
RODGER GRIFFIN: I think that transplanting would
be our first choice in that matter. The arborist felt that
the trees were of such size and health that they probably
would not survive transplanting.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just a follow up question
on Site 7. I’m curious why the location of the home is
behind that stand of trees, many of which need to be
removed, and why not in front of that stand of trees? It
seems to be that there’s enough space that’s open, and
judging from the topographical indicators, this slope is
similar.
RODGER GRIFFIN: The location of the house that
we have defined there is not specific to the only site that
you could place on Plot 7. We were asked to indicate a
space where a home could be built that we could comply with
the Hillside Ordinance, and that is where we placed that
home. That area was conceived by Mr. Dodge as the spot that
he would like to build his home as well, and that’s why he
planted the trees.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: So he’s not in the picture
anymore.
RODGER GRIFFIN: He’s not in the picture anymore,
so we don’t have to keep it there.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: The other concern that I
have about its placement is that it creates a relatively
long drive that would require cut and fill. Moving it, as
I’m looking at the map, sort of north and west, would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
create the need for a shorter drive, and that might be more
beneficial environmentally.
RODGER GRIFFIN: That’s entirely possible, I
concur. I think that building below those trees might
entail some grading in the proximity of those trees, but
transplanting and/or replacing those trees with trees that
could thrive would probably be a better choice in that
regard.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Just one more question. We
don’t have this in our package, and I don’t recall ever
getting this in our packages, but given that it’s such a
dramatic change to the hillside, particularly as you’ve
heard from the residents, is it possible to create an
elevation drawing of some sort that would show the slope
rising up and the positioning of the homes as you’re
envisioning, so that we can have an understanding, sort of
a more visual understanding, of the actual impact of these
homes on a view?
RODGER GRIFFIN: There are several sections that
we’ve drawn through the site which show the placement of
homes on each of the lots that we took the sections
through. So are you saying something where we’d have an
actual elevation of a particular home, or what we’re
showing is a section through showing where it’s feasible to
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
comply with the Hillside Standards and also put a home on
site?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yeah, and I understand what
you’re talking about. You’re talking about showing how the
grading is affected.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: My question is from, for
example, the end of Longmeadow, I believe you’re looking up
that hillside to the very top. Positioning of the homes as
you’ve described on this provisional map, what does that
look like? What do we actually see as we’re looking at what
I call an elevation, which is ground to sky?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Basically it would be a view
from, say, Longmeadow, to the site? What would you see? Of
course that can be done, yes.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think it would give us a
better understanding of the impact of these built homes on
the view.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Mr. Griffin, I have a
question for you, as soon as you’re through talking. If
this were approved, whether it’s five lots or ten lots to
three lots or whatever, you will have to come back for
Architecture and Site approval?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RODGER GRIFFIN: Correct. Each of those homes
would have an individual approval before the Town for any
home that’s constructed.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That would include the
precise location of the home?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Exactly, on each parcel.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: It would also include
the design of the home?
RODGER GRIFFIN: That’s correct.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: So if you don’t have
either, and you want to try to draw a map of what it’s
going to look like, how do you do that?
RODGER GRIFFIN: It’s still imaginary.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That’s what I thought.
Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I wanted to ask another
related question to what Commissioner Hudes brought up, and
it was about the trees. The Environmental Impact Report
doesn’t per se go into the trees. The way that the tree
analysis is normally done, and is apparently done in this
case, is you make a proposal, and then the arborist makes
an evaluation of what the impacts would be, given the
proposal that you make. Since we don’t really have the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concept of Least Restrictive Development Area for trees per
se, is there a way that you could look at the placement of
the roads and see if there is there another way to save
maybe a few more trees? Not just on Lot 7, but elsewhere on
the property, just because the number is so large with 30
plus 70 being removed, that’s nearly a third of the trees.
RODGER GRIFFIN: What you get into building a
roadway there are engineering requirements for the maximum
slope: how it works with the contours of the property, and
radiuses for the turnaround as well, and so each of those
come into play in that regard. We have looked at it from
the standpoint to try to miss the largest number of trees
that we could. There are some areas where we might be able
to build a retaining wall to save some of these trees that
are in close proximity to the roadway that I heard from
earlier.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I wanted to come back to the
two-access versus one-access options. As I’ve mentioned,
it’s unusual for us to have a proposed project and then for
the applicant to say that they prefer something other than
what’s been proposed. Could you walk us through your
thinking on that? Particularly I’d like to hear about the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
environmental impacts. I looked at the environmental
impacts in the report. It looked like there were 63 impacts
that may require mitigation, and that choosing the two-
access alternative would eliminate 22 of those 63 over the
proposed project, which is roughly 35%. So it looks to me
like a significant environmental advantage of the two-
access option. Are there other considerations, and then
maybe you could explain to me why we’re looking at a
project where the preference is for something that is not
the proposed project.
RODGER GRIFFIN: When we first submitted the
application, we submitted with one access. That’s all we
thought we had access for. It was during the process of
developing the EIR that through a title search for the
adjacent property we found the easement allowing public
road access from Cerro Vista. At that time we also had
identified some of the environmental requirements that
required mitigation that were known at that time, and so
that two-access site did, as you say, reduce significantly
the number of areas that needed mitigation, the major one
being the roadway no longer has to cross the riparian
habitat area, and it also reduces significantly the amount
of fill, the height of the fill that’s required to build
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the roadways for on the hillside as well, and that’s how we
came up with that process.
JOLIE HOUSTON: And we also thought the swale was
the wetlands, and it was very early on.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yeah, an amazing thing happened
during the time we were in the process of doing the initial
EIR and doing the responses, that we got the Army Corps of
Engineers to actually come out to the property, and they
found the wetlands down in the lower corner there, and so
we then modified the plan to adapt to be completely clear
of the wetlands area there. We felt that the two-access
provided a diminished amount of traffic in the existing
Twin Oaks and Surrey Farms, and the four homes added to
Cerro Vista were a small number of homes to ask to be put
into that area, and the level of traffic service at Shannon
Road would not increase.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So it really doesn’t make any
difference to you which option is chosen, or are you
advocating for one?
RODGER GRIFFIN: No, actually we do not have a
commitment to either one of those plans, we just feel that
the two-access plan is superior, because it raises and it
has the least affect on the land.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Mr. Griffin, this may be our last
chance to chat, because we’re going to make a
recommendation shortly. You’ve heard comments regarding Lot
7, and that’s something we keep in mind. It’s a slippery
slope, it’s a steep slope, and the driveway is terribly
long and it’s a lot of paving and asphalt. I don’t mean to
be getting into A&S, but I think I can avoid pain if we try
to pay attention in particular to the CDAC meeting of
September 8, 2010.
There were comments, about 15 votes, and I don't
know if you recall them off the top of your head, but they
talked about the trees, and they talked about developing at
the bottom of the hills. Are we in fact offering an offsite
BMP?
RODGER GRIFFIN: What we are offering is an in-
lieu fee for the BMPs.
CHAIR KANE: So no structures, just money?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Just money, and the reason being
is that we felt that to obligate a BMP owner to maintain a
one-acre site commensurate with the other homes around it
would be an unfair burden.
CHAIR KANE: I didn’t mean on that site. The CDAC
was talking about an offsite BMP and that that was
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
acceptable; the structure is somewhere else. But you’ve
already told me you’re going to do the money.
RODGER GRIFFIN: I got you.
CHAIR KANE: Okay. It talks about rural character
be maintained. It talked about architecture should be
consistent with the neighborhood. It says not all of the
new homes should be two stories, and in the plans that I
looked at all of the potential hypothetical homes were two
stories. Is that going to be the intent?
RODGER GRIFFIN: The homes that are on the upper
portion of the site are in fact considered…they would be
two-story, or they would be at least accommodating the
grades of the site to comply with the Hillside Standards
and Guidelines.
CHAIR KANE: I think you just said they’re all
two stories.
RODGER GRIFFIN: I didn’t say they’re all two
stories, I’m saying that the ones that we show on the upper
elevations, the sections we have drawn, demonstrate that
there would be a level change, and it could be a two-story
or it could be one-story with another portion of the plan
farther up the hill.
CHAIR KANE: Stepped down the hill?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Stepped down the hill.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Very good. As I said earlier, the
CDAC said eight years ago it would be a very good idea to
strongly meet early with the neighbors on their concerns. I
would take a look at those minutes from the CDAC meeting of
September 8, 2010. Even then they were talking about Lots 6
and 7 on slope, geotech, and visibility. I would also look
at the subjective passion of the General Plan, when it says
how things should be and how things should be preserved in
Los Gatos. Those would be good words to pay attention to as
guidelines.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Okay.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Any other questions?
Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: One more on the Mitigation for
Biological Resources Measure 4.37(b). This would be
required mitigation, and there were three options that were
suggested here. The way the ordinance is written, they
would be Options 1, 2, or 3. I, personally, have a
preference for preserving riparian corridors and preserving
these environments rather than contributing to a bank that
would occur somewhere else. Do you have a preference, or
are you willing to commit to Option 2 or 3 rather than
Option 1?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, in fact that is exactly why
the two-access plan answers those questions; it completely
preserves the habitat area. There is no intrusion into the
habitat area. We have created a 10’ setback from the
habitat area, and everything is outside of that.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I understand that’s for the
two-access, but should the approval be for the one-access,
then this mitigation would be required, and it would
require a choice of one of these three options, I believe.
So do you have a preference?
RODGER GRIFFIN: The roadway crosses the upper
portion of the riparian corridor area. We have pulled the
trail… The trail does go around the perimeter of the
habitat area, but the roadway crosses that, and what we had
proposed to do was to build that as a type of a bridge
through that area to have minimum effect on the riparian
area.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Well, if you have a
preference, please express it. Otherwise, we’ll take it up
with Staff.
RODGER GRIFFIN: I’m not sure if I understand
what you’re saying.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: On page 9 of 45 in the
ordinance it requires mitigation, and this is in the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ordinance that is Exhibit 15. On page 10 it outlines three
options for mitigation, which I assume would apply if you
went with the single-entrance, although I’m not sure about
that, but in any case this mitigation would be required as
the project has been submitted, and so one of the options
is for contributing to mitigation bank.
RODGER GRIFFIN: That’s Option 1.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Right, and what I’m asking is
would you be willing to go with Option 2 or 3 instead of
Option 1?
RODGER GRIFFIN: Yes, we would.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions for the speaker?
Thank you, Mr. Griffin.
RODGER GRIFFIN: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: I’m going to close the public
portion of the public hearing and ask any Commissioners…
No, we’re going to take a ten-minute break.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR KANE: Having closed the public portion of
the public hearing, I now turn to the Commissioners if they
have any questions of Staff, wish to comment on the
application, or make a motion. Commissioner Hanssen.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I have actually quite a
few questions, but I’m just going to ask a couple for now.
I’m going to switch to the General Plan
questions. Since we’re being asked to approve a General
Plan amendment, and this is about changing from
Agricultural to Residential designation, I wondered about
the new housing laws in California that are encouraging any
barriers to development to go away to produce new housing.
Does that apply here? I mean I’m sure that their intent is
probably more for affordable housing, but what do you know
about the intent of these laws at this point? I know
they’re fairly new.
JOEL PAULSON: Staff doesn’t believe that those
laws apply here, because these are legislative acts with
the zone change and the General Plan amendment. That
doesn’t mean that future bills may try to plug that
loophole, but as it sits the actual houses aren’t before
you currently. If something came through after approving
these applications for houses, then we’d get into
conversations about the bills that were recently adopted.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So you’re saying the state
wouldn’t take an interest in the fact that we’re changing
it from Agricultural to Residential?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: I’ll defer to the Town Attorney.
I’m not sure what the state does or doesn’t take interest
in at this point. It’s possible, but I couldn’t give you an
answer on that.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Joel really hit the nail on the
head in that legislative action is what you do when you’re
changing a General Plan designation, and that’s a
legislative act. The Housing Accountability Act and all of
those apply when it’s already consistent, for example, if
these lots, there are already ten lots there and they were
trying to develop them into ten homes and it’s already
Residential, it would comply with everything and you’d have
to approve that. But the legislative act doesn’t apply, at
least at this point in time from the state level, but they
might step in because they perceive the housing crisis and
try to change that, but right now we don’t see that,
because of the legislative acts that are needed first by
cancelling the Williamson Act and changing the General Plan
designation.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So it’s too early in the
process basically.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Exactly
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: It said in the Staff
Report all of the Williamson Act Contracts in the Town were
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
changed to a General Plan designation of Agricultural, so
my question is why? Because clearly the Act talked about
Agricultural as well as related open space, and we have the
zoning for resource conservation, so is it because we
didn’t have another General Plan designation that was not
open space? Why did we choose Agricultural when at the time
it was taken under the contract the orchards were gone
already? Why did we choose Agricultural for all of them?
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I can only point to the
contract. Our contract in this case with the property owner
for 1975 is for an agricultural preserve; it’s not for an
open space preserve. The why, at that point in 1975 there
was no such thing under the Williamson Act as an open space
preserve. That occurred afterwards when the Williamson Act
wasn’t being very well used. They amended Article 13 of the
Constitution to allow for open space preserves.
So this one is an agricultural preserve, and
maybe at that time when it was entered into it might have
been being used as an agricultural use, but it’s not now,
and when we did those changes and designations we would
have looked at the actual contract and would have called
for and not been able to put it into an open space preserve
without an amendment to the contract.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Do we have an alternate
General Plan designation that is somewhere in between
public open space and agricultural? Not that we would
choose that, I just was curious, would that have even been
an option?
JENNIFER ARMER: There is now a designation for
open space, and it’s not necessarily public open space. In
fact, I believe there was discussion from some of the
neighbors of another Williamson Act Contract nearby, just
north of the property, and that does have, I believe, the
General Plan designation of open space rather than
agriculture.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So not all the Williamson
Contracts are designated Agricultural in the General Plan
then?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct. The most recent ones, I
believe, can have the open space designation.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: A follow up on the Williamson
Act. We had a fair amount of testimony, and we need to sort
through that. One of the points that was raised by
Committee Member Jarvis a while ago was what else has
happened in town, and he asked specifically whether there
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
were a couple of examples that could be used so we could
understand whether there have been cancellations in town?
Has this come up before? How has the Town processed
Williamson Act related items?
JOEL PAULSON: I would say that predates all of
us, so in the last 17.5 years I don’t recall one. The last
one I know of was the SummerHill development off Blossom
Hill, which is now Regent Drive; I believe that was either
all or some of that was in a Williamson Act Contract, and
that cancellation was done prior to that Planned
Development being approved, but I do not have the specifics
on that.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And although there was
testimony, I don’t believe the North 40 had a Williamson
Act cancellation.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So we would have to go back to
the SummerHill development to understand whether that was
handled in a consistent way?
JOEL PAULSON: I would say how it was handled
then versus how it’s handled now, I think, is irrelevant.
We are following the proper procedures for this application
and the cancellation, so we don’t see that as an
impediment.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Right, and the findings that are
listed in your Staff Report for the required findings and
the cancellation is directly out of the government code
section of what you would need to find to cancel it, and
the attorney spoke about the neighbor’s attorney’s letter
that went a great deal into having to make a finding of
public interest, and he is misstating the law on that.
That’s a different code section and different requirements.
It’s not the cancellation that this Applicant is asking
for, so the findings in your Staff Report are the ones that
have to be found, and public interest is not one of them.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Other questions? Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Since this came up, I was
going to ask it later, but jumping ahead to the PD, since I
was on the Planned Development Study Committee I know we
went through an exercise to look at a new ordinance—which
hasn’t been approved yet, it’s under review by our
commission as well as the Town Council—but we did go
through the exercise of looking at any number of Planned
Developments’ that have happened in the last five or ten
years, and we kind of looked at is this what the Town
wanted, or is this what the Town didn’t want, and I
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
remember that one particular development that came up that
Ms. Jensen brought up, and what she said it was a great
example of partnership in that we were able to get a lot of
open space in return for the development that was available
to the public, and she thought that was one of the very
best examples of a Planned Development. I don't know the
particulars though about that particular Planned
Development about what percentage of land they were willing
to designate as open space, but I thought since we’re kind
of in the same situation precedent is a helpful thing to
help guide us through it; if you knew that, I would like to
know it.
JENNIFER ARMER: Unfortunately, we don’t have
that information with us this evening.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I would just like to make
the comment, and it’s something that Ms. Quintana had cited
previously, but this is a perfect example of where it makes
sense to have an A&S application accompany a PD
application, so we know what we’re getting and we know what
the ramifications are, because they can change depending
upon the siting of the house.
That being said, with this PD application, with
ten lots, is that the maximum allowable density?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Under the proposed HR-1 zone the
maximum allowed density I believe is 10.84, so yes, ten
would be the maximum.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: So this is maximum
allowable density, and if there were fewer homes it makes
sense, or it may not make sense, but would there be
exceptions needed for cut and fill exceptions? A roadway
outside of the LRDA, and homes built on 30° slopes?
