item_1_-_desk_item.178_twin_oaks — Los Gatos City Council, August 11, 2026

PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters
Senior Planner
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: 08/11/2026
ITEM NO: 1

DESK ITEM
DATE: August 11, 2026
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider a Recommendation by the Planning Commission to Approve the Subdivision of One Lot into Twelve Lots with a Vesting Tentative Map, Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Each Lot, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB330) on Vacant Property Zoned RC. Located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. APN 532-16-006. Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -032 and S-24-059, Subdivision Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001. An Initial Study and Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge. Project Planner: Erin Walters.

REMARKS:

The applicant provided proposed modifications to the Conditions of Approval and responses to neighbor requests, which are included as Attachment 17.

Public comments received between 3:01 p.m. on Monday, August 10, 2026, and 11:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 11, 2026, are included as Attachment 18.

ATTACHMENTS:

Previously Received with the August 11, 2026, Staff Report:

1. Draft Resolution making the required findings and approving the applications subject to the Conditions of Approval (included as Exhibit A)

2. December 17, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 1-27

3. December 15, 2025, Planning Commission Addendum, with Exhibit 28

4. December 16, 2025, Planning Commission Addendum 2 Report, with Exhibits 29 and 30

5. December 17, 2025, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 31

6. December 17, 2025, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

7. June 11, 2026, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 32 through 43 PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive
DATE: August 11, 2026

8. June 9, 2026, Planning Commission Addendum, with Exhibits 44 and 45

9. June 11, 2026, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 46

10. June 11, 2026, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes

11. Revised Recirculated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, July 2026

12. Modified Conditions of Approval – Redlined

13. Public Comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, June 11, 2026, and 3:00 pm, Thursday, August 6, 2026
Previously Received with the August 7, 2026, Addendum Report:

14. Public Comments received between 3:01 p.m., Thursday, August 6, 2026, and 3:00 pm, Friday, August 7, 2026
Previously Received with the August 10, 2026, Addendum B Report:

15. Revised Lots 5 and 6 Vegetation Buffer Exhibit

16. Public Comments received between 3:01 p.m., Friday, August 7, 2026, and 3:00 pm, Monday, August 10, 2026
Received with this Desk Item Report:

17. Applicant’s Proposed Modifications to Conditions of Approval and Responses to Neighbor Requests

18. Public Comments received between 3:01 p.m., Monday, August 10, 2026, and 11:00 am, Tuesday, August 11, 2026
From: Jim Foley
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 10:07 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Cc: Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Sean Mullin <[email protected]> Subject: RE: August 11 Special Meeting Addendum B
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Erin – attached please find the two documents related to the COAs and neighbor requests.

Thank you,
Jim Foley
Principal/Broker-Owner
DRE # 01841825
Confidentiality Statement: This communication, including any attachments, constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the intended recipient. This communication may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited and is in violation of the rights of privacy provided for by the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete or destroy all copies of this communication including any attachments.

ATTACHMENT 17
Surrey Farms COAs Proposed Revisions
#4 – this is not typical and not a benefit to the Town or the developer. We are also not sure the legality of a condition like this. The Town and neighbors want this project done quickly and not to drag on. In that case, the ability to sell some of the lots to other owners or developers allows for concurrent development and shortens the overall timeline. This is common in most luxury home development projects. We request this condition be removed.
#7 – this timing of this should be commensurate with build out and not front load costs hampering the project cash flow. 1 BMP CofO should be required for every 3 market rate CofOs. Phasing it this way allows for a better project cash flow. The condition runs with the land so all developers, current or future, are bound by this. We request this condition be modified.
#9b – We conceded to the Town’s interpretation of the use of the existing Cerro Vista roadway easement for lot 10 driveway and spent over $300k acquiring a duplicative easement from the neighbor for the driveway for Lot 10. This trail connection for a future trail to be funded by others should use the existing Town easement that is available. It is for the benefit of the Town, so for the public. We will not be procuring any other easement in this area and request this condition be removed.
#73 – we believe it to be unreasonable to require all of these improvements to be completed before final map again for project cash flow and it is not typical. Also for similar reasons to our objection for #4 above. Particularly the offsite improvements required by VMT mitigation should have a different trigger date. We recommend requiring they be completed by the 6th market rate CofO. Also, we paid for a new easement and removed the burden of installation and management of public improvements on Cerro Vista and believe the requirement to repave Cerro Vista tied to the access for a single lot, Lot 10, is unreasonable and would like this condition removed. Also, the paving should occur at the end of the project after the construciton traffic is complete, not before the project commences. We request this condition be modified accordingly.

Twin Oaks Neighbors Requests
We are able to accommodate 7 of the 8 requests from the Twin Oaks Neighbors and are happy to continue to work on lot 5 modifications at the building permit phase.

1. Extend the proposed berm all the way to the catch basin.

We agree to this and have updated the exhibit. Reminder the berm is not required, it is an added protection.

2. Enlarge the open space area and/or grant an easement to create space and screen our properties from new homes as discussed during our meeting.

We have done what we can on the Open Space easements given other constraints and happy to continue to make adjustments prior to the final map.

3. Plant two rows of large redwoods (placed not on the property line, but back towards the houses with the requirement that they are to be maintained).

HMH has located 3 tall evergreen trees and a new vegetative screening fence per the exhibit. Happy to entertain more planting modifications but this was maximized given other constraints. The trees can be planted early so the mature.

4. Wash our windows and exterior walls every 30 days during construction.

We agree to do this.

5. Establish who is responsible for the expense and maintenance of the retention pond and who/ what entity will be liable.

This is a part of the maintenance association and CC&Rs and these documents have been provided to the Town. Additional edits within these documents to make sure the concerns are addressed can be handled prior to recording.

6. Establish who is responsible for the day to day operations and management of complaints during construction and who/ what entity will be liable.

This process is contained within the COAs and BMPs and is straightforward.

7. No construction over weekends.

We agree to this.

8. Additionally, as discussed during our meeting, Lot 5 is the largest, most imposing home of the development. It is built on top of the ephemeral stream and also, looks directly into our yards. We request that Lot 5 be eliminated, moved, reoriented, and/or reconfigured.

We can continue to work on Lot 5 design modifications through the building permit process but nothing more can be done at this time as it relates to this application.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank
From: Dan Sherbeck < >
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 11:50 PM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: 178 Twin Oaks Drive
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Erin,
Please find my comments attached for the Surrey Farms / Twin Oaks project to be included in the desk items on 8/11.

Thank you,
Dan Sherbeck
ATTACHMENT 18
August 11, 2026
To: Erin Walters, Senior Planner
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Email: [email protected]
Re: Formal Public Comment – Objection to the Recirculated IS/MND for the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project (178 Twin Oaks Drive / APN 532-16-006) Dear Ms. Walters and Members of the Town Council,
I am writing to formally object to the adoption of the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and the approval of the Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map for the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive.

Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), if a "fair argument" can be made that a project may have a significant environmental impact despite proposed mitigations, the lead agency is legally prohibited from adopting an MND and must prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A review of the IS/MND and its technical appendices reveals critical flaws, unsupported conclusions, and a lack of substantial evidence to support the finding of "less-than-significant" impacts.

The Town must reject the IS/MND and require a full EIR based on the following unmitigated environmental hazards:

1. Unmitigated Wildfire Evacuation Hazard
The IS/MND incorrectly concludes that the project will have a less-than-significant impact on emergency evacuation plans in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The Town’s justification relies on the installation of indoor fire sprinklers and the creation of a 20-footwide Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) route connecting to Brooke Acres Drive.

This analysis is fatally flawed. Indoor sprinklers protect structures from burning; they do absolutely nothing to mitigate the mass-evacuation traffic generated by the 86 new parking spaces added to this hillside. Furthermore, an EVA route only facilitates incoming fire engines. During a mandatory evacuation order for Genasys Protect Zone LGA-008, all fleeing traffic from the proposed project and panicked residents further up Kennedy Road will funnel directly into the winding, narrow constraints of Kennedy Road. The IS/MND contains no Wildfire Evacuation Traffic Study demonstrating that Kennedy Road can absorb this consolidated surge of panicking drivers alongside the existing neighborhood traffic.

Without modeling this specific geometric bottleneck, the finding of a "less-thansignificant" impact on evacuation is entirely unsupported by substantial evidence.

2. VMT Mitigation Relies on a Mathematical Loophole, Lacking an "Essential Nexus" The project’s Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) per capita is calculated at 32.34, strictly failing the Town’s legal threshold of 29.51. To mathematically force the project under this threshold, the developer is utilizing a CAPCOA formula to claim a VMT reduction by proposing to construct off-site sidewalks miles away on Blossom Hill Road and Fisher Avenue.

While this programmatic formula exists, blindly applying it to this specific geography is a logical fallacy that fails the legal "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests established by the Supreme Court in Nollan/Dolan. The CAPCOA methodology assumes that new pedestrian infrastructure will reduce vehicle trips within a 0.5-mile radius.

However, there is zero real-world connection between pouring concrete for a sidewalk down in the flat, walkable valley and altering the daily driving habits of residents living in a steep, isolated hillside development miles away.

