Attachment 18April 30, 20 I 8
To: Members of the Los Gatos Town Council
Re: Mi sleading statistics and statements : Twin Oaks/Surrey Farms
We are frustrated that the developer frequently makes statements about how impacts to
the Twin Oaks side of the development have been reduced, without acknowledging that
there is often a corresponding increase in adverse impacts to the Cerro Vista side.
A perfect example is in the Supplemental Letter of Justification s ubmitted for your
cons ideration. It states, "the Alternate Plan [with an access on Cerro Vista Court] reduce s
traffic using Twin Oaks and Longmeadow by 40%." That sounds great, except that 100%
of the 40% is now going to the tiny Cerro Vista neighborhood. Once again , this is a
disproportionate impact that is glossed over by a half-truth.
Also troubling is the fact that the new traffic study evaluates impacts to the Kennedy
Road area, while virtually ignoring Cerro Vista and Shannon Road . The trips are
considered too few to impact Cerro Vista because it is so small (except, of course, to the
residents whose street is being almost doubled). The increase on Shannon Road is
considered insignificant because it is already so busy that a few additional trips make no
difference.
The traffic volume on Shannon Road is already problem. Shannon Road is very different
from Kennedy Road. In the morning, it is full of children walking on the sidewalk or
biking to Blossom Hill School and Fisher Middle School. Children wait for the Hillbrook
shuttle at Blossom Hill Park. There is a church, a synagogue with a preschool , and a fire
station. All day long people are walking their dogs or taking babies for a ride in their
strollers. This is all taking place in the 8/10 of a mile stretch between Los Gatos
Boulevard and Short Road, with a sidewalk on only a portion of the north side of the
street. There are only two designated crosswalks. Nine residential streets feed into
Shannon Road on the south side, and seven more are on the north side. Maybe a few
additional trips on a busy street make no difference to a traffic analyst. Nevertheless , it is
disheartening that the developer and his consultants so easily dismiss impacts to Shannon
Road (and Cerro Vista Court), which will absorb 44% of the traffic (4of9 lots) from the
proposed development.
Thank you for considering thi s input.
Cindy and Philip Shanker
15949 Cerro Vista Court
imTACHMENT 1 3
To: Los Gatos Town Council: TOWN OF LOS GATOS ~ ~iV?red :LERK DEPARTME NT
RECEIV ED
The Town Council will be considering a proposal to devmw A'PRej()1 0 1~f w~~vision on rura l
hillside located in Los Gatos, bordered by the Surrey Farms, Cerro Vista and Brooke Acres
neighborhoods .
Firs t. I \Vant to state th at I agree and support numerou s recommendations to th e Council that the
pro pert y shoul d stay as Resource Conservation spa<.:e in a Williamson Act contract and rezoning
should not be perm itted. There a re no b enefits, only detrimental impact, to the Los G atos
community and envircmner.t.
In add iti on, I wan t to point out tha t the past development s in our area with s ign ifi cant hillsides had
more than 50% of their overall acreage donated to th e open space . It is totally unac ceptable to
allow the owner and dev eloper to assign about 10% of the property to t he open space (tha t is
un buildable anyway) and permi t de velopmen t of the hill s id e lots with the slope close to or higher
tha n recommended guidelines and with many trees and signi fic ant vegetatio n. Such decision would
be e nvironmenta lly irrespons ible. and it wo uld ignore !>igni lican t environmental benefits that the
Lo s Gatos and Bay Area res id ents derive from such an open s pace pro vidi ng reduction of
environmentall y harmful gree nh o use gases. Add itional negati ve en vironme ntal impac t from
grading st eep lo ts and building the acces s roads add add itio nal reaso ns for not allowing
dev elopment of thi s steep hill s ide secti o n of th e parcel (about 50 % of the property). If hillside lots
would be set asi de for the ope n space, env ironmenta l imp ac t would be reduced, and the
development wou ld be at least partl y consistent with establi shed pract ices a nd gu id el ines.