JENNIFER ARMER: It does appear that there would
likely still be some roadway exceptions required, but it
really does depend on which homes and what the redesign
looked like. A significant amount of those exceptions for
the cut and fill are reduced by the two-access alternative,
and I’m not sure, there would need to be further analysis
to see what other impacts might be reduced.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So, again, I’m raising the
question about the two-access versus the one-access
opportunities. It seems to be odd that the Applicant is
saying they would prefer something that’s other than the
proposed project. Could you maybe explain how we got to
that point and whether Staff has an opinion about the two
alternatives, and also have the alternatives been studied
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
equally in terms of the exceptions, and the cut and fill,
and the trees, and everything else? LRDA, yeah.
JENNIFER ARMER: Yeah, so this is a bit of an
unusual situation in that the progress of the process as
we’ve gone through the Staff analysis and the Environmental
Impact Report has resulted in an alternative that really
has taken care of a lot of the potential issues, and the
Applicant really is very much in support of that.
However, we are still looking at what was the
originally proposed application, but as I said in my verbal
report, Staff is definitely in support of consideration of
that two-access alternative, because even though the
proposed project does not have any potential significant
impacts that can’t be mitigated, all of them can be
mitigated for the proposed project, the potential impacts
as well as the potential exceptions for the two-access
alternative are reduced, and so Staff would be supportive
of that alternative.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So has the two-access
alternative been evaluated to the same degree that the
proposed project has?
JENNIFER ARMER: The two-access alternative, as
you can see in your plans, does have the same level of
detail in terms of the design by the Applicant. It has been
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sufficiently reviewed in the Environmental Impact Report,
so that it could be approved based on the current
environmental document. And we have looked at the
comparative exceptions in terms of the cut and fill depths
and the details that are provided in the plans, yes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So it has received equal
consideration?
JENNIFER ARMER: Yes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And does Staff have an opinion
about it, given the environmental considerations and other
considerations that were raised both in writing and during
testimony tonight?
JENNIFER ARMER: As previously stated, we are in
support of either of the options.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: With no preference?
JENNIFER ARMER: There are definitely positives
for the two-access alternative in terms of reductions in
impacts.
JOEL PAULSON: And I would offer as well, I think
if we would have had a conversation with the Applicant that
they were really going down the path of the alternative
rather than the proposed, we would have taken that into
consideration and it probably would have been before you
requesting the two-access alternative. I think there are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some comments in their Letter of Justification that could
lead someone that way, but we never got that direct input
that I’m aware of.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: So that I understand, does it
matter? We have four bullets to discuss, and earlier I said
the fifth is Plan A or Plan B, and does it matter what they
said initially as opposed to what they’re saying now? It
sounds a little bit like Alberto Way, and suddenly this
likes this one more than that one. I’m okay with that.
JENNIFER ARMER: You can proceed with either
alternative. Recommending approval of the two-access
alternative is actually one of the potential alternatives
listed in our Staff Report, that you can move forward the
findings and conditions would all apply.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Other questions?
Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: It appears to me that
the two-access alternative is environmentally a better
plan, and since we have the ability to do either one, and
since the Applicant basically said they’d go with either
one, but I understood them to say they agreed that the two-
access alternative was better in that sense.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The only way it’s not better is that one has an
impact on Cerro Vista that the other does not, and now that
impact obviously if you live there is a negative impact. It
may be possible to say there’s a positive aspect in that it
divides the traffic up. If you go with ten and you have
four above and six below, obviously that will ameliorate
the traffic down below, but now suddenly you’ll have
traffic up above, so that’s got to be taken into
consideration.
But I think the testimony is that there is an
easement there and the easement is adequate for the
purposes, and if anybody read the easement it would say
that it was for a roadway. So those people who did not read
the easement didn’t see a roadway and said I guess there’s
no roadway, but all preliminary title reports and all final
title reports referenced easements, and you can obtain a
copy obviously from the title company. I think this roadway
was there for anyone who wanted to look. I don’t blame
anybody for not seeing it. Unless you’re represented, I
guess it’s a fairly sophisticated question. Personally, I
think environmentally the two-access is the way to go.
One of the things we have not talked much about
is the ten versus some other number. Obviously we have 17-
point-whatever it is acres, and you take three out of that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and you get, I guess, 14-point something, and you divide
that by ten and you have 1.4, if my math is correct, per
lot, which is probably bigger than most of the houses in
the area. We’ve already had testimony it’s 12,000 square
foot lots, 10,000 square foot lots, down below. Up above it
was an acre, as I understand, so these lots are bigger than
most of the immediate area down the hill, bigger than the
only one we heard about up the hill, so the size is not
particularly out of sync. The question I guess would be
whether there is some environmental reason, or some other
reason why ten should be cut down as opposed to arbitrarily
doing so. So I’m still waiting to hear—and I’m sure I will—
some discussion on that.
CHAIR KANE: I’d like to hitchhike on your point
about Cerro Vista. I didn’t get up there, but I’ve read
letters and I’ve heard speakers talk about potential
dangerous situations on Shannon. I don’t get out a lot, so
when I went up today I went up Kennedy and made the left
onto Longmeadow. There’s a three- or four-way stop sign
there now, and I don’t think that’s been there that long,
or maybe I just drove through the stop sign, but when I
went up there I saw people on Longmeadow having trouble
getting onto Kennedy, and the stop signs clearly have
remedied that situation, as long as you stop.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So if we go forward with Plan B, the two-access
alternative, we should probably be thinking about asking
Staff to look into Shannon. A recommendation was made for a
traffic light, the Applicant may wish to assist, I don't
know, but we should look at that traffic situation to see
if we can do some mitigation on that traffic, stop signs or
something like that. It seems to me Plan B, if we go
forward with it, makes more sense for a number of reasons,
but I would also like to have in the conditions a
consideration for doing something about the intersection
with Shannon.
Anyone else? Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Tagging onto what
Commissioner O'Donnell said in regard to the number of
lots, he’s looking for discussion as to maybe reducing the
number of lots and what justification we could use for
that. Well, I’m going to refer to the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines where in chapter 8 it talks about
subdivision and Planned Development projects, and it says,
“Site constraints and implementation of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines may not allow a
specific site to be developed to the maximum density
allowed by the Zoning Ordinance. So my concern with the ten
lots is you’ve got Lots 6 and 7 that are on slopes that are
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
borderline 30°. I have difficulty with some of these lots
where I don't know how you’re going to mitigate privacy, or
the fact that they’re going to be very prominently visible
to the Surrey Farms neighborhood. I don't know how you get
around that, but I suppose that’s something we would deal
with with an A&S application. But to me, being prominently
visible, these are standards that are mandatory,
nondiscretionary items, so I’m having some difficulty with
the intensity of the development being ten lots.
CHAIR KANE: And I think your points are well
taken, and I think the Applicant is listening, because
whatever we send forward, the tapes of this meeting go with
it, and I share your concerns on Lots 6 and 7.
We talk about preserving the view. Well, I don't
know if that’s entirely applicable here, but there is one
house, doesn’t matter which one it is, and it has a clear
view of the hills and they’ve enjoyed that for a long time,
and there’s going to be a house right here. So intensity,
density, preservation of the views, maybe the size of the
house could mitigate it, but these are things to put in the
record as we go forward and look at the A&Ss that we are
concerned with. To the degree possible, to minimize the
impact on privacy, on location of the house farther away
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
from effected houses, and your thing about Lots 6 and 7, I
share. Yes, Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I would just like to add
on, in addition to that document we do have the General
Plan, and it’s got some teeth here. Planning for
neighborhood presentation and protection, it’s one of the
most important purposes of the Town’s General Plan, so I
look at that as well and the impact it’s going to have on
this neighborhood, because we’re also talking about
aesthetics, and I don't know how you mitigate some of these
issues. It says there’s no significant impact, and I
believe that’s somewhat a subjective finding that one might
make. Am I correct in that, Mr. Paulson?
JENNIFER ARMER: The no significant impacts is in
regard to CEQA, and so the Town’s General Plan and
consideration of views and retention of the neighborhood
character that you were discussing might be beyond what
CEQA is looking at in terms of preservation of views.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Well, I’m also talking
about ten lots as opposed to fewer lots.
CHAIR KANE: What do you mean by that?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: That perhaps a Planned
Development application asking for ten lots might be too
much.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Thank you. Commissioner Hanssen, you
had your hand up?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I was going to take a
little bit of a sidestep and talk about the EIR. I had a
lot of concerns when I read the EIR, although I could see
that everything was mitigated. In the case of the view, the
way that EIRs work is it says clearly in there that they
only assess aesthetics from the viewpoint of the general
public, not from the viewpoint of individual property
owners, and so then you’re in the situation of there are
individual property owners that their view is going to be
impacted, because now they’re looking at a big hill and
then they’re going to be looking at a bunch of houses, so
my thinking, hopefully correct, is that the Environmental
Impact Report is only one part of the decision that we
would make in a recommendation, and that we would also look
at the General Plan, and as Commissioner Badame pointed
out, we have lots of teeth in the General Plan about views—
we just had this in a hearing two weeks ago—that there are
a lot of things about preserving neighborhoods, and it is
all subjective about how you see it, but nonetheless it is
there in the General Plan.