By accepting this, the Town is permitting a spreadsheet workaround in place of actual environmental mitigation. CEQA demands that mitigations address the physical realities of a project's impact, not just balance a ledger. Because an ad-hoc sidewalk installation across town does absolutely nothing to reduce the localized VMT impacts generated by Surrey Farms Estates, the transportation impacts remain significant and legally unmitigated.

3. Unenforceable Air Quality Restrictions
The air quality modeling explicitly shows that combined on-site and off-site construction activities will violate the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) threshold for Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), generating 64.40 lbs/day against a strict 54 lbs/day limit.

To bypass an EIR, Mitigation Measure III-1 relies on an administrative promise that the contractor will not construct the off-site sidewalks at the same time as the on-site housing.

This restriction lacks a defined enforcement mechanism. If the Town cannot guarantee continuous, daily monitoring of the developer’s construction scheduling over the two-year buildout, this mitigation is legally unenforceable. An unenforceable mitigation leaves the surrounding neighborhood and the adjacent Hillbrook School exposed to illegal levels of toxic emissions.

4. Destruction of Protected Biological Resources
The Biological Evaluation confirms the presence of active nests of the San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat - a California Species of Special Concern - directly within the project site.

Mitigation Measure IV-7 states that if avoidance is not possible, the nests shall be "manually deconstructed by a qualified biologist". However, hiring a biologist to dismantle the active, documented habitat of a protected species does not magically reduce the biological impact to a "less-than-significant" level. The planned, physical destruction of a protected species' nesting site constitutes a direct, significant environmental impact requiring full analysis within an EIR.

5. Hydrology and Structural Stability (Lot 5)
The recirculation of this IS/MND was triggered by the late discovery that an ephemeral stream extends directly into the proposed internal driveway and the development footprint of Lot 5. While new biological mitigations (IV-10 and IV-11) were added to address the filling of this aquatic feature, the geotechnical assumptions for this specific location must be reevaluated. The EIR must determine if the original soil stability and lateral spreading calculations correctly modeled the hydrologic realities of placing a 40-foot structure and retaining walls directly atop an active ephemeral stream channel.

Conclusion
The Recirculated IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence that the project’s severe impacts on wildfire evacuation, transportation (VMT), air quality, and biological resources have been legally mitigated. Approving this document in its current state constitutes a violation of CEQA.

I respectfully demand that the Town Council reject the Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct staff to prepare a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to properly analyze and address these critical hazards.

Sincerely,
Dan Sherbeck
Blueberry Hill Dr
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Jill Fordyce < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 7:08 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]> Cc: Craig Fordyce
Subject: 178 Twin Oaks
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Erin,
Below and attached, please find our supplemental response to the proposed development of 178 Twin Oaks Drive.

Thank you,
Jill & Craig Fordyce
Dear Members of the Town Council,
Introduction
On Friday, August 7, the 2,147 page Staff Report and meeting packet was uploaded to the Town website. We’ve tried to make our way through it with the incredibly short window of time available before this August 11 Special Meeting. Two things stand out to us after our abbreviated review. First, the Staff Report finds that every potentially significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. This, of course, is a conclusion made after declining to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The reasoning adopts a willful blindness to the potential environmental harms by both declining to conduct an EIR and then either deferring or allowing for future mitigation of potential, undefined impacts. As a community we are left with the destruction of a rural hillside with no EIR to ascertain the true environmental impacts, no options or alternatives to better protect the environment and the neighborhood, and no reliable mitigation. Second, the findings of the Staff Report appear to be backwards and circular in their reasoning. It concludes that the development is fully compliant with the General Plan and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG), etc. if/when all the waivers and incentives requested by the developer are granted. The conclusion should be that the development does not comply with the HDSG, and that waivers and incentives—each of which must be individually justified—are necessary to bring this development into compliance.

We realize this Town Council has limited authority to decline this development because of SB 330 and state housing law. It does, however, retain some important powers to safeguard Los Gatos and its residents. One is to abide by the CEQA laws, which exist independent of SB 330 and housing law. The second is to impose objective standards to protect the health and safety of our community. We implore this Council to exercise its rights and authority consistent with the welfare of the Town, its residents, and the environment.

Why the IS/MND is Inadequate and an EIR is Necessary to Protect the Community and the Environment
An EIR would provide the Town Council and the community with a level of analysis, disclosure, public participation, and accountability that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) did not provide. The IS/MND is fundamentally a screening document based on the conclusion that every potentially significant environmental effect can be reduced through project revisions or mitigation. It does not fully examine what would happen if the proposed measures are inadequate, engineered systems fail, or significant impacts cannot actually be avoided.

An EIR would require a more detailed, issue-specific examination of the project’s potentially significant effects, including wildfire evacuation and emergency access; drainage and flooding; grading, erosion, and slope stability; removal of mature, protected trees; habitat fragmentation and wildlife movement; and construction-period impacts. It would also analyze how these effects interact—for example, how tree removal, grading, and increased impervious surfaces may collectively affect runoff, erosion, slope stability, habitat, and emergency access. The IS/MND does not provide this cumulative analysis.

An EIR would also require formal written responses to comments presenting significant environmental issues. The Town would have to address contrary evidence and explain why it accepts or rejects the concerns, analyses, and recommendations submitted by residents and experts. This is more rigorous than merely receiving and considering comments on an IS/MND.

Thus, the EIR process would subject proposed mitigation to closer examination. The Town would have to determine whether each measure is specific, enforceable, supported by evidence, and capable of reducing the identified impact. This is particularly important where the current analysis relies on future engineering, construction best-management practices, private maintenance of drainage facilities, replacement trees that will take decades to mature, or measures whose effectiveness has not been demonstrated.

The practical value of an EIR is the opportunity to obtain the information necessary to understand the full consequences of transforming this steep, wooded hillside into a twelve-home subdivision—and to determine whether those consequences can be avoided or reduced through a less damaging design. Given the documented ephemeral stream, extensive grading, removal of approximately 223 protected trees, constrained access within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, and reliance on an excessive number of waivers and future engineering measures, the community should not be required to accept an IS/MND that assumes all significant effects have been resolved. It is entitled to the fuller analysis, consideration of alternatives, substantive responses, and public accountability that only an EIR provides.

The Record Supports That an EIR is Required
Under CEQA, the question is not whether Town staff believes the project’s impacts can be mitigated or whether the applicant’s consultants have offered evidence supporting approval. Rather, an EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may cause a significant environmental effect. The Town may not resolve a legitimate conflict in the evidence by choosing its consultants’ conclusions and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument concerning at least the following seven interrelated impact areas.

1. Wildfire, evacuation, and emergency access
The project would place twelve new residences, additional vehicles, and substantial construction activity in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone served by constrained local roads and limited access. The project also relies on an Alternative Means and Methods approval allowing a roadway segment to be narrower than the ordinarily required width. Yet the environmental review does not appear to include a quantitative, site-specific evacuation analysis addressing simultaneous resident evacuation and emergency-vehicle ingress, existing neighborhood evacuation demand, an obstructed or disabled vehicle, loss of an access route, or evacuation during construction. County Fire’s approval may establish compliance with particular fire-code requirements, but it does not establish that the project will not worsen evacuation conditions or impede emergency response. These circumstances support a fair argument that the project may create or exacerbate a significant wildfire and evacuation impact requiring analysis in an EIR.

2. Drainage, flooding, and the ephemeral stream
The project would alter the existing hillside through grading, roads, buildings, retaining walls, utilities, removal of vegetation, and substantial new impervious surfaces. These changes may affect the volume, velocity, direction, concentration, infiltration, and duration of runoff, with potential consequences for downstream properties, the ephemeral stream, and Ross Creek. The analysis does not adequately address the entire contributing watershed, runoff volume as distinct from peak flow, sediment transport, extreme-storm conditions, or what will occur if an inlet becomes obstructed or a privately maintained stormwater facility fails. Reliance on future engineering and maintenance obligations does not, without enforceable performance standards and supporting analysis, demonstrate that these impacts will be reduced below significance. The belated recognition that 122 feet of the ephemeral stream actually runs beneath the Lot 5 footprint further supports the need for comprehensive environmental review.

3. Grading, erosion, geology, and slope stability
The project involves extensive grading, deep cuts and fills, retaining walls, road construction, utility trenches, development on steep slopes, and removal of mature treeroot systems. Numerous waivers from the HDSG underscore the degree to which the proposal departs from the development pattern otherwise considered appropriate for this terrain. The environmental review does not adequately analyze the combined effects of grading, loss of root structure, altered drainage, saturated soils, concentrated runoff, retaining structures, and possible drainage-system failure. Nor is reliance on future geotechnical recommendations, construction plans, and erosion-control practices necessarily sufficient to establish that long-term instability, erosion, sedimentation, or downstream damage will not occur. These site conditions and proposed physical alterations support a fair argument that the project may cause significant erosion or slopestability effects.

Although the replacement formula reportedly requires approximately 551 trees, only about 85 would be planted on site, with the balance addressed through in-lieu fees. Neither fees nor newly planted trees immediately replace the mature woodland’s canopy, rainfall interception, root structure, slope stabilization, carbon storage, shade, nesting cavities, food production, or wildlife cover. The analysis does not appear to quantify the acreage and percentage of canopy removed, the ecological functions lost, the decades required for replacement trees to mature, or the probable delayed mortality of retained trees affected by nearby roads, grading, utilities, and construction. The natural habitat that supports the documented wildlife on the hill will be lost forever. These deficiencies support a fair argument that the project may cause a significant loss of woodland and mature-canopy resources that the proposed mitigation does not and cannot replace.