In sum mary, hillside l ots shoul d not be allowed to be built on under any circumstances and they
should become part of the open s pace , if th e la nd desi gnated currently as R esource Conser vation
is allowed to be rezoned for \\Tong reasons.
Thank you for co ns idering my inpu t.
~ ,/' /' -:z,...,.-
?'l r?----7
V.Novotny /
Lo s Gatos
Jennifer Armer
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jill Fordyce <jafordyce@aol.com>
Monday, April 30, 2018 6:38 PM
Rob Rennie; Ste ven Leonardis; BSpector; Marico Sayoc; Marci a Jensen; Jennifer Armer
craig.fordyce@colliers.com
Comments After Re view of Staff Report: Proposed Twin Oaks/ Surrey Farms
Development
Dear Mayor Rennie , Vice Mayor Leonardis, Council Member Sayoc, Council Member Spector, and Counci l Member
Jensen,
Over the weekend, we reviewed the Staff Report and the 15 attachments thereto (received on Thursday evening). We
are writing to you again because there are several items in the Report and the attachments that we would like to further
address .
I. Findings Required For Cancellation of the Williamson Act Contract
We acknowledge that the findings required for cancellation of the Will iamson Act contract are those listed under
Government Code section 51282 (b), which are applicable specifically because there was a letter of nonrenewal
submitted by the applicant (recorded on October 31 , 2017, which was subsequent to our origina l analysis in the DEIR).
We believe that those findings cannot be made, in particular, with regard to the consistency with the General Plan .
Cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act only if the Town Council finds (among other things)
that the proposed alternative use is consistent with the applicable provisions in the Town 's General Plan . In a letter dated
December 5, 2017 letter from Jennifer Armer to the Department of Conservation (Attachment 6) ("Staff letter"), the
proposed development was analyzed for consistency with various land use objectives and requirements of the General
Plan . This analysis is discussed below.
II. Development of the Property is Restricted by Both the Williamson Act and a Zoning Ordinance
Preliminarily, the Staff letter acknowledged that the site was used for orchards in the 1930's , and that the orchards had
all been removed by 1948---decades before the land received its Agricultural Preserve designation . This is consistent with
the premise that the Williamson Act contract was entered into to preserve agricultural lands as a cultural resource, and not
because it was intended for actual agricultural use .
The Staff letter states that the 2020 General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Agriculture due to a
1988 General Plan Amendment that required rezoning of properties subject to Williamson Act contracts. The Staff letter
contends that, prior to this designation , the project site was designated in the Town 's 1961 General Plan as Res idential.
It must also be noted that, in June 1973, the Town adopted an Open Space Element for the Town of Los Gatos General
Plan . In Section IV, the Town provided for a Method of Preserving Open Space. One method was by entering into
Williamson Act contracts with private landowners (Section A). The section noted that the Act was designed to give ta x
relief to those wishing to remove their, generally agricultural , property from the pressures of urbanization . The section
noted that the Act does not guarantee a permanent open space because a party may elect to not renew the contract. The
Open Space El ement, therefore, allowed for other ways to preserve open space, which included Zoning Controls (Section
D). According to this section , the Resource Conservation Zone was designed and intended to be used for the express
purpose of protecting open space, special land forms , sce ni c area , watershed areas , etc.
In June 16, 1975 , an ordinance was passed by the Town Council to rezone the subject property from HR-1 :20 to RC
(Ordinance No . 1234) (attached), hence providing the la nd three forms of protection from development: a Williamson Act
contract, an RC zo ning ordinance, and an Agricu lture designation under the General Plan . It is rea sona ble that
surrounding neighborhood s , and indeed the Town , would rely on this property remaining undeve loped . The Appli cant has
failed to demonstrate why the Town would forego a ny of these protections for this development.