Getting on to the PD though, I had some concerns,
because the PD does specify the number of lots, so if we
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
get to the point where we can approve the other things and
were going to recommend approval of the PD, it currently
says for ten lots, so wouldn’t we need to put into that
recommendation any feedback we have on what should
constitute the PD? Recognizing that there is also A&S out
there, but that doesn’t affect the number of lots that go
into it, nor some other conditions, which I’ll bring up a
little bit later.
CHAIR KANE: I was wondering as you and
Commissioner Badame were speaking, Commissioner O'Donnell,
maybe you can help me with this, we have five things to do.
Should be focus on the provision that goes to lots, try to
resolve that and move on, taking them one piece at a time?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If that was directed to
me, and even if it were not, if you recognize me, I would
not like to break it up. We could break it up as go if we
want to. We have some general questions that I think we’re
still talking about, and I personally would not want to
tick them off as we go down, because it’s a little bit like
this project. When they started they thought of one access
point, and as they learned, as they moved forward, they
came up with another possibility. Now, I’m listening to
everybody, and thinking about this, because as I look at
the five things I think I’ll be influenced as we go along,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so I might say, “Okay, now we’ve taken care of point one,
let’s move on to two,” but I don’t want to say, “Oh, I
can’t go back to one when somebody says something that
impacts that. So I agree with you to the extent that we
want to make sure that we hit each one of those, but I just
would not want to think we precluded going back.
CHAIR KANE: I totally agree. That wasn’t my
intent. My intent was to perhaps get a tentative resolution
to something, and then move on to the others, because we
need a map. We need a map and a guide. Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: While we’re talking about the
number of lots, maybe just on that topic, a couple
questions for Staff. One of them is what prevents ever
building on Lot B? What would prevent anyone in the future
from ever applying to build on Lot B?
CHAIR KANE: That’s the open space? Okay.
JENNIFER ARMER: If requirement for open space
easement were recorded on that land, then it would not be
allowed to be built on in the future.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Is that part of the ordinance?
JENNIFER ARMER: I’d have to confirm, but I
believe so.
JOEL PAULSON: I would just offer that if it is
not, it will be.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So we can come back to that.
The other question related to number of lots would be if
we’re looking at the proposal, and there have been
questions raised about Lot 7—Lot 6 as well, but Lot 7 to me
is even more prominent and has more impacts—does Staff have
an opinion about Lot 7 if we were take down the number of
lots? Is that the right one to consider? Is that one we
should consider?
JOEL PAULSON: The Commission can consider any of
the lots they would like. If that is a specific lot that
the Commission wants to make part of the recommendation for
removal, then that simply gets added to your motion for a
recommendation to the Town Council.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And it should provide a basis,
so Council can see where you connected that for the
findings and the evidence, and I think Commissioner Badame
was heading down that path in citing to the LCP and to the
Hillside Guidelines.
CHAIR KANE: Further comment? Commissioner
Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Since one of the things
that we’re being asked to do is to consider the Planned
Development zoning as well I wanted to ask about the
findings for PD approval. I didn’t see it in our list of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
findings, and I know we’re operating under the current
ordinance versus the one that we’re discussing to change it
to, and there were a lot of findings for that, but what are
the findings for the PD?
JOEL PAULSON: If you look at Attachment 5, the
second bullet, it talks about the proposal to amend the
General Plan designation and rezone the property is
consistent with the General Plan. That’s the finding that
needs to be made for the Planned Development,
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: So we’re not looking at
the terms and conditions of the Planned Development at this
time, we’re basically just looking at the zoning per se? Is
that correct?
JENNIFER ARMER: No, you do have the Planned
Development Ordinance before you with its development
standards within that as performance standards, and so that
is part of what you’re considering, but the finding that
you need to make is that it is consistent with the General
Plan as described in Exhibit 5.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: But in addition to that
then we would also have the ability to look at some of the
terms and conditions in the PD as well as the number of
lots?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: Absolutely. Additional
conditions, or in this case it’s performance standards,
could be added to that PD Ordinance in your recommendation
to Town Council.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Just to state where we are
in this thing, if there is development it has to be a PD
because of the way that our code is written right now,
because it’s more than five lots and it’s in the hillside,
so it’s sort of a non-decision about whether it’s a PD or
whether they would use the hillside design standards and
guidelines.
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: But we could incorporate
some of those ideas.
I had a related question/comment. In looking back
at the EIR one of things I noted is there are all kinds of
potential biological impacts, and wildlife impacts and
whatnot, and I know some of the residents did comment that
the mitigations-and this is standard in EIRs, because we’ve
seen them before—but the mitigation is sort of like if they
find anybody nesting in a particular tree, then they have
to take these mitigation things, but the big picture of the
thing is that this is currently a big wildlife corridor,
and when we were talking about the potential changes to the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Fence Ordinance we had all kinds of testimony from
environmental people and stuff about how we need to make it
so that wildlife can pass through and all that stuff, so I
don't know that the mitigations really encompass that,
because they only look at if they happen to find something
there, so then there’s this whole issue that where does all
this wildlife go? I know there’s going to be some open
space, but now they’re going to have maybe four acres
instead of 18, and what happens to them?
So then it made me think again about PD
conditions, and we’re not at the point of seeing
Architecture and Site, but one thing that comes to mind is
when people are going to go build houses and everything
they want to put big fences around them, and we have some
guidelines in the Hillside Standards and Guidelines, but
they’re not really code per se, so is it possible to add
some conditions? Because the PD in the past had often been
thought of as a way to relax some of the standards to get
what the Applicant wanted, and maybe this is also an
opportunity to do what the expressed purpose of even the
current ordinance is, which is to preserve and maximize
open space, and so that would include things like how much
fencing they’re allowed to have and so on so forth, and
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
since they’re not operating under our other codes, it
should be in the PD. Does that make sense?
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I think for me there are
enough questions regarding the Planned Development as
proposed having to do with how many lots, the views,
fencing, what my fellow commissioners have already
mentioned, but it would be difficult, I think, for me I
think at this time to approve that Planned Development as
is when we have the opportunity, or might have the
opportunity, to make refinements that could better satisfy
the residents as well as the developers.
One thing that occurs to me is that there may be
an easement at Cerro Vista, but does the EIR need to be
revisited with regard to traffic? I did go to the upper
part of the property along Cerro Vista Drive and Cerro
Vista Circle, and it’s not fun getting out there on
Shannon, and I was there, let’s see, maybe 10:00 o'clock in
the morning, so I can imagine when there’s a lot more
traffic, so I have a question about whether there might
need to be an additional traffic impact analysis should
that two-access be the direction you want to go?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JENNIFER ARMER: No, no additional analysis would
be necessary. If you do take a look at the alternatives
analysis within the EIR, it does actually go into some
detail for traffic and a number of other items for that
alternative, so it is fully reviewed and examined as far as
requirements for CEQA.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Okay, so then we’re back at
that point of what the residents say versus what the
analysis says.
The other thing, I think, as far back as 2010
when the CDAC reviewed the project, and we’re talking about
Lots 6 and 7, there were issues regarding the impact on the
view. If the developer or the property owner were willing
to consider a realignment of the boundary lines to
accommodate fewer lots, there might also be a way to
incorporate a street that is in the LRDA that accommodates
maybe seven or eight lots rather than all ten. I think the
problem that we have with encroaching on the protected
areas is because of the number of lots proposed, so
reducing the number of lots gives us the opportunity to
look at more creative ways to route that street that also
would have a similarly less environmental impact as the
two-street access.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Also, it seems clear to me from visiting the site
from both ends is that, with all due respect to the
beautiful neighborhood at Twin Oaks and Longmeadow, those
lanes seem to be able to accommodate traffic much more than
the Cerro Vista Drive, just wider streets, longer streets,
so I’m a little bit concerned with that second access
because of that impact on those properties up on Cerro
Vista.