CEQA also requires consideration of habitat modification, nesting and nursery sites, wildlife movement, riparian resources, and sensitive natural communities. The record does not adequately evaluate the combined effects of canopy removal, lighting, fencing, noise, glass, and residential activity. The permanent conversion and fragmentation of this habitat support a fair argument that significant biological effects may occur.

6. Cumulative and interacting environmental effects
The MND considers trees, drainage, grading, habitat, and wildfire largely as separate subjects, although the effects are functionally connected. Tree and vegetation removal can reduce rainfall interception, eliminate stabilizing root systems, increase erosion, fragment habitat, and alter fire behavior. Grading and new impervious surfaces can change runoff and affect both the drainage feature and downstream property. Drainage failure, slope movement, fallen trees, or construction activity could obstruct emergency access during a wildfire or severe storm. Fire-clearance requirements may produce additional vegetation loss beyond the trees already identified for removal. The relevant environmental effect is the cumulative transformation of a wooded hillside—not merely whether each individual component can be declared acceptable when considered in isolation. The failure to evaluate these interacting effects supports preparation of an EIR.

7. Construction-period impacts
The project’s construction impacts must be evaluated independently from the impacts of the completed subdivision. At Planning Commission, it became evident that this is not a two-year period of construction; rather, it is an endless cycle of two-year periods, with lots sold and constructed one at a time. It is conceivable, therefore, that Surrey Farms will be a construction zone for the foreseeable future. Extensive and potentially prolonged grading, excavation, retaining-wall construction, utility installation, tree removal, haul-truck traffic, and building activity will create significant dust, diesel emissions, noise, vibration, erosion, sediment runoff, traffic obstruction, and wildfire-ignition risks. The scale, duration, and location of the proposed work support a fair argument that construction itself may cause significant environmental effects.

CEQA requires an EIR when facts, reasonable inferences based on facts, or qualified expert opinion support a fair argument that a significant effect may occur. Here, the project would extensively grade and urbanize a steep, wooded site in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; remove approximately 223 protected trees; disturb an ephemeral stream; introduce over 97,000 square feet of impervious surfaces; create engineered stormwater facilities; and rely on numerous waivers, future design requirements, and long-term private maintenance. The potential effects on wildfire evacuation, drainage, slope stability, mature woodland, wildlife habitat, and neighboring properties are substantial and closely interconnected. The Council should therefore require preparation of an EIR that fully analyzes these impacts, their interaction, feasible mitigation, and less environmentally damaging alternatives.

The Density Bonus Incentives and Waivers Must Be Individually Justified The applicant requests 58 waivers involving lot size, setbacks, building area, building height, graded cut-and-fill depths, development outside the least restrictive development area, pools on steep slopes, parking, and the size and location of affordable units. Many of these are site-wide, resulting in an even greater number of waivers. Several are substantial departures from the current standards and regulations:
• Every proposed residence exceeds the ordinary 25-foot hillside height limit. The proposed heights range from approximately 27 feet to nearly 41 feet. • Several homes exceed allowable floor area.
• Buildings on several lots are outside the area identified as most appropriate for development and are on slopes exceeding 30%.
• The project and every individual lot exceed maximum cut-and-fill standards. • The three affordable units are smaller than the market-rate units and are grouped together instead of dispersed throughout the subdivision.

The proposed resolution in the Staff Report states: “As required by Section 66474(a) though (g) of the State Subdivision Map Act, the map shall not be denied if any of the findings listed in that Section are made. None of the findings could be made to deny the application with granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code section 65589.5(d).” The language of section 66474 is actually the opposite of how the Staff Report summarizes it. The resolution should say the map must be denied if any of the section 66474 findings are made, not “shall not be denied if any…findings… are made.” The statute states as follows:
“A legislative body…shall deny approval of a tentative map … if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.” Staff essentially concludes that the State Subdivision Map Act does not permit denial of the proposed subdivision. This conclusion is not legally supported. The Builder’s Remedy may limit which Town zoning and development standards can be applied, but it does not erase §66474—particularly findings (c) through (f), which concern the site’s physical suitability, environmental damage, wildlife habitat, and serious public health problems. The state law expressly preserves CEQA compliance, and while the Builder’s Remedy provisions restrict the application of certain local standards, they do not declare that a project is factually suitable or environmentally harmless. Government Code § 65589.5(d)–(f)
For this project, the potentially pertinent findings are:
(c): physical suitability for hillside residential development; (d): physical suitability for the proposed density;
(e): substantial environmental damage or avoidable injury to wildlife or habitat; and (f): serious public-health problems, potentially involving wildfire evacuation, emergency access, drainage, flooding, erosion, or slope instability.

The granting of exceptions does not resolve the factual questions under (c)–(f). Indeed, finding (e) tracks many of the concerns we have identified: removal of protected trees, destruction and fragmentation of habitat, disturbance of the ephemeral stream, and interacting grading and erosion effects.

The Resolution also says the project "meets the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Specific Plan with the incentives and waivers requested pursuant to State Density Bonus Law (CA Gov Code s. 65915) and granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to Builder's Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov Code s. 65589.5(d)." Again, this finding is misleading and backwards. It does not mean the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan. It means the Town is treating the project as compliant only after setting aside particular requirements through Density Bonus incentives and waivers and Builder’s Remedy exceptions. A more transparent finding would be: The project does not comply with applicable requirements of the Hillside Specific Plan, HDSG, General Plan, or zoning ordinance; however, after excluding the requirements that the applicant contends cannot lawfully be applied under State Density Bonus Law and the Builder’s Remedy, the remaining applicable standards are being deemed satisfied.

Would limiting the nine large market-rate homes to the ordinary height or floor-area standards physically preclude the 12 units, or would it merely require smaller market-rate homes? Would complying with maximum grading depths preclude the affordable units, or require different siting and design? Each waiver requires a physical-preclusion showing.

While the Builder’s Remedy law protects the project from certain inconsistent local standards, it does not literally transform noncompliance into factual compliance.

Revised Drawings In Response to Neighbor Requests
On Monday, we received a revised drawing of Lot 5 and the area behind our home from the applicant’s representative, Jim Foley. In response to our request for two rows of redwood trees to screen our property and that of our neighbors, there are three trees that appear to be planted behind our neighbor, Billy & Kathy Meleyco’s home. There are no trees behind our home. Lot 5, with its nearly 41 foot home sits squarely on top of us and the ephemeral stream, with no screening at all between the proposed home and ours. We are unaware as to whether any of our other concerns, which were detailed in correspondence to Mr. Foley and included in our prior submission to the Town, have been addressed by the applicant.

The only way this development is possible now is via access through the private residence of the applicant. While we understand that State law has allowed for this land to be considered for development, we urge this Council to exercise its power to make sure that any such development is properly vetted and considered, and in the interest of the Town, the environment, and the neighborhood. Attached and linked hereto is the Op Ed published this week in the Los Gatan, urging this Council to conduct at EIR.

Sincerely,
Jill & Craig Fordyce
Longmeadow Drive
August 11, 2026
https://losgatan.com/op-ed-178-twin-oaks-dr-development-will-have-significantenvironmental-impacts/ Dear Members of the Town Council,
Introduction
On Friday, August 7, the 2,147 page Staff Report and meeting packet was uploaded to the Town website. We’ve tried to make our way through it with the incredibly short window of time available before this August 11 Special Meeting. Two things stand out to us after our abbreviated review. First, the Staff Report finds that every potentially significant impact can be mitigated to a less than significant level. This, of course, is a conclusion made after declining to conduct an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The reasoning adopts a willful blindness to the potential environmental harms by both declining to conduct an EIR and then either deferring or allowing for future mitigation of potential, undefined impacts. As a community we are left with the destruction of a rural hillside with no EIR to ascertain the true environmental impacts, no options or alternatives to better protect the environment and the neighborhood, and no reliable mitigation. Second, the findings of the Staff Report appear to be backwards and circular in their reasoning. It concludes that the development is fully compliant with the General Plan and the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG), etc. if/when all the waivers and incentives requested by the developer are granted. The conclusion should be that the development does not comply with the HDSG, and that waivers and incentives—each of which must be individually justified—are necessary to bring this development into compliance.

We realize this Town Council has limited authority to decline this development because of SB 330 and state housing law. It does, however, retain some important powers to safeguard Los Gatos and its residents. One is to abide by the CEQA laws, which exist independent of SB 330 and housing law. The second is to impose objective standards to protect the health and safety 2 of our community. We implore this Council to exercise its rights and authority consistent with the welfare of the Town, its residents, and the environment.

The IS/MND does not provide this cumulative analysis.

Most importantly, an EIR would require the Town to evaluate a reasonable range of less environmentally damaging alternatives. Those alternatives could include smaller homes, different building or roadway locations, reduced grading, preservation of additional trees, avoidance of the Lot 5 intrusion on the ephemeral stream, or different access and stormwater designs. The IS/MND does not provide this comparative analysis. 3 An EIR would also require formal written responses to comments presenting significant environmental issues. The Town would have to address contrary evidence and explain why it accepts or rejects the concerns, analyses, and recommendations submitted by residents and experts. This is more rigorous than merely receiving and considering comments on an IS/MND.