Ill. The Proposed Alte rn ative Use is Not Consistent With the General Plan, and Therefore, Findings For Cance llation
Cannot Be Made
The Staff letter cites the DE I R's analysis of General Plan Policies and Project Consistency. With regard to consistency
with Goal LU-1 [To preserve, promote, and protect the existing small-town character and quality of life within Los Gatos],
LU 1.2, 6 .5 , 6 .7, 6 .8 , 7.3 , and 7.4 (relative to infill projects), staff reiterates the claim that prior to entering into a Williamson
Act contract, the project site was designed for residential use . This is largely a claim of consistency with a General Plan
from over 50 years ago, long before most of our homes were even constructed . It also disregards the 2020 General Plan,
which takes into effect the neighborhoods that exist in Los Gatos today, and the zoning designation as RC space .
The Staff letter contends that that "the project would protect the quality of life for surrounding residences and blend with
the established character of the area ." There are few (if any) 6 ,000 square foot houses in the Surrey Farms neighborhood .
The vast majority of homes, as called for in the CC&R's, are single-story ranch style homes. The 6,000 square foot homes
on the hill above Surrey Farms would be completely out of character.
LU-1 .3, Goal CD-4 and CD-4.3 call for the preservation of trees, natural vegetation, natural topography, riparian
corridors , and wildlife habitats. In its consistency analysis , the letter confirms that 100 trees will be removed or impacted;
that a half-acre of mixed oak woodland would be removed ; that project implementation would "directly impact the swale
and its associated oak riparian habitat"; that grading, filling or trenching within the drip line or tree protection zone of native
riparian trees would be deemed a direct impact on trees within the riparian zone ; that project implementation has the
potential to adversely affect riparian habitat associated with Ross Creek and the swale. None of these impacts are
consistent with the objective of preservation of trees, vegetation , topography, riparian corridors and wildlife habitats .
LU-4 .2 and LU-4.4 address adequate infrastructure and impacts on services . The Staff letter states that the project
would include an extension of roadways and utilities onto and throughout the site pursuant to Town requirements and
agency regulations . This is inconsistent with an objective that there be infrastructure available, given that, there are no
existing roadways, utilities, and drainage systems . It should also be noted that none of the infrastructure is being
constructed by the Town (in fact, the Town is being indemnified relative to infrastructure), so the development and the
surrounding areas are at the mercy of an unknown HOA to both develop and maintain the infrastructure (including roads,
utilities, and the drainage pond). This is inconsistent with a Land Use requirement to allow development only with
adequate physical infrastructure. The Staff letter proposes that the project would enhance secondary emergency access
to residents on Twin Oaks Drive and Brook Acres Drive. Where would the access go? Residents of Twin Oaks Drive exit
the neighborhood via Longmeadow Drive. The emergency access appears to only go toward the hillside, to a dead end
private road. This does not provide a benefit to residents of Twin Oaks.
Goal CD-5 .1 requires streets to have the existing character of the neighborhood, safety and maintenance . We are
concerned that the HOA cannot provide this assurance .
Goal CD-3, CD 3.1, 3 .2 , and 3 .3 discuss the necessity for landscapes and streetscapes to be high quality and for
lighting to be minimized . The only consistency analysis here is that there will be an A&S review of each project site. This
is a completely natural , dark hillside at night, and due to the elevation of the hill , all lighting from homes will have an
impact on the surrounding homes and neighborhoods.
Goal CD-6, CD-6 .1, CD-6 .2, and CD-6.4 discuss protecting residential neighborhoods relative to visual impact, density,
privacy, protection of natural plant and wildlife habitats and migration corridors . Siting of homes "should not create
significant ecological or visual impacts affecting open spaces , public places. or other properties." Again , the assurance
provided for compliance is that the homes are subject to A&S review. The size of lots are said to be "within the range of lot
sizes that surround the project site." However, the proposed Ordinance calls for 6 ,000 square foot homes (maximum
density), which is wholly inconsistent with the Surrey Farms neighborhood below it.