So again, I’m just wondering if we couldn’t ask
the developer to go back and do a little bit more work on
the PD concepts; take a look at reducing the number of
sites, siting them… Even though my request for an elevation
of the hill is as fictional as not, if we know generally
where the developer wants to place those pads, we know
generally they’re going to be one-story or two-story
houses, we can pretty much figure out… I mean I can take
the photographs and probably plot those according to the
topographical lines, which I’m not going to do, but it’s
possible to do, and we’d have a much better sense of what
that visual impact is. For me, I’d like to see more detail
on the Planned Development project.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don’t want to go back
to the drawing board. I think we have enough here that if
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we feel, for example, that ten is too many, we can make it
less, however, this is a fairly complex situation and we
can do this for a long time, going back and forth, and not
sure that that benefit anybody.
I was looking for something concrete. We’ve had a
couple of the lots particularly singled out, Lot 7, for
example. I would personally like to see some addition, if
you want to put additions, to the conditions, to do it now.
If people want to reduce the number of lots from ten to,
let’s say, eight, I’m not arguing for that, I’m saying if
that’s what people want they could recommend that too, but
to say go back to the drawing board essentially and try to
figure out what we’re all saying here, because we’re not
all saying the same things, I think would be unfair to the
Applicant without being a benefit to those people who are
protesting.
I just throw that out not because I disagree with
the sentiment of it, but I would hope that this evening we
could come up with something more concrete on our
recommendations to the Council. Maybe we won’t be able to,
but I just wanted to say that, because I feel some
responsibility, if we can, to move this along. This started
in 2010 I guess it was. It hasn’t exactly raced down the
track; it’s now 2018. It might be fair to everybody
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
concerned to bring… Well, we only recommend. The Council
will do whatever the Council does, but I would recommend
that we move it along to the Council if at all possible.
CHAIR KANE: And a comment from the Town
Attorney.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Just to re-comment about the
difference, and many times you do continue it to go back to
the applicant to revise their plans, and that’s usually
done when you’re the final deciding body and you’re going
to be making a final decision on that.
In this case, it is just as Commissioner
O'Donnell mentioned, you’re making recommendations, and
those recommendations are not only to the Council, but
they’re actually towards the Applicant too, and has that
ability to make changes before it gets to Council along the
lines of any recommendations that you make to changes to
the Planned Development Ordinance or to the… And so Staff
listens to those same recommendations, if in fact there are
requirements that you want to put into the Planned
Development Ordinance that have been missed either by Staff
or need to be revised. Staff thinks a better alternative is
to make those recommendations and to move it on to Council.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: This might help, and it
might not, so I’ll throw it out. I could make a motion,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
dealing with the five points we have, with the idea being
that it is a tree upon which you can hang your ornaments,
but if we don’t have the tree, then it’s difficult to do
that.
We have to make the findings, or recommend the
finding, I guess, of all five, or we recommend, I guess,
denial. I think we could make the five findings, however,
people may say that’s fine, but I think it would be better
if you did X, Y, or Z and we could see then what the
majority then feel like. So at the end of the day we’d have
a motion tuned by the majority of the Planning Commission,
if that would be helpful. So I throw that out as a
possibility. If it is deemed to be helpful, I would make
the motion and I would ask if there’s a second, and I would
look for people to make suggestions on how we could change
that.
CHAIR KANE: That’s pretty much what I tried to
say earlier, but you said it better. Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I agree that we’re going to do
something that’s not perfect, that we are going to need to
make a recommendation that gives direction, and it’s
important for us not to go back to the drawing board,
particularly since there have been a number of items of
concurrence and agreement.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
My concern about doing that tonight is that we’re
being asked to make a recommendation between two
alternatives that I don’t think have been given equal
weight either in the way they’ve been analyzed or in the
way the public has been noticed about it. I don’t think the
public was aware that the two-access alternative was the
preference. I think it was one of two alternatives and
you’d have to go into the details of the EIR to tally up
the differences and then to have the testimony come out
prior to this meeting, I don’t think it was clear to the
public. It wasn’t clear to me in reading the report, and
I’m not even sure if it was clear to Staff that the two-
access alternative was preferred for any reasons, although
there are other reasons why it’s not, so I would prefer to
act on a recommendation of motion that’s written up around
the preferred alternative from Staff that incorporates and
eliminates those items that aren’t going to be necessarily
in terms of the mitigation of the water and the riparian
space.
And there are some other items as well that I
would like to see written up as part of what would be
approved, so my preference would be to look at this with a
Staff recommendation along the lines of something that
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
makes much more sense in terms of making a recommendation
for a preferred alternative.
CHAIR KANE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I thought it was fairly
clear to me that the preferred path was the one that was
called the preferred path in the EIR. It is clear that the
Applicant says we don’t care which way you do it, so we’re
not being inconvenienced there, but again, I don't know
what is missing in all the papers we’ve been handling to
prevent the evaluation.
Now, as far as the public’s viewing of this, I
would grant you that reviewing ten or eight years worth of
stuff was very hard for me, and I have easier access, I
think, to it, but we have not heard anybody complain about
not getting to the documents. You’re saying, I think, that
you don’t find it clear. I disagree. Well, I don’t disagree
with you not finding it clear, but I think I find it clear.
If you make the motion, for example, and you say
Alternative 2, which is the two-access thing, it
automatically has said you’re not going to need the same
excavation; you’re not going to need the same building up.
It says the things you won’t need. Now, if there’s
something else missing on that, which is possible, but I
can’t think of it at the moment.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Let me interrupt and look to Mr.
Paulson for any direction.
JOEL PAULSON: Thank you. I think should the two-
access alternative be chosen as a matter of course, Staff
would go through and make sure that those modifications are
made. That would be standard operating procedure from
Planning Commission to Council. If there are, as
Commissioner O'Donnell mentioned, additional items you want
to make sure we address, then please let Staff know that,
but Staff does not believe that there’s a need to continue
it to modify conditions.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: The thing that occurred to
me though is that supposing that our recommendation to
Council is for a reduced number of units, the place to
reduce them would be on the upper portion, likely Lot 7 or
others, and then that being the case, then would the two-
access alternative even make sense if you only had two
houses up there? I don't know, but I think that’s a
question you have to ask, so I am with Commissioner Hudes
on this. I’m not sure that the PD is baked enough. Is it an
option to just approve an HR-1 designation and then have
the PD be evaluated as a separate item?
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The reason for using the
two-access thing was not nearly the number of lots, it was
to avoid all the work you had to do with environmentally
sensitive areas, and whether you have two lots up there or
four lots up there, you get the same benefit. If you have
one lot up there, you get the same benefit. So I don't know
what you’d go back to the drawing board on that for,
because why are you doing it? You’re doing it to get that
environmental benefit. Now, if somebody said I don’t think
we should do that, that’s fine, that’s a fair position, but
it’s absolutely clear to me that whether you have four up
there or two, you’re going to get the benefit that we’ve
all talked about and it’s crystal clear in the papers we
read.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I hear everything you
said. What if with two units they could reroute the
original road away from the riparian area? I don’t know,
because I’m not designing this thing, but I’m just saying
there’s that possibility out there, and that was the
question I had. But I agree with you that the environmental
benefits of the two-access alternative are clear and
there’s no question about that.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: As I read the EIR, Plan B eliminates
the necessity to build a road over the culvert with a
tunnel, and they use word “daylight,” that they would
daylight the tunnel. That’s worth keeping in mind. I asked
Staff, “Does that literally mean what I think it means,
digging up the tunnel and exposing it, and then they have a
creek run through?” A stream runs through it, so I find a
lot of merit to that proposal too, but I’d like to see if
we could spot a finish line from here. How do we proceed?
Commissioner O'Donnell, you have a way of figuring these
things out.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I’m not sure I’m going
to get a second, but I’m going to make a motion and we’ll
see where we go. If I don’t get a second, that will take
care of that.
I will make a motion that we recommend to the
Council approval of the proposal, and that we make the
required findings for CEQA that the Planning Commission
recommends certification of the EIR, making findings and
fact, and recommends adoption of a mitigation monitoring
reporting program.
As far as consistency with the Town’s General
Plan, that the proposal to amend the General Plan
designation and rezone the property is consistent with the
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
General Plan and its elements in that proposed hillside
Residential zoning and Planned Development Overlay allow
residential use consistent with the adjacent property’s
zoning districts. The required compliance with the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines, the project is in
compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines, with the exception of cut and fill.
Now, that would be different, because that would
have to be rewritten. I guess I should have said that to
begin with. This motion would be for the approval of the
second alternative and not the first alternative, and if
that were the case I don't know—and you can tell us later—
but I’ll just wave that flag at this one. What this is
telling me here is the project is in compliance with
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with the
exception of cut and fill depths of the roadway and future
driveways, which have been determined to be acceptable.
Now, that maybe perhaps should be flagged.
Compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan. The
project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in
that the proposal is development of the lot for ten single-
family residences—that may change—with associated site
elements on existing parcel. The proposal is consistent
with the development criteria included in the plan.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Then on require consistency with the Town’s
Housing Element, the project is consistent with the Town’s
Housing Element and addresses the Town’s housing needs as
identified in the Housing Element.
We also have to make findings for the
cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract. Those reasons
are set forth on page 2 of Attachment 5, which I will try
not to read into the record, I’ll just say those are they
and that’s the five highlighted points that you all have
before you.
So that would be the motion, and as I say, I’m
assuming that we would offer some amendments to it, but I
think we need a second if that is going to be possible.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: The only one I don’t believe I
heard was the recommendation also to adopt the Planned
Development Ordinance. Did you incorporate that one into
it?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I defer to your
confréres over here. They told me I didn’t need to do that.
JENNIFER ARMER: It was part of the General Plan
and the PD were within one binding.
CHAIR KANE: So Commissioner O'Donnell, when we
agree to certainly the EIR, is that the place to add an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
asterisk on all of the tree work that Commissioner Hudes
did?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: No, because the EIR is
either going to be certified or it isn’t going to be
certified. The tree work, I think, would come under the
Planned Development, but it wouldn’t come under the EIR.
CHAIR KANE: That’s answered it. Now, when you
talk about the Planned Development as consistent with the
General Plan, where would Commissioner Badame’s concerns be
voiced?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: If we get a second, then
people can have at it and they can say I agree with the
motion except that I think we should do A, B, and C, and we
can consider all those things so at the end of the day we
may have a motion which is substantially different, or at
least more detailed, then this motion I just made.
CHAIR KANE: I second the motion.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay, just to shut me
up.
CHAIR KANE: And I’d like to have Commissioner
Hudes talk about trees to get that in there, Commissioner
Badame to repeat her remarks about the General Plan, and
perhaps Commissioner Janoff to talk about the number of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lots. I don’t know where we’d put all those pieces under
which one of these headings, but I second your motion.
Comment? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: The trees. I don’t feel that I
have sufficient information to be comprehensive on that,
because the plan I was presented with was illegible, and I
would offer my notes to Staff to consider, but I think
there is work that needs to be done on trees that needs to
be reviewed carefully before it goes to Council.
CHAIR KANE: You talked to the Applicant and gave
them specific numbers, which she wrote down. Are your
concerns beyond that?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yes.
CHAIR KANE: Okay.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: And the reason that they go
beyond that is that that was based on the proposed project,
not on the two-access alternative. The two-access
alternative was noted with some yellow shadings; it wasn’t
clear which trees would be destroyed and which ones would
be preserved under the two-access alternative.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me ask this. If we
make a motion and we attempt to change it as best we can,
and we simply say we would like to have the draft prepared
and returned to us so that we can then go over the draft…
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Bingo.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: …and if you want to ask
for anything specific like you’re asking for right now,
then it wouldn’t… I would like to have something to work
with, but I agree with you that maybe we need some time,
plus looking at the draft, so that when we finally do make
the recommendation it should be very helpful to the Council
for us to do that, and clearly it would be helpful for us
to know what we’re doing, but I had this feeling that if
you have a draft it’s easier to work from a draft than to
work from discussion.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: I would be very comfortable
with that. I have some other items that I would suggest in
that draft. One would be to address whether that mitigation
is required where there were three options, and if it’s not
required, then fine, it goes out the window; but if is
still required, that we limit it to Option 2 of 3, not
Option 1, which is the bank.
CHAIR KANE: Is this the riparian corridor?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yes.
CHAIR KANE: With Plan B. We don’t need those.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Well, actually it’s not
referred to as the riparian corridor.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think Staff has a
question.
JENNIFER ARMER: I do believe that the two-access
alternative does accomplish the second alternative, that it
avoids those riparian areas, and so by that design it’s
actually already meeting that mitigation measure.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay. The other one I have is
a concern that I raised about access to the open space,
given that the trail appears to have to cross a driveway,
and so I want to make sure that in the PD that proper
access is given to the public to open space, both at the
top of the hill, because it does appear that that road is
short, so that would be another item that I would ask to be
included.
And if I may, one more item would be for Staff to
look at the traffic flow; not a TIA, but to look at the
safety and other concerns that were raised about whether
the access to Shannon Road is adequate or is dangerous, and
I don’t think that was analyzed in the same way.
So those are items that occur to me to be added.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Those can all be added to the
motion and go as recommendations to Council and wouldn’t
need to come back to this board.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Is that acceptable to the maker of
the motion.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, it was, until our
counsel spoke. It is my clear understanding at the moment
that this is going to come back to us, because we’re not
going to finish tonight. What I’m coming up with here is
we’re trying to come up with the best draft we can. I’m
being told to turn on my mike. Sorry, thank you.
CHAIR KANE: All of that was lost.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Good. So what we’re
trying to do is I don’t think this Commission is ready at
this moment to make a final motion. I am trying to give us
the framework of a motion. It is not now intended to go to
the Council, but I would like to say, at our next meeting
or whenever we can do this, it comes back to us prior to
that meeting, and people can decide precisely what they
would like to do with it, because eventually we’ve got to
do something.
CHAIR KANE: Staff wants to make an input.
JOEL PAULSON: We have a motion and a second, so
that can be withdrawn, and then you would be making a
motion to continue it with direction.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, yes, I agree, but
first I… That’s what we could do. At the moment we have a
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
motion and second before us, we’re trying to get as much
flesh on it at the moment as we can. If it appears that we
can’t get enough flesh on it, which I don’t think we will,
then I think what we can do is to say the other, which is
to say do the draft, bring it back to us, and we will
withdraw the motion effectiveness tonight.
CHAIR KANE: I’m concerned that Staff has
concerns that I don’t understand. Maybe they have a
different perspective, but if they’re willing to share them
and get us out of a box and avoid the continuance, I’d
appreciate it.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, there’s a motion and second
on the floor, and so what I was getting concerned about is
what Commissioner Hudes is bringing up, three conditions
that can be put into your recommendations and it can move
forward. There’s nothing that’s going to be any difficulty
when that comes back at your next hearing. Now, if there’s
something you absolutely need in a continuance…
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, she just told us
we wouldn’t need those three conditions, period.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Well, one of them. The other
two, but making certain that that condition is not needed.
So wherever you want to go with it, but there is a motion
to make those recommendations.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I understand. I
understand. We’re not going to vote on the motion unless
the Commission is changing their mind. Maybe I’m misreading
the Commission, but I think the Commission needs more time.
CHAIR KANE: And I’m picking up the vibe from
Staff that that’s not necessarily the best way to go.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But the Staff doesn’t
have to make the decision, we do.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, I’m not saying what’s a best
way to go, I’m saying there’s a motion on the floor for
those five recommendations, and you’re adding things to
those motions right now. So, the items that Commissioner
Hudes has offered as amendments, are those acceptable to
the motion maker?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: My problem at the moment
is he was concerned about three things and had a
recommendation as to Items 2 and 3. As I understand from
Jennifer, she said we’re already covered on that, because…
What was her answer?
JENNIFER ARMER: His concern was whether
avoidance of the riparian zone would be effective in the
two-access alternative, and that is the main purpose of
that two-access alternative, so it would not need to be
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
paying into a bank in some other location, but would be
done onsite.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I understand this is
very unusual, what we’re doing, but I’m just trying to come
up with something that can move this along. I agree with
Counsel to say wait a minute, you’ve got a motion and a
second, what are you going to do with it? Give me a chance;
I’ll do something with it.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: To reiterate, I had four
concerns; one of them has been eliminated by Staff’s
response. One of them I’m not sure can be well incorporated
into the current motion, and that’s on the trees, because I
want to know specifically which trees are going to be saved
and which ones are going to be destroyed, and I’m
uncomfortable with leaving that up to the developer to take
the lead on that.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell, do you want
to respond?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, I’m trying to…
Yes, I can respond. If I were the developer and I heard
what Commissioner Hudes is saying, I would want to submit
something to us prior to the next meeting where that
person, having identified the trees you’re talking about
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and you having been provided with something you could read,
you’d have that before you too, and then if you had to
tweak it, you could do that. Personally, I think what we’re
doing now can be very beneficial, because you’re
identifying things we can clear up.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yes, and so I would be a
strong proponent of seeing a draft of this with some of
this addressed before voting on it.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Or that could be incorporated
into your motion for the recommendation that that plan be
provided to Council so that they can see how many trees are
going to be removed.
CHAIR KANE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Yeah.