Rather, an EIR is required whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument 4 that the project may cause a significant environmental effect. The Town may not resolve a legitimate conflict in the evidence by choosing its consultants’ conclusions and adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Here, substantial evidence supports a fair argument concerning at least the following seven interrelated impact areas.

2. Drainage, flooding, and the ephemeral stream
The project would alter the existing hillside through grading, roads, buildings, retaining walls, utilities, removal of vegetation, and substantial new impervious surfaces. These changes may affect the volume, velocity, direction, concentration, infiltration, and duration of runoff, with potential consequences for downstream properties, the ephemeral stream, and Ross Creek. The analysis does not adequately address the entire contributing watershed, runoff volume as distinct 5 from peak flow, sediment transport, extreme-storm conditions, or what will occur if an inlet becomes obstructed or a privately maintained stormwater facility fails. Reliance on future engineering and maintenance obligations does not, without enforceable performance standards and supporting analysis, demonstrate that these impacts will be reduced below significance. The belated recognition that 122 feet of the ephemeral stream actually runs beneath the Lot 5 footprint further supports the need for comprehensive environmental review.

3. Grading, erosion, geology, and slope stability
The project involves extensive grading, deep cuts and fills, retaining walls, road construction, utility trenches, development on steep slopes, and removal of mature tree-root systems. Numerous waivers from the HDSG underscore the degree to which the proposal departs from the development pattern otherwise considered appropriate for this terrain. The environmental review does not adequately analyze the combined effects of grading, loss of root structure, altered drainage, saturated soils, concentrated runoff, retaining structures, and possible drainage-system failure. Nor is reliance on future geotechnical recommendations, construction plans, and erosion-control practices necessarily sufficient to establish that long-term instability, erosion, sedimentation, or downstream damage will not occur. These site conditions and proposed physical alterations support a fair argument that the project may cause significant erosion or slope-stability effects.

4. Protected-tree loss and woodland conversion
The proposed removal of approximately 223 protected trees is a major physical alteration of the site, not merely an issue of compliance with the Town’s tree-permit ordinance. Although the replacement formula reportedly requires approximately 551 trees, only about 85 would be planted on site, with the balance addressed through in-lieu fees. Neither fees nor newly planted 6 trees immediately replace the mature woodland’s canopy, rainfall interception, root structure, slope stabilization, carbon storage, shade, nesting cavities, food production, or wildlife cover.

The analysis does not appear to quantify the acreage and percentage of canopy removed, the ecological functions lost, the decades required for replacement trees to mature, or the probable delayed mortality of retained trees affected by nearby roads, grading, utilities, and construction.

The natural habitat that supports the documented wildlife on the hill will be lost forever. These deficiencies support a fair argument that the project may cause a significant loss of woodland and mature-canopy resources that the proposed mitigation does not and cannot replace.

5. Biological resources, habitat fragmentation, and wildlife movement The project would permanently convert and fragment existing woodland habitat by introducing homes, roads, driveways, retaining walls, fencing, exterior lighting, glass, vehicles, noise, human activity, and domestic animals. The biological inquiry is not limited to whether a listed or special-status species has already been identified on the property. CEQA also requires consideration of habitat modification, nesting and nursery sites, wildlife movement, riparian resources, and sensitive natural communities. The record does not adequately evaluate the combined effects of canopy removal, lighting, fencing, noise, glass, and residential activity. The permanent conversion and fragmentation of this habitat support a fair argument that significant biological effects may occur.

6. Cumulative and interacting environmental effects
The MND considers trees, drainage, grading, habitat, and wildfire largely as separate subjects, although the effects are functionally connected. Tree and vegetation removal can reduce rainfall interception, eliminate stabilizing root systems, increase erosion, fragment habitat, and alter fire behavior. Grading and new impervious surfaces can change runoff and affect both the 7 drainage feature and downstream property. Drainage failure, slope movement, fallen trees, or construction activity could obstruct emergency access during a wildfire or severe storm. Fireclearance requirements may produce additional vegetation loss beyond the trees already identified for removal. The relevant environmental effect is the cumulative transformation of a wooded hillside—not merely whether each individual component can be declared acceptable when considered in isolation. The failure to evaluate these interacting effects supports preparation of an EIR.

CEQA requires an EIR when facts, reasonable inferences based on facts, or qualified expert opinion support a fair argument that a significant effect may occur. Here, the project would extensively grade and urbanize a steep, wooded site in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; remove approximately 223 protected trees; disturb an ephemeral stream; introduce over 97,000 square feet of impervious surfaces; create engineered stormwater facilities; and rely on numerous waivers, future design requirements, and long-term private maintenance. The potential 8 effects on wildfire evacuation, drainage, slope stability, mature woodland, wildlife habitat, and neighboring properties are substantial and closely interconnected. The Council should therefore require preparation of an EIR that fully analyzes these impacts, their interaction, feasible mitigation, and less environmentally damaging alternatives.

The proposed resolution in the Staff Report states: “As required by Section 66474(a) though (g) of the State Subdivision Map Act, the map shall not be denied if any of the findings listed in that Section are made. None of the findings could be made to deny the application with granting of the requested exceptions to Town standards pursuant to the Builder’s Remedy provision of the Housing Accountability Act, CA Gov. Code section 65589.5(d).” 9 The language of section 66474 is actually the opposite of how the Staff Report summarizes it. The resolution should say the map must be denied if any of the section 66474 findings are made, not “shall not be denied if any…findings… are made.” The statute states as follows:
“A legislative body…shall deny approval of a tentative map … if it makes any of the following findings:
(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451.
(b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
(c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
(f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems.
(g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.”
10 Staff essentially concludes that the State Subdivision Map Act does not permit denial of the proposed subdivision. This conclusion is not legally supported. The Builder’s Remedy may limit which Town zoning and development standards can be applied, but it does not erase §66474—particularly findings (c) through (f), which concern the site’s physical suitability, environmental damage, wildlife habitat, and serious public health problems. The state law expressly preserves CEQA compliance, and while the Builder’s Remedy provisions restrict the application of certain local standards, they do not declare that a project is factually suitable or environmentally harmless. Government Code § 65589.5(d)–(f) For this project, the potentially pertinent findings are:
(c): physical suitability for hillside residential development; (d): physical suitability for the proposed density;
(e): substantial environmental damage or avoidable injury to wildlife or habitat; and (f): serious public-health problems, potentially involving wildfire evacuation, emergency access, drainage, flooding, erosion, or slope instability.

A more transparent finding would be: The project does not comply with applicable requirements of the Hillside Specific Plan, HDSG, General Plan, or zoning ordinance; however, after excluding the requirements that the applicant contends cannot lawfully be applied under State Density Bonus Law and the Builder’s Remedy, the remaining applicable standards are being deemed satisfied.

To obtain a waiver, the applicant must establish that applying the particular development standard would physically preclude construction of the project at the permitted density and with the permitted incentives. A waiver is not automatically justified merely because compliance would be more expensive, inconvenient, or require redesign. The applicant has not established the facts necessary to answer multiple legitimate questions, for example: Would limiting the nine large market-rate homes to the ordinary height or floor-area standards physically preclude the 12 units, or would it merely require smaller market-rate homes? Would complying with maximum grading depths preclude the affordable units, or require different siting and design? Each waiver requires a physical-preclusion showing. While the Builder’s Remedy law protects the project from certain inconsistent local standards, it does not literally transform noncompliance into factual compliance.

Revised Drawings In Response to Neighbor Requests
On Monday, we received a revised drawing of Lot 5 and the area behind our home from the applicant’s representative, Jim Foley. In response to our request for two rows of redwood trees to screen our property and that of our neighbors, there are three trees that appear to be planted behind our neighbor, Billy & Kathy Meleyco’s home. There are no trees behind our 12 home. Lot 5, with its nearly 41 foot home sits squarely on top of us and the ephemeral stream, with no screening at all between the proposed home and ours. We are unaware as to whether any of our other concerns, which were detailed in correspondence to Mr. Foley and included in our prior submission to the Town, have been addressed by the applicant.

Conclusion
As we’ve stated before the Planning Commission and the Town Council for the last decade, Surrey Farms was designed as a closed, cul de sac neighborhood. There is no ingress/egress because in the 1970’s the Town wisely determined to stop the development before it intruded into the area of Ross Creek. When we purchased our home in 1999, we inquired with the Town as to the likelihood of development of the hill and were told not in your lifetime, as the hill has been landlocked Resource Conservation Space for decades. The only way this development is possible now is via access through the private residence of the applicant. While we understand that State law has allowed for this land to be considered for development, we urge this Council to exercise its power to make sure that any such development is properly vetted and considered, and in the interest of the Town, the environment, and the neighborhood. Attached and linked hereto is the Op Ed published this week in the Los Gatan, urging this Council to conduct at EIR.