The Staff letter states that the project "would not substantially degrade the visual character of the sites or its
surroundings " and that "provision of landscape trees and shrubs along project boundaries and roads , as well as
maximizing setbacks of proposed potential building envelopes from existing adjacent residences , would help to maximize
privacy of adjacent residences and screen view of future homes from these residences ." According to the Ordinance , the
majority of trees being planted are 24 inches. It will take years for them to actually provide a shield . The Ordinance also
only requires minimum setback requirements, so this is also not consistent with these General Plan provisions . The plans
submitted by the applicant show very little landscaping along the fence line of the Surrey Farms neighborhood, and there
is nothing other than minimum setback requirements from houses being constructed directly behind our homes .
Goal CD-7 is to preserve the quality of the private open space throughout Los Gatos and CD-7 .1 is to maximize quality
usable open space in all new developments . The Staff letter contends that the elimination of the 17.5 acres of RC land
meets this requirement because approximately 3 .6 acres would be preserved as open space, and a trail will be provided
connecting Shannon and Kennedy. While the idea of the trail and permanently preserved open space is desirable, it is
inconsistent with the General Plan to attain those goals by eliminating RC space; degrading 81 % of a natural hillside;
violating cut and fill requirements and riparian setback requirements; and building the maximum allowable density on the
site .
IV. Evidence of Proximate. Non-Contracted Land
In order for the Williamson Act contract to be cancelled, the applicant also must show that there is no proximate, non -
contracted land that is both available and suitable for the use to which it is proposed. Staff concluded that "the applicant
has done a reasonable search to find a non-contracted parcel" and references a map that applicant provided identifying
similar-sized parcels within a three-mile radius. It is unclear whether this satisfies the requirements of the Government
Code. We also don't know when this search was conducted , when the map was provided, and how the research was
conducted .
V . Los Gatos Has Only Cancelled One Williamson Act Contract
Williamson Act cancellation provisions were included in Government Code section 51280 to deal with emergency
situations where cancellation is consistent with the purposes of the Williamson Act. The last time (and only time we are
aware of) that the Town of Los Gatos has cancelled a Williamson Act contract was 20 years ago in conjunction with a
development on Blossom Hill Road (Resolution 1998-196).
VI . The Project Violates Hillside Development Standards
The Staff Report notes the proposal would require exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for
construction outside the LRDA and cut and fill depths, exceeding the maximum allowed, for the roadway and a future
driveway. Construction of the private streets would include cut, up to eight feet in depth , and fill , up to seven feet in depth
at the centerline. Portions of Street B would be outside the LRDA.
VII. The Applicant Did Not Submit a Plan in Accordance with Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission motion, although not entirely clear, indicates that the development should have no more than
eight lots and that lots 6 and 7 should be removed . The applicant's response retains both lots 6 and 7 and proposes nine
lots . It also does not appear to take into account specific comments from the Planning Commission to protect the
neighborhood and locate new houses away from existing homes. In fact, the proposed Ordinance allows for minimum
setbacks and maximum density.
From the transcript of the Planning Commission:
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 recommendations, 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 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 ."
p. 134-35: Commissioner Badame: "I would like to put a range in their, 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 consideration for a further reduction, not just eight, but maybe giving the
Council a range allowing not ten lots, but between five and eight, with emphasis given to Lots 1,2, 3, and in particular Lots
6 and 7."
p. 135: Commissioner Kane: "But I would add when we talk about those houses to pull them away from exiting houses as
far as practical."
p. 136: Commissioner Badame: " ... 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 ."
p. 137: Commissioner O'Donnell attempts to withdraw his motion. Robert Schultz: " ... the motion was to make all the
findings into your beginning , and then I have ... 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 to comply with the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines, the cut and fill will be no more than the development plans .... fencing requirements to allow for
wildlife, and right now at least. .. reduce it to eight, with six and seven being the emphasis, but then there was by
Commissioner Badame to make it between five and eight and include Lots 1,2, and 3."
p. 138: Commissioner O'Donnell does not agree with Commissioner Badame 's suggestion . Commissioner Kane : "Get it
away from existing houses to the extent possible. That's what I want Town Council to know ."
p. 139: Commissioner O 'Donnell : 'The way you state it is fine ; it's as far as possible ." Commissioner Janoff: "I would say,
'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 ."
p. 140: 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 to move this thing along ,
yes, I would support that."