CHAIR KANE: Good.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I think that’s what he
said.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame, did you want to
take your subjectivity with teeth and get it into one of
the points?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Well, I didn’t have my hand
up, but now we’re getting to the question of how many lots
are appropriate, and I think that that’s something that we
might not get a unanimous number on.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: That will be easy to
deal with, I think, because that’s just a number. I don’t
mean that the way it sounds, but what I’m saying is if we
continue this essentially, and the only thing we had to
discuss was whether there were going to be ten lots, or
eight lots, or nine lots, or whatever it is, that’s very
defined and I think we can find out the opinion of this
Commission fairly easily. The other things that are being
talked about, such as the trees, are much more
sophisticated and probably need some more input.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: This may be a question for
Staff, but typically when we have an application before us
with an EIR we approve them hand-in-hand, and if we have an
application that might change, I’m reluctant to certify an
EIR, because I don't know what the end result is going to
be, so typically it goes hand-in-hand.
CHAIR KANE: So another reason you’d like to see
the sketch, to see the draft?
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Yes.
CHAIR KANE: Okay. Commissioner Janoff, you had
your hand up.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: If I think through what
Commissioner Hudes is asking for, and Commissioner Badame,
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and if there are other Commissioners like myself who might
be in favor of reducing the number from ten to eight, then
that impacts the trees, it impacts the road, it impacts
things that it may not make sense for us to be digging into
further detail, because it may change.
I would propose that in Section 3, Item 2, of the
ordinance we provide a number that is not ten, but I’m
proposing eight market-rate single-family residences, and
that somewhere in the ordinance we also say that, with
respect to the views, preserving the views, preserving the
open space as it was, also preserving the trees, also not
impacting the riparian area, and staying within the LRDA
with regard to street pavement and that sort of thing.
I think if the number of homes is reduced at all,
then all of those things are impacted, and so asking for
more detail about what may not be in the end is a fruitless
endeavor, so that would be my recommendation.
CHAIR KANE: And where would we put that? Is that
to be added to the motion?
JOEL PAULSON: Chair, I would just offer I’m
hearing from at least three Commissioners so far that
they’re going down the continuance path, which may be where
Commissioner O'Donnell ultimately gets with his current
motion—that’s not how it’s stated currently—but that’s kind
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the exploration. I think Commissioner O'Donnell’s
intent—and I don’t want to put words in his mouth, because
that’s not safe for me or him—but I think we want to go
through topics, get them out on the table, and then that
motion potentially gets converted into a continuance with
direction, and that direction becomes the direction from
the former motion.
CHAIR KANE: Can we do that now?
JOEL PAULSON: You can, but that’s up to the
maker and the seconder.
CHAIR KANE: Why don’t we do that now and the
road becomes more clear.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Wait a minute. I’m not
sure what “do that now” means.
CHAIR KANE: He’s saying we have a motion and a
second, and unless we revise the motion to request a
continuance, we can’t get there from here. I think it’s a
simple adjustment.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don’t think there’s
anything simple about it. I mean I’ve heard serious
questions by Commissioner Hudes that can only be answered
by further detail, I think, and perhaps a suggestion by the
Applicant. I’ve heard serious questions about whether there
should be eight lots rather than ten, and that of course
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
127
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will have the possible ramifications that you’ve suggested,
that is to say well which eight? Now, it may be that if two
were taken out it would solve—I’m not saying it does—it
might solve some problems.
But, again, we need that input. You just simply
say we want eight lots, not ten, that doesn’t tell you
much, and it doesn’t tell you which eight you want. So it’s
clear to me that there is not enough information at the
moment to make an intelligent motion. That’s why even
though we have a motion and a second, I will ask the
seconder shortly if I withdraw the motion, although I don't
know if I can withdraw it or we have to vote it down, I
forget; Counsel will tell me.
What I’m trying to get done today is as much as
possible, and I think we’re making progress, because people
are saying things that are important, but I think if they
can crystalize them, then we could get this thing moved
along so that at the end of the day, the next meeting, we
may have enough detail—not everyone will agree, but if four
people agree—we’ve got the motion passed.
CHAIR KANE: And that means we need a
continuance.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: But first we have to
finish this discussion. A continuance by itself doesn’t do
anything for you.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: A continuance by itself doesn’t
do anything. A continuance to reduce the project to eight,
seven, six lots and ask the Applicant to revise his project
is not an option. You are making recommendations. You can
certainly say reduce it to eight lots, seven lots, six
lots, and that’s part of your recommendation that goes
forward to Council. So if you want plans to be revised by
the Applicant, because you’re not the final deciding body,
that’s not an option. As far as CEQA, you can’t tie CEQA to
a less density project. You’re actually tying it to your
LCP policy, so you’re not looking at impacts. In fact, I’ve
never seen a project where you reducing the density
increases impacts. In this case, all impacts for ten lots
have already been reduced to less than significant, so
there isn’t any change in CEQA document.
Still, in my mind, everything you have discussed
could be placed in a recommendation. If you’re not there
yet, then let’s do a continuance and ask what you still
need. The only thing I’ve heard that truly can be done is
what do you need further for that alternative project, and
I’ve heard you need the landscape, the exact number of
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
trees from the alternative project that will be removed.
That’s all I’ve heard that still needs to be developed, and
that could be asked of the Applicant.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Let me ask this, because
everything you said sounds logical to me. The question, I
guess, would be Commissioner Hudes, for just one example,
has a particular interest in the trees. If one is doing
this recommendation, and in the recommendation it said too
many trees are being removed and that should be changed, I
thought it would be something we could help the Council
with. If I understand you correctly, it’s like no.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: No, that was the one that you
could request is to see a land… He said he was not able to
read it and understand it, and I believe the Applicant said
he could provide that. If that is instrumental to your
decision-making process to make a recommendation you can do
the continuance for that. But I’ve heard quite a bit on I
don't know whether it’s six, I don't know whether it’s
seven, I don’t want eight, and I want the Applicant to
provide us with additional plans to do that, and that’s not
an acceptable continuance.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The other question I
have…
CHAIR KANE: Hang on. Commissioner Janoff.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I just want to be clear, in
the recommendations I made I’m not asking to see more
plans. I’m suggesting that we actually vote on this motion,
we keep it intact, we send it to Council and we say eight
homes, trees preserved, and all of the things that we’re
saying as recommendations for what then comes back to us in
a more…presumably we’re going to see with A&S a more
defined application, so I just really think looking in more
detail at something that isn’t going to be what we see when
we get to that point is not (inaudible).
ROBERT SCHULTZ: And your recommendation on homes
could go as far as pointing out ones that you think might
be the best alternative based on your limited knowledge—you
heard about Lots 6 and 7—but your recommendation could be
based on that so Council knows they’re a suggestion, but
because we didn’t have the exact plan in front of us, that
might not be the best option.
CHAIR KANE: Good. Commissioner Hanssen.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I’m in the same position
as Commissioner Janoff. I feel like we can’t actually make
a decision tonight, because we’re only making a
recommendation, and so we have the opportunity to add
whatever items of consideration we want to recommended
terms and conditions or other things that the Council
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
should look at, so unless we don’t even know what they are,
I don't know what we would do by continuing it since we’re
only making a recommendation. Having said that, if we do go
down this path I do have a list, three or four things for
the terms and conditions of the PD Ordinance that I would
recommend, but I don't know where everyone else is.
CHAIR KANE: What are they? Let’s see if we can
get them in a motion.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Well, I mentioned earlier,
I think we talked about this earlier; I just went through
while we were talking and reread the ordinance. I didn’t
see anything about a public access easement for the open
space, and I think that’s essential to have. Since our goal
is to preserve open space, I think that’s essential to have
in the Planned Development Ordinance itself.
This might be a little far out there, but I
wondered since the Applicant has been gracious to offer
this trail, is there an option of putting some of the trail
actually into the open space? It looks like there’s not as
much trees and stuff, but maybe to increase the amount of
trail.
I didn’t see anything in the Planned Development
Ordinance about the size of the units or what direction
would be followed for the size of the unit, so it would
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
132
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
either need to be based on the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines or something else, but I think it
needs to be specified what is the deciding factor for
deciding what the size of the units are.
CHAIR KANE: Well, Hillside says 6,000 max. You
want to reduce it?
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: I didn’t see it in the
ordinance itself saying what is going to govern the…
Because as it was proposed in the Staff Report, at the
point this Planned Development Ordinance is approved the
Architecture and Site would be going to Development Review
Committee. So that being the case, I just think it needs to
be clear what the deciding factor is at the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines, because this is an
overlay and it might default to the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines, but I didn’t see it in the
Planned Development Ordinance, so maybe it’s just a
question to be answered.