Sincerely,
Jill & Craig Fordyce
Longmeadow Drive
August 11, 2026
13 https://losgatan.com/op-ed-178-twin-oaks-dr-development-will-have-significant-environmentalimpacts/

From: Camas J. Steinmetz <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 8:48 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Cc: Sean Mullin <[email protected]>; Jon Witkin >; Joel Paulson <[email protected]>; Lilian R. Winters Jenna De Long <[email protected]>
Subject: Desk Item - Follow up Letter and Enclosure re 178 Twin Oaks Subdivision Project [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good morning Erin,
Please include the attached follow up letter and enclosure as a desk item for tonight’s City Council meeting. Please confirm receipt.

Thanks,
Camas

Camas J. Steinmetz, Esq.

Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 | Menlo Park, CA 94025
Direct: (650) 289-4580 | Cell: 650-743-9700
Email: [email protected] | website: www.jsmf.com

W I L L I A M L. M c C L U R E
J O H N L. F L E G EL
D A N K. SI E G E L
JE N N I F E R H. F R IE D M A N
M I N D I E S. R O M A N O W S K Y
G R E G O R Y K. K L I N G SP O R N
N I C O L A S A. F LE G EL
K R IS T I N A A . F E N T O N
K I M B E R L Y J . B R U M M E R
C A M A S J . ST EI N M ET Z
P H I L I P S . S O U S A
J E F F R E Y A . S N Y D E R
R O B E R T D . T H O M A S

B R I T T N EY L. ST A N D LE Y
L I L I A N R . W I N T E R S
M A T T H E W C . D U N L A P
JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 1 0 0 A L M A ST R EE T, S U I T E 2 1 0
M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5 - 3 3 9 2 ( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 - 9 3 0 0
F A C SI M I LE ( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 - 0 2 2 7
w w w . j s m f . c o m

O F C O U N SEL

K E N T M I T C H E L L

R ET I R E D
M A R G A R E T A . S L O A N
D I A N E S. G R E E N B E R G
D A VI D L. A C H

D E C E A S E D
J O H N D. J O R G E N S O N
( 1 9 2 5 - 2 0 2 5 )
M A R VI N S. SI E G EL
( 1 9 3 6 - 2 0 1 2 )
J O H N R. C O S G R O V E
( 1 9 3 2 - 2 0 1 7 )

August 11, 2026
Mayor Moore and Members of the Town Council
Town of Los Gatos, Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030
Via Email to Erin Walters, Senior Planner [email protected] Re: 178 Twin Oaks, Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project (Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -032 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24- 013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001) Dear Mayor Moore and Members of the Town Council:

This letter follows up on my letter dated August 8, 2026 appearing in your packet for tonight’s meeting to bring your attention to the enclosed California Attorney General memorandum entitled “Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act” (“Attorney General Guidance”) and highlight the fact that the Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project dated November 25, 2025 (“IS/MND”) for the proposed 178 Twin Oaks, Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project (the “Project”) directly contravenes this Attorney General Guidance and accordingly, its bald conclusion that the Project “would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires” is unsupported by the evidence in the record and cannot be relied upon under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) to approve the Project.

This IS/MND states on page 109 that “Development of the site for residential uses would help to reduce the risk of wildland fire in the area due to site improvements, such as roadways, driveways, and irrigated landscaping, which would reduce readily combustible vegetation.” This conclusion directly contravenes the Attorney General Guidance which states on page 9 that “Some EIRs have concluded that the conversion of some wildland vegetation into paved development reduces or does not increase wildfire risk. This conclusion is contrary to existing evidence and the well-accepted understanding that the fundamental driver of increased wildfire risk is the introduction of people into a flammable landscape.” 2 Moreover, the Attorney General Guidance explicitly states on page 10 that “[t]he addition of new development into high wildfire risk or adjacent areas may impact the evacuation of project residents, as well as the existing population (e.g., residents, workers, students, visitors, and possibly livestock) in the area and the ability of emergency responders to simultaneously access the area to fight wildfire. This can, in turn, impact the risk and extent of large-scale fire spread and community safety within and around the new development. The EIR should evaluate these impacts both during construction and over the life of the project.” It further states that “[f]or projects located in high wildfire risk areas that present an increased risk of ignition and/or evacuation impacts, evacuation modeling and planning should be considered and developed at the time of project review and approval—when there is greater flexibility to modify a project’s design, density, siting, and configuration to address wildfire considerations—rather than deferred to a later stage of the development process.”
The Attorney General Guidance directs that this evacuation modeling and analysis should include the following:
• Evaluation of the capacity of roadways to accommodate project and community evacuation and simultaneous emergency access.
• Assessment of the timing for evacuation
• Consideration of the adequacy of emergency access, including the project’s proximity to existing fire services and the capacity of existing services. • Traffic modeling to quantify travel times under various likely scenarios It further states on page 11 that agencies should “[u]tilize information from the EIR’s analysis of traffic/transportation impacts, but they should not limit themselves to that information, which may not reflect the impact of emergency conditions on travel times.” (Emphasis added.) The IS/MND includes no evacuation modeling whatsoever, let alone the evacuation modeling and analysis directed by the Attorney General Guidance to properly evaluate the Project’s impact on wildfire risk. Accordingly, the IS/MND does not adequately evaluate the Project’s impact on wildfire risk under CEQA. Therefore, approving this Project without requiring the modeling and analysis directed by the Attorney General Guidance would violate CEQA.

Sincerely,
Camas J. Steinmetz
Cc: Gabrielle Whelen, Town Attorney
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Enclosure: State of California Attorney General Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act
Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act I. Introduction
Wildfires are part of California’s present, and with the effects of climate change, an increasing part of our future. Development in fire-prone areas increases the likelihood that more destructive fires will ignite, fire-fighting resources will be taxed, more habitat and people will be put in harm’s way or displaced, and more structures will burn. It is therefore imperative that local jurisdictions making decisions to approve new developments carefully consider wildfire impacts as part of the environmental review process, plan where best to place new development, and mitigate wildfire impacts to the extent feasible.

This guidance is designed to help lead agencies1comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq. (CEQA), when considering whether to approve projects in wildfire-prone areas. These areas are often in the wildland-urban interface, generally defined as the area where the built environment meets or intermingles with the natural environment.
2 The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has classified lands based on fire risk, the highest being those classified as high or very high fire hazard severity zones. It has also identified areas where the State (as opposed to a local agency) has responsibility for fire-fighting.
3 Particularly in these high-risk areas, but also throughout the 1 Lead agencies are any public agencies with “principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21067.) 2 CAL FIRE has published an instructive map on the wildland-urban interface in California: https://frap. fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui 19 ada.pdf. The wildland-urban interface is defined differently by different agencies for different purposes, but the most widely used definition for wildfire purposes include the intermix and interface areas mapped by Radeloff et al. 2005, 2018. See Volker C. Radeloff, et al., Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises Wildfire Risk. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, 115(13):3314-3319 (2018), available at https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073 /pnas.1718850115.
3 See https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community-wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildlandhazards-building-codes/fire-hazard-severity-zones-maps/. Note that areas mapped by CAL FIRE as high or very high fire risk are not always coextensive with the wildland-urban interface. In addition, CAL FIRE’s maps are currently in the process of being updated and lead agencies should consult with CAL 2 wildland-urban interface, wildfire risks must be considered during the environmental review process for individual development projects.

This guidance provides suggestions for how best to comply with CEQA when analyzing and mitigating a proposed project’s impacts on wildfire ignition risk, emergency access, and evacuation.
4 This guidance is aimed at proposed development projects, such as residential, recreational, or commercial developments.5 The extent to which it applies will inherently vary by project, based on project design and location. This document does not impose additional requirements on local governments or alter any applicable laws or regulations. Rather, it is intended to provide guidance on some of the issues, alternatives, and mitigation measures that should be considered during the environmental review process. This guidance is based on the Office of the Attorney General’s experience reviewing, commenting on, and litigating CEQA documents for projects in high wildfire prone areas, and is intended to assist lead agencies with their planning and approval of future projects. The guidance reflects current requirements and conditions and may need to be updated as changes occur.

II. Background
Although wildfires are and have been an important natural process throughout California’s history, recent changes in fire frequency, intensity, and location are posing increasing threats to the residents and environment of California. More acres of California have burned in the past decade than in the previous 90 years6 and eight of the State’s ten largest fires since 1932 have occurred in the last decade.
7 While lightning is a common cause of some of the State’s largest FIRE before relying on the classifications listed on this map. CAL FIRE’s list of state responsibility areas (defined as areas where the State of California, as opposed to a local agency, is financially responsible for prevention and suppression of wildfires) can be found at: https://calfire-forestry.maps.arcgis.com/ apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=468717e399fa4238ad86861638765ce1. Each county should have a map of the very high or high fire hazard severity zones in its jurisdiction, and they are also included on the CAL FIRE zone map: https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/.
4 Readers who want to determine their legal obligations under CEQA should consult their own attorney for legal advice.
5 This guidance is not intended to apply to state and local agency fire management activities, such as prescribed burns, approval of vegetation management plans to reduce wildfire risk, and review of timber harvesting plans.
6 CAL FIRE, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (Jan. 13, 2022), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov /media/4jandlhh/top20 acres.pdf. See also Hugh D. Safford et al., The 2020 California Fire Season: A Year Like No Other, a Return to the Past or a Harbinger of the Future? (Apr. 17, 2022) GLOBAL ECOLOGY AND BIOGEOGRAPHY, available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/geb.13498?af=R. 7 Paul Rogers, Map: 1 of Every 8 acres in California has Burned in the Last 10 Years. Here’s Where the Biggest Fires Spread—and are Burning Now, Mercury News (Sept. 29, 2021), available at https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/09/29/top-10-california-wildfires-megafires-map/. Notably, the large fires of late are not unprecedented in the State’s history with similarly large fires occurring specifically during the 1920s. See Jon E. Keeley & Alexandra D. Syphard, Large California Wildfires: 2020 3 fires, in recent years, many of the State’s most destructive fires have been caused by human activity, such as downed powerlines or electrical sources associated with residential development or industrial facilities.
8 Wildfires can have dramatic, adverse ecological impacts. Frequent wildfires can result in habitat loss and fragmentation, shifts in vegetative compositions, reductions in small mammal populations, and accelerated loss of predatory species.9 Wildfire can also have adverse impacts on erosion and water quality. During active burning, ash and associated contaminants can enter water supplies. Later, after large burns, rainstorms can flush vast amounts of sediment from exposed soils into those same water supplies.10
Wildfires also have tragic consequences for California’s residents. Since 2010, wildfires have killed nearly 150 people in California11 and, since 2005, wildfires have destroyed over 97,000 structures,
12 requiring mass evacuations and exacerbating the State’s already-pressing need for more housing. In addition, wildfire smoke is unhealthy to breathe and is a public health concern.13 Further, wildfire losses are not experienced equally. Lower-income households are more likely to lose all of their assets and less likely to have adequate insurance to cover their losses.14 Meanwhile, the costs of wildfire suppression and resiliency have become significant. In Fires in Historical Context (Aug. 25, 2021) FIRE ECOLOGY, available at https://fireecology.springeropen.com /articles/10.1186/s42408-021-00110-7.
8 See CAL FIRE, Top 20 Largest California Wildfires (Jan. 13, 2022), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov /media/4jandlhh/top20 acres.pdf; CalFire, Top 20 Most Destructive California Wildfires (Jan. 13, 2022), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/media/t1rdhizr/top20 destruction.pdf. 9 See Alexandra D. Syphard, et al., Human Influence on California Fire Regimes. ECOLOGICAL APPLICATION 17:1388-1402 (2007).
10 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Wildfires: How do They Affect Our Water Supplies? (Aug. 13, 2019), available at https://www.epa.gov/sciencematters/wildfires-how-do-they-affect-ourwater-supplies#:~:text=Vegetation%20that%20holds%20soil%20in,%2C%20rivers%2C%20and%20 downstream%20reservoirs.
11 CAL FIRE, Top Deadliest California Wildfires (Oct. 22, 2021), available at https://www.fire.ca.gov/ media/lbfd0m2f/top20 deadliest.pdf.
12 Headwaters Economics, Wildfires Destroy thousands of structures each year (Nov. 2020, updated Aug. 2022), available at https://headwaterseconomics.org/natural-hazards/structures-destroyed-by-wildfire/. 13 See Kurtis Alexander, California Ranks Worst in Nation for Air Pollution Because of Wildfire Smoke, S.F.

Chronicle (June 23, 2022), available at https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/california-airquality-17259687.php. See also Lora Kolodny, The West Coast Is Suffering from Some of the Worst Air in the World — These Apps Show How Bad it Is, CNBC (Sept. 13, 2020), available at https://www.cnbc.com/ 2020/09/12/air-quality-apps-purpleair-airnow-iqair-essential-in-western-us.html; and California Air Resources Board, Protecting Yourself from Wildfire Smoke, available at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ protecting-yourself-wildfire-smoke.
14 California Council on Science and Technology, The Costs of Wildfire in California (Oct. 2020), at p. 69, available at https://ccst.us/reports/the-costs-of-wildfire-in-california/. 4 2021, the State invested $1.5 billion in wildfire resiliency efforts, and the 2022-2023 budget includes an additional $1.2 billion to support wildfire and forest resilience.15 The changing nature of wildfires, under various metrics—frequency, area burned, adverse ecological impacts, the number of Californians displaced—is a worsening crisis that will unfortunately be part of California’s future.16
As of 2010, about one-third of California’s housing units were located within the wildland-urban interface.
17 Residential developments in the wildland-urban interface and other wildfire prone areas can significantly increase the risks of wildfires and the risk to public safety for several reasons. First, introducing more people—via additional development—into a flammable landscape increases the likelihood of: (1) a wildfire igniting due to the increased presence of people; and (2) the ignition becoming a wildfire because of the placement of homes amongst the flammable vegetation.
18 Second, building housing units in the wildland-urban interface puts more people in harm’s way.19 Wildfires, particularly those that impact developments in relatively remote locations, may impede the evacuation of communities and emergency access, making it more difficult to ensure public safety and to limit, control, or extinguish wildfires.

Finally, fires in remote locations require significant fire-fighting resources and mobilization of fire-fighters from all over the State—putting a major strain on the State’s fire-fighters and the State’s budget. Put simply, bringing more people into or near flammable wildlands leads to more frequent, intense, destructive, costly, and dangerous wildfires. 20 15 Gavin Newsom, California State Budget (2022-2023), at p. 61, available at https://www.ebudget.ca. gov/FullBudgetSummary.pdf; California State Budget, Budget Addendum (2021-2022), at p. 3, available at https://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetAddendum.pdf.
16 See California Council on Science and Technology, The Costs of Wildfire in California (Oct. 2020), at p. 17, available at https://ccst.us/reports/the-costs-of-wildfire-in-california/. 17 Community Wildfire Planning Center, Land Use Planning Approaches in the Wildland-Urban Interface (Feb. 2021), at p. 7, available at https://www.communitywildfire.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/ CWPC Land-Use-WUI-Report Final 2021.pdf; see also Heather Anu Kramer, et al., High Wildfire Damage in Interface Communities in California (2019) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/nrs 2019 kramer 001.pdf. At the current rate of growth and under current growth patterns, it is anticipated that an additional 645,000 housing units will be developed in areas designated by CAL FIRE as very high fire hazard severity zones by 2050. Next 10, Rebuilding for a Resilient Recovery: Planning in California’s Wildland Urban Interface (June 2021), at p. 9, available at https://www.next10.org/publications/rebuilding-resilient. 18 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) Fremontia, 47(2), at p. 29; Volker C. Radeloff, et al., Rapid Growth of the US Wildland-Urban Interface Raises Wildfire Risk.

PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, 115(13):3314-3319 (2018). 19 See Heather Anu Kramer, et al., High Wildfire Damage in Interface Communities in California (2019) International Journal of Wildland Fire, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/ nrs 2019 kramer 001.pdf; Volker C. Radeloff, et al., Rapid growth of the US wildland-Urban interface raises wildfire risk. PROCEEDINGS OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES USA, 115(13):3314-3319 (2018). 20 See Michael L. Mann, et al., Incorporating Anthropogenic Influences into Fire Probability Models:

Effects of Human Activity and Climate Change on Fire Activity in California (Apr. 28, 2016) PLOS ONE 5 III. Wildfire and Land Use Planning
While this guidance is focused on best practices to disclose, analyze, and mitigate wildfire impacts in compliance with CEQA, it is important to note that general planning also provides a critical opportunity for local jurisdictions to think proactively about how to accommodate their housing and development needs while reducing the risks of wildfire.21 In the last ten years, new legislation has passed requiring local jurisdictions to consider wildfire risks in their general planning processes.22 The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) recently published comprehensive guidance to help local agencies comply with these requirements.23 We encourage local jurisdictions to consult this guidance and to thoughtfully plan for new development given the increasing risk of wildfires throughout the state.24 11(4), available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153589; Alexandra D.

Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at pp. 28-35, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982; Alexandra D. Syphard, et al., Land Use Planning and Wildfire: Development Policies Influence Future Probability of Housing Loss (2013) PLOS ONE, available at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071708& type=printable; see also Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action re Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12 (“Statement of Reasons”), at p. 87, available at https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018 CEQA Final Statement of%20Reasons 111218.pdf.
21 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 33, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982 [concluding that “the most effective strategy at reducing future structure loss would focus on reducing the extent of low-density housing via careful land planning decisions”].
22 See Sen Bill No. 1241 (2011-2012 Reg. Sess.), amending and/or adding Gov. Code, §§ 65302, subd. (g)(3), 65302.5, subd. (b), and 66474.02) [requiring local jurisdictions within state responsibility areas or very high fire hazard severity zones to address wildfire risk when updating their safety elements and to submit their draft updates to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for review]; Sen. Bill No. 99 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), amending Gov. Code, § 65302, subd. (g)(5) [requiring updated safety elements to identify residential developments within hazard areas that do not have at least two evacuation routes]; Assem. Bill No. 747 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), adding Gov. Code, § 65302.15 [requiring local jurisdictions to update their safety element to address the capacity of evacuation routes under a range of various emergency scenarios]; Assem. Bill No. 1409 (2020-2021 Reg. Sess.), amending Gov. Code, § 65302.15 [requiring that safety elements identify locations where people can evacuate to]. 23 Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, Fire Hazard Planning Technical Advisory, 2022 Update (Aug. 2022), available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20220817-Fire Hazard Planning TA.pdf; and Wildland-Urban Interface Planning Guide: Examples and Best Practices for California Communities (Aug. 2022), available at https://opr.ca.gov/docs/20220817-Complete WUI Planning Guide.pdf. 24 Local jurisdictions that have complied with their general planning obligations, including incorporating wildfire and evacuation planning considerations into their general plans, may benefit from streamlined CEQA requirements at the project approval level. If a development project is consistent with an updated general plan and an environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared for that plan, the CEQA review for the project may be limited to the parcel-specific impacts of the project or impacts that new information, 6 IV. Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Risk Impacts Under CEQA A. CEQA’s requirements for analyzing wildfire risks
CEQA requires local jurisdictions considering development projects to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or a mitigated negative declaration25 if the project may potentially have a significant impact on the environment and is not otherwise exempt from CEQA.
26 Under CEQA, local jurisdictions may act as lead agencies with responsibility for preparing the EIR (or other CEQA document), or as responsible agencies relying on an EIR prepared by a lead agency. CEQA provides a critical process for local jurisdictions to understand how new developments will exacerbate existing wildfire risks, allowing them to consider project design features, alternatives, and mitigation measures that provide for smarter development and the protection of existing communities.

The CEQA Guidelines27 require that an EIR include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, at the time the notice of preparation is published, or if no notice of preparation is published, at the time environmental analysis is commenced. 28 This
“baseline” of existing environmental conditions is generally used to determine the significance of project-related impacts. In the EIR’s discussion of the existing environmental conditions, lead agencies should include information about open space areas and habitats within the project area that may be fire prone, as well as a discussion of fire history and fuels on the project site.

Including a discussion of existing available water supplies for fire-fighting is also critical.

Providing detail about existing environmental conditions at the project site that may exacerbate or minimize wildfire impacts will help ensure that the EIR fully considers the project’s impacts on wildfire risk.

The CEQA Guidelines require an analysis of “any significant environmental effects the project might cause or risk exacerbating by bringing development and people into the area affected,” including by locating development in wildfire risk areas.29 The “environmental checklist form” in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, Section XX, directs lead agencies to assess whether arising since adoption of the general plan, shows will be more significant than described in the prior EIR. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083.3; CEQA Guidelines, § 15193). 25 Where “EIR” is used in this guidance it should also be considered to refer to a mitigated negative declaration.
26 Pub. Resources Code, § 21067; CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15050 and 15367. 27 The CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, title 14, section 15000, et seq. 28 CEQA Guidelines, § 15125.
29 CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.2.
7 projects located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,30 would:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan;
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire;
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment; or d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.31
In addition to the four questions above, Section IX(g) of the checklist broadly directs lead agencies to consider whether a project will “expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.”32 In answering these questions, lead agencies must consider both on- and off-site impacts.33 B. Analyzing a project’s impact on wildfire risks
Several variables should be considered in analyzing a project’s impact on wildfire risk, including:
• Project Density: Project density influences how likely a fire is to start or spread, and how likely it is that the development and its occupants will be in danger when a fire starts. Fire spread and structure loss is more likely to occur in low- to intermediatedensity developments.34 This is because there are more people present to ignite a fire (as compared to undeveloped land), and the development is not concentrated enough 30 See footnote 1 for more information on state responsibility areas and very high fire hazard severity zones.
31 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, XX.
32 CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, IX(g). This Guidance focuses on these key wildfire-related questions in Sections IX(g) and XX of the checklist, but in conducting environmental review, lead agencies must continue to thoroughly address the other questions identified in Section XX and the checklist more generally.
33 CEQA Guidelines, § 15360 [defining the environment to be considered as “the area in which significant effects would occur either directly or indirectly as a result of the project”]. 34 Alexandra D. Syphard, The Relative Influence of Climate and Housing Development on Current and Projected Future Fire Patterns and Structure Loss Across Three California Landscapes (2019) GLOBAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE; Alexandra D. Syphard, et al., Housing Arrangement and Location Determine the Likelihood of Housing Loss Due to Wildfire (Mar. 28, 2012) PLOS ONE, available at https://journals.plos .org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0033954.
8 (as compared to high-density developments) to disrupt fire spread by removing or substantially fragmenting wildland vegetation.35 “Isolated clusters of development and low housing density mean that homes are embedded within, and more exposed to, a matrix of wildland vegetation.”36 Moreover, fire-fighters may have difficulty accessing more remote and disconnected developments.37
• Project Location in the Landscape: Project placement in the landscape relative to fire history, topography and wind patterns also influences wildfire risk. Although wildfire ignitions are primarily human-caused in California, wildfire behavior is largely driven by topography, fuel, climatic conditions, and fire weather (such as low humidity and high winds). How a development project is planned within the landscape determines to what extent it will influence fire risk.38 For example, if a project site is located in a wind corridor, above-ground power lines may become a source of ignition. Similarly, siting residential structures in rugged terrain or on the top of steep hills may increase the wildfire risk. By contrast, if a project site includes landscape features that could prevent or slow the spread of fire, such as a lake or an irrigated golf course, the development may be strategically located so as to capitalize on that feature as a natural fuel break.39 35 See generally Alexandra D. Syphard, et. al., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the Wildland-Urban Interface, and Structure Loss to Wildfire in California (Mar. 12, 2021) MDPI FIRE 2021. 36 Max A. Moritz, et al., Learning to Coexist with Wildfire (2014) NATURE 515(7525), at p. 64; see also Alexandra D. Syphard, et. Al., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the Wildland-Urban Interface, and Structure Loss to Wildfire in California (March 12, 2021) MDPI FIRE 2021. 37 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 31.
38 See generally Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn; Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at pp. 28-35, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982.
39 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 10, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn; see also Conservation Biology Institute, Paradise Nature-Based Fire Resilience Project Final Report (June 2020), available at https://d2k78bk4kdhbpr.cloudfront.net/media/reports/files/CBI Paradise Final Report for Posting Online.pdf [An examination of how siting and greenbelts may have protected homes during the Paradise fire]. Siting of a new fire-resistant development between wildlands and existing development may even serve as a protective barrier for the existing development. But there can still be some risk of ember spread if the new development succumbs to fire. See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at pp. 28-35, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982; California Council on Science and Technology, The Costs of Wildfire in California (Oct. 2020), at p. 67, available at https://ccst.us/reports/the-costs-of-wildfire-incalifornia/. 9 • Water Supply and Infrastructure: As part of evaluating a project’s wildfire risk impacts, an EIR should analyze the adequacy of water supplies and infrastructure to address firefighting within the project site.40 This analysis should consider the potential loss of water pressure during a fire, which may decrease available water supply41 and the potential loss of power, which may eliminate the supply.42 To understand how a project may exacerbate the risk of wildfire, an EIR should qualitatively assess these variables and also use fire modeling and other spatial and statistical analyses to quantify the risks to the extent feasible. Experts should utilize fire models to account for various siting and design elements, as well as a variety of different fire scenarios. The modeling should include scenarios for fires that start in, near, and far from the project site, as well as extreme weather conditions that exacerbate fire spread.

Lead agencies are encouraged to develop thresholds of significance that either identify an increase in wildfire risk as a significant impact or determine, based on substantial evidence, that some increase in the risk of wildfires is not considered a significant impact. Relevant factors should include the project’s impact on ignition risk, the likelihood of fire spread, and the extent of exposure for existing and new residents based on various fire scenarios. Modeling the various scenarios enables local agencies to quantify increased wildfire risks resulting from a project adding more people to wildfire prone areas and to assess the risks according to the threshold of significance.

Some EIRs have concluded that the conversion of some wildland vegetation into paved development reduces or does not increase wildfire risk. This conclusion is contrary to existing evidence and the well-accepted understanding that the fundamental driver of increased wildfire risk is the introduction of people into a flammable landscape. 43 Accordingly, the
conversion of vegetation into developed land does not obviate the need for lead agencies to carefully consider and model how the addition of development into wildfire prone areas contributes to the risk of wildfire.
40 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 19 and Appendix B, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn. 41 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020), at p. 19, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn. 42 See Alexandra D. Syphard, Nexus Between Wildfire, Climate Change and Population Growth in California (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 26.
43 See Heather Anu Kramer, et al., High Wildfire Damage in Interface Communities in California (2019) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, available at https://www.fs.usda.gov/nrs/pubs/jrnl/2019/nrs 2019 kramer 001.pdf; see also Exhibit A to the Final Statement of Reasons for Regulatory Action re Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, OAL Notice File No. Z-2018-0116-12, at p. 212, available at https://resources.ca.gov/CNRALegacyFiles/ceqa/docs/2018 CEQA ExA FSOR.pdf. 10 C. Analyzing the project’s impact on evacuation and emergency access The addition of new development into high wildfire risk or adjacent areas may impact the evacuation of project residents, as well as the existing population (e.g., residents, workers, students, visitors, and possibly livestock) in the area and the ability of emergency responders to simultaneously access the area to fight wildfire. This can, in turn, impact the risk and extent of large-scale fire spread and community safety within and around the new development. The EIR should evaluate these impacts both during construction and over the life of the project. The required analysis is relative to a project’s impacts and risks; e.g., a higher density infill project within an already developed area would likely not require the same level of analysis as a new low-density development within the wildland-urban interface and surrounded largely by open space.44
For projects located in high wildfire risk areas that present an increased risk of ignition and/or evacuation impacts, evacuation modeling and planning should be considered and developed at the time of project review and approval—when there is greater flexibility to modify a project’s design, density, siting, and configuration to address wildfire considerations—rather than deferred to a later stage of the development process. Lead agencies will be best-positioned to ensure proposed development projects facilitate emergency access and ease constraints on evacuation with this information in hand prior to project approval. The ultimate objective is to allow for informed decision-making that minimizes the environmental and public safety hazards associated with new developments that increase the risk of ignition and impede evacuation in high wildfire prone areas.

Evacuation modeling and analysis should include the following:
• Evaluation of the capacity of roadways to accommodate project and community evacuation and simultaneous emergency access.
• Assessment of the timing for evacuation.
• Identification of alternative plans for evacuation depending upon the location and dynamics of the emergency.
• Evaluation of the project’s impacts on existing evacuation plans. • Consideration of the adequacy of emergency access, including the project’s proximity to existing fire services and the capacity of existing services. • Traffic modeling to quantify travel times under various likely scenarios. 44 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020), University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 5, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn [describing the benefits of infill development].
11 In considering these evacuation and emergency access impacts, lead agencies may use existing resources and analyses, but such resources and analyses should be augmented when necessary.

For example, agencies should:
• Utilize information from the EIR’s analysis of traffic/transportation impacts, but they should not limit themselves to that information, which may not reflect the impact of emergency conditions on travel times.
• Consult with local fire officials and ensure that assumptions and conclusions regarding evacuation risk are substantiated with sound facts. Emergency conditions may not allow for ideal evacuation scenarios—staggered, staged, or targeted evacuation in response to a wildfire may sometimes be possible, but human behavior is difficult to predict and wildfires can be erratic, unpredictable, and fast-moving.45 • Consider impacts to existing evacuation plans, but recognize that, depending on the scope of an existing evacuation plan, additional analyses or project-specific plans may be needed. Community evacuation plans often identify roles and responsibilities for emergency personnel and evacuation routes, but do not necessarily consider the capacity of roadways, assess the timing for community evacuation, or identify alternative plans for evacuation depending upon the location and dynamics of the emergency.
• Avoid overreliance on community evacuation plans identifying shelter-in-place locations. Sheltering in place, particularly when considered at the community planning stage,46 can serve as a valuable contingency, but it should not be relied upon in lieu of analyzing and mitigating a project’s evacuation impacts.47 Local jurisdictions are encouraged to develop thresholds of significance for evacuation times.

These thresholds should reflect any existing planning objectives for evacuation, as well as 45 See FEMA and U.S. Fire Administration, Wildland Urban Interface: A Look at Issues and Resolutions (June 2022), available at https://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/wui-issuesresolutions-report.pdf. 46 FEMA, Planning Considerations: Evacuation and Shelter-in-Place (July 2019), available at https://www. fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/planning -considerations-evacuation-and-shelter-in-place.pdf. The distinction between temporary shelter-in-place locations and buildings designed or retrofitted for longer term shelter-in-place should also be considered. See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire:

Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020) University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, at p. 17, available at https://escholarship .org/uc/item/6n12m6pn [discussing the difference between “safety zones”—areas with little flammable vegetations, such as golf courses—versus buildings that are designed to provide protection from heat and embers while the front of a fire passes, typically for a duration of at least 30-60 minutes]. 47 See Mejia, Pepperdine University Defends ‘Shelter in Place’ Decision During Woolsey Fire, Los Angeles Times (Nov. 13, 2018), available at https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-pepperdine-shelter20181113-story.html; Chandler, Am I Going to Stay in the Parking Lot . . . While the Fires Burn Around Me?, Record Searchlight (Dec. 12, 2019), available at https://www.redding.com/in-depth/news/ 2019/04/25/california-wildfire-shelter-place-plans-questioned-evacuation-preparation/3427075002/. 12 informed expert analysis of safe and reasonable evacuation times given the existing and proposed development. Local jurisdictions should consider whether any increase in evacuation times for the local community would be a significant impact. A conclusion that an increase in evacuation times is a less than significant impact should be based on a threshold of significance that reflects community-wide goals and standards.

In establishing thresholds, local jurisdictions should consider referring to successful evacuations from prior emergencies within their community or similarly situated communities. The thresholds should include, but not be limited to, whether the project creates an inconsistency with: (1) an adopted emergency operations or evacuation plan; (2) a safety element that has been updated per the requirements in Government Code sections 65302(g)(5) and 65302.15 to integrate wildfire and evacuation concerns; or (3) recommendations developed by the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the safety of subdivisions pursuant to Public Resources Code section 4290.5.

D. Mitigating wildfire risk, evacuation, and emergency access impacts If a project presents significant increased wildfire risks and/or evacuation and access impacts, CEQA requires the lead agency to consider and adopt feasible alternatives and mitigation measures to avoid or reduce the project’s impacts (or make a finding of overriding consideration).
48 Not all project design features or mitigation measures will achieve the same reduction in impacts for every project—the effects and effectiveness of measures will vary geographically and by project. An EIR that baldly concludes that certain project design features or mitigation measures will reduce or eliminate all potential wildfire risks, without first describing those risks, fails to fully analyze the project’s impacts. Compressing the analysis of impacts and mitigation deprives decision makers of a full description of the project’s adverse impacts and, therefore, fails to equip the decision makers with the necessary information to properly address the impacts by adopting project design features, mitigation measures, or alternatives. To avoid this error and provide for better project design, the project EIR should first analyze the increased wildfire risks and evacuation impacts, and then consider feasible mitigation and alternatives to avoid or reduce those impacts.

Set forth below are some examples of potential mitigation measures and design alternatives that may reduce wildfire risk impacts. This list is not exclusive and a lead agency’s adoption of some or all of these mitigation measures for a particular project may not be sufficient to comply with CEQA’s requirement to adopt all feasible mitigation measures. • Increasing housing density and consolidated design, relying on higher density infill developments as much as possible.
• Avoidance and minimization of low-density exurban development patterns or leapfrogtype developments (i.e., those with undeveloped wildland between developed areas). 48 Pub. Resources Code, § 21081.
13 • Decreasing the extent and amount of “edge,” or interface area, where development is adjacent to undeveloped wildlands.
• Creation of buffer zones and defensible space within and adjacent to the development, with particular attention to ensuring that vegetation will not touch structures or overhang roofs.
49 It is also important that legal obligations are structured so that defensible space measures are retained over time.50
• Siting projects to maximize the role of low-flammability landscape features that may buffer the development from fire spread.
• Undergrounding power lines.
• Limiting development along steep slopes and amidst rugged terrain, so as to decrease exposure to rapid fire spread and increase accessibility for fire-fighting. • Placement of development close to existing or planned ingress/egress and designated evacuation routes to efficiently evacuate the project population and the existing community population, consistent with evacuation plans, while simultaneously allowing emergency access.
• Placement of projects close to adequate emergency services. • Construction of additional points of ingress and egress and modification of evacuation routes to minimize or avoid increasing evacuation times or emergency access response times.
• Fire hardening structures and homes—upgrading the building materials and installation techniques to increase the structure’s resistance to heat, flames, and embers—beyond what is required in applicable building codes, both for new structures and existing structures in proximity to the new development.
• Requiring fire-hardened communication to the project site including high-speed internet service.
• Enhanced communication to the project population about emergency evacuation plans and evacuation zones.
• Parking limitations to ensure access roads are not clogged with parked vehicles. • On-site water supply/storage to augment ordinary supplies that may be lost during a wildfire.

In all situations, mitigation measures should be combined and tailored to the specifics of the project, the surrounding landscape, and nearby existing uses. In some contexts, the mitigation measure itself may have an adverse impact that should be evaluated in an EIR. In addition, 49 Note, however, that defensible space around homes does not alone tend to account for structural survival. See Alexandra D. Syphard, Why Are so Many Structures Burning in California? (2020) FREMONTIA, 47(2), at p. 32, available at https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70215982; Alexandra D.

Syphard et al., The Role of Defensible Space for Residential Structure Protection During Wildfires (Oct. 14, 2014) INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF WILDLAND FIRE, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1071/WF13158. 50 See Max Moritz, et al., Building to Coexist with Fire: Community Risk Reduction Measures for New Development in California (Apr. 2020), at p. 12, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, Publication 8680, available at https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6n12m6pn. 14 mitigation measures may not provide the same level of protection or mitigation in all scenarios.
51 For example, home hardening has been shown to be an extremely effective measure for preventing structure loss during a wildfire. The California Building Code was updated in 2008 to require more advanced fire hardening and homes built to the revised standards were shown to be 40 percent less likely to be destroyed by a wildfire than similarly situated homes built prior to the update.52 However, home hardening by itself may not be an adequate mitigation measure in all situations. During the Camp Fire, which swept through Paradise in 2018, homes built before and after the 2008 Building Code update were destroyed at roughly equal rates.
53 Home hardening in conformance with the 2008 Building Code alone did not meaningfully effect survivability; rather, proximity to other destroyed structures, the extent of vegetative overstory, and defensive space around homes was more relevant to whether or not a home survived.54 While home hardening may be a worthy measure, this highlights the importance of combining measures, with an awareness to overall landscape conditions, to maximize public safety and