These comments suggest that the applicant, at a minimum should reduce the number of lots , make efforts to
preserve neighborhood views and privacy, and maximize setbacks to protect the existing neighborhoods .
VIII. Traffic Analysis
The Project Information sheet dated February 23, 2018 (Attachment 10) estimates a net increase of 95 average
daily trips down our quiet neighborhood street.
IX . Property Value
The estimated assessed value for this property (in its current zoning and General Plan designation) is
$11,000,000 . (Attachment 7). The RC designation, as well as the Williamson Act contract, allow this property to have one
residence . The applicant could sell this property to someone to build one home for this significant sum of money.
X. Problems With the Ordinance
Although we believe this development as a whole should be rejected, should this Council consider the Ordinance,
it should be noted that the Ordinance does not preserve the hillside or protect the neighborhood . It also does not account
for some of the recommendations of the Planning Commission, including: protect trees , reduce density, and increase
setbacks. It also includes some alarming provisions , such as allowing for construction twelve hours a day and watering for
dust daily, which will directly impact those of us on the perimeter of the property to receive daily doses of both dust and
water. Because so much is left to A&S , there are many things this Ordinance doesn't define that will greatly affect
aesthetics ; for example, placement of homes and the constructing of retaining walls. Below are some of the problematic
provisions :
The Ordinance allows for a minimum of 24-inch trees to be planted . (Section VI (6)).
The Ordinance provides for "minimum" setbacks . (Section VI (8)).
The Ordinance provides for "maximum height" of residences under HDSG . (Section VI (10)).
The Ordinance provides for the "maximum floor area " of new residences under HDSG . (Section VI (11 )).
The Ordinance allows for cut and fill depths in excess of the HDSG. (Section VI (12)).
The Ordinance allows for tree removal according to an arborist recommendation. (Section VI (19)).
The Ordinance allows for interference with approximately 5,400 square feet, totaling 0 .12 acres of protected
ephemeral stream and associated riparian vegetation. (Section VI (32)).
The Ordinance allows for grading and culvert construction to accommodate the construction of Street B, resulting
in impacts on the portions of the ephemeral swale that are incised and situated directly beneath the canopy of mature oak
woodland . (Section VI (34)(b)).
The Ordinance provides an exception to the riparian setback guidelines to permit construction of Streets A and B .
(Section VI (35(a)).
The Ordinance provides for the planting of 178 24-inch box size, 93 36-inch box size , and 8 48-inch box size to
compensate for the loss of approximately 70 mature , fully grown trees . (Section VI (36)).
The Ordinance allows for construction to occur within the hours of 8 :00 a.m. and 8 :00 p.m. on weekdays and 9 :00
a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. (Section VI (41), (Section VI (126), (Section VI (127)).
The Ordinance provides for retaining walls to be installed at unknown locations on the property. (Section VI (92)).
The Ordinance places the future owners of the proposed lots in charge of a Maintenance agreement responsible
for the maintenance of all private utilities, wildland fire and buffer areas, storm water treatment facilities , other
common/areas facilities, and private roadways. (Section VI (129)).
The Ordinance allows for street-cleaning and watering associated with on-site construction to occur every day.
The Ordinance does not protect the land or the neighborhood. It requires multiple exceptions and mitigation
measures that, according to Staff, cannot be avoided. It begs the question , once again, as to why this land is an
appropriate place at all for a Planned Development. We urge the Town Council to decline cancellation of the Williamson
Act, amendment of the General Plan , rezoning of the property, and adoption of the PD Ordinance. Thank you for your
time and service to our town.
Kind regards,
Jill & Craig Fordyce
191 Longmeadow Drive