On the cut and fill, I don't know that we’ve done
this before, but since there’s such a huge variance on the
cut and fill I wondered if there shouldn’t be a max cut and
fill specified, since it’s going to be less just to make
sure that it doesn’t creep up, because what we’re being
asked to do and what’s being asked here is just to allow an
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
133
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exception to the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines, but it doesn’t say what it is, so I just
wondered it would be sensible to put a limit on the maximum
cut and fill.
JENNIFER ARMER: It would not be allowed to be
any greater than what’s shown in the development plans, and
I believe we did describe those numbers in the Staff
Report.
CHAIR KANE: Yes, you did.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay. Well, could that be
in the Planned Development Ordinance as well?
JENNIFER ARMER: It is specified that it would be
a match in substantial conformance with the proposed
development plans.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Okay. And the last thing,
and I brought it up earlier, is about the issue of this 18
acres going to less, and taking a look at the fencing
requirements and seeing if it would be worthwhile to have
something more restrictive than is currently in our
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to make sure
that the wildlife can move freely through that area.
CHAIR KANE: We have a Fencing Subcommittee, or
new language on fencing, Mr. Paulson? We have meetings on
fences in the hillsides. Where is that at?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
134
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JOEL PAULSON: That was continued to a date
uncertain by the Council, and I believe a few of the
parties as working through.
CHAIR KANE: So that’s underway.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yeah, since it’s not
decided, and since this Planned Development Ordinance is
likely to be decided, I wanted to put that out there,
because it could be put into the Planned Development
Ordinance.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: We’ve had other PDs where we’ve
done that.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: Yeah.
CHAIR KANE: Good, consider it done.
COMMISSIONER HANSSEN: That was it.
CHAIR KANE: Okay, is that all in the motion? I’m
trying to figure out how to get home. Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: To be clearer, Lots 6 and 7
to get down to the eight.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Badame.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I would like to put a range
in there, so even a further reduction in addition to Lots 6
and 7, but Lots 1, 2, and 3, they’re in direct conflict
with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
regarding mandatory standards, so I would like some
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
135
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
consideration for a further reduction, not just eight, but
maybe giving the Council a range between allowing not ten
lots, but between five and eight, with emphasis given to
Lots 1, 2, 3, and in particular Lots 6 and 7.
CHAIR KANE: I’m wondering what you just said,
Lots 1, 2, 3. They’re not in the hillsides. They’re not
subject to the Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines; they’re on the level. So you’re right about
those other guys, but I don’t think Lots 1, 2, and 3 are in
there. This is a split property; half is hillsides and half
is flat.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Excuse me, isn’t it being
zoned Hillside Residential on there for all the lots on
that would be…
CHAIR KANE: Subject to the Hillside?
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: Yeah.
CHAIR KANE: Yes.
JENNIFER ARMER: Correct.
CHAIR KANE: Good. I stand corrected.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: Thank you.
CHAIR KANE: But I would add when we talk about
those houses to pull them away from existing houses as far
as practical.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
136
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I agree with that, but I
just want to make one other point here. With these two
neighborhoods we’re comparing apples to oranges, because
the existing Surrey Farms neighborhood is not subject to
the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, but
you’ve got a new neighborhood, Surrey Farm Estates, that
is, so you’ve got different performance standards that are
really going to impact the Surrey Farms neighborhood, and
that’s why we put a lot of protection into even developing
our hillsides for the impacts that it has on a
neighborhood, and that’s where we go with that General Plan
with neighborhood preservation and protection.
CHAIR KANE: Right.
COMMISSIONER BADAME: I gotta wonder, where did
the farms come into Surrey? It seems like we’re taking the
farm out of Surrey. I mean were there ever farms in that
neighborhood, does anybody know?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: There were farms when
the Spanish were here.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: I would have hoped when we
entered into the contract with them for the Williamson Act
and declared it an agricultural preserve it was at that
point in time at least some type of farm or agricultural
use.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
137
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don't know how we do
it, but I’m going to withdraw my motion. I’m getting
totally confused by all this and there’s nothing to hang on
the tree. We’ve had this question before, and I don't know
if the seconder agrees and I can withdraw my motion, or
whether we have to vote. You rule on this.
CHAIR KANE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Well, I want to hear
what the Counsel says.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Currently, as I understand, but
I don’t know if the first and the second have approved
this, as the motion was to make all the findings into your
beginning, and then I have at least—and Staff chime in—
reducing the trees to the maximum extent possible; public
easement in the open space, making sure those requirements
are in there; the size of the units has to comply with the
Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, the cut and
fill will be no more than the development plans; we’ll make
sure all those things are in there. And fencing
requirements to allow for wildlife, and right now at least,
but I don't know where we were, there was to reduce it to
eight, with six and seven being the emphasis, but then
there was by Commissioner Badame to make it between five
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
138
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and eight and include Lots 1, 2, and 3. That’s what I have
heard so far, but I have not heard the maker of the motion
agree to all…
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I certainly don’t agree
to what Commissioner Badame said to Lots 1, 2, and 3. I
don’t agree with that. The rest of it, yes, to the extent
that an amendment has to be made to the motion, I would
accept that.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: All the rest are acceptable.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I would not suggest
hers, because… Well, it’s not important why; I just
wouldn’t.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: Okay, are those all acceptable to
the…
CHAIR KANE: They’re acceptable to me, if there’s
the presumption of what I said earlier about pulling those
houses away from existing house. Some of them seem to be
right on top of another one. Just move them, move them and
lower them. Is that acceptable, Tom?
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: I don't know what it
means. Just move the houses, what does that mean?
CHAIR KANE: Get it away from existing houses to
the extent possible. That’s what I want Town Council to
know.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
139
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: The way you state it I
guess is fine; it’s as far as possible.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner Janoff.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: I would just phrase it
differently. I would say, “and redistribute the remaining
lots so that they are preserving as much of the
neighborhood compatibility consistent with the General Plan
and the Hillside Specific Plan.”
CHAIR KANE: I agree.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: At the moment then it’s
a recommendation of eight, is that correct? Is that right?
CHAIR KANE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER JANOFF: That’s my recommendation.
CHAIR KANE: That’s the motion. Commissioner
Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Just curious whether the maker
of the motion supports eight to go forward.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: As presently stated,
yes, I would support it to go forward. Now, you asked that
question for a reason. What was the reason?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: No, it’s your motion and I
hadn’t heard you weigh in on probably the most important
aspect of it, which is the number of lots.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Oh, to move this along,
if it’s eight lots, that’s fine with me. The Council will
ultimately decide whether it’s eight lots, or ten lots, or
two lots, or whatever they’re going to decide. But eight,
to move this thing along, yes, I would support that.
CHAIR KANE: We’re saying eight as I see it,
because we want Lots 6 and 7 off that slope, and preserve
that view and preserve that hill, so eight is a good place
to start.
Anyone else? Commissioner Hudes.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Coming back to the trees, I’m
not comfortable with the language to, “save trees to the
maximum extent possible.” I’d like to list specific trees,
and for the Applicant to provide compelling evidence why
these couldn’t be saved, that would be a (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: To whom is the
compelling evidence given?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: To the Council when they
consider it.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Okay. If you want to
attach the numbers of the trees, I don’t have a problem
with that. And the second point was okay too.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: So I’m just going to list them
now?
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: Why don’t you just give
them the numbers after?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay.
JOEL PAULSON: Was that the list you previously
mentioned?
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Yes.
JOEL PAULSON: Yeah, we have all of those, and
then also the grove on Lot 7.
VICE CHAIR HUDES: Okay, and with regard to that,
that list was prepared with an illegible format and with
not a serious consideration of the two-access alternative
option, so I think that it needs serious scrutiny on the
trees.
ROBERT SCHULTZ: That will be part of the
recommendation.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: To the Chair.
CHAIR KANE: Commissioner O'Donnell.
COMMISSIONER O'DONNELL: May I suggest to the
Applicant that they provide the Commission, notwithstanding
that it may be gone, with a clearer and more legible map
showing the trees. That will allow certainly all of us that
wish to to understand this better, and Commissioner Hudes
has done a lot of work on this and it would help him, and
ultimately it will help the Council, so I would request
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 2/28/2018
Item #2, Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
142
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that a clearer exhibit of those trees without blocking out
the number, you provide it to us. That’s simply a request.
CHAIR KANE: All right. Further discussion on the
motion? My goodness, seeing none, I’m going to call the
question. All those in favor say aye. It’s passes
unanimously 6-0. In a situation like this, Mr. Paulson, are
there appeal rights?
JOEL PAULSON: There are not appeal rights. This
is a recommendation, so it will be forwarded to the Town
Council and the Mayor will place it on an agenda.
CHAIR KANE: Thank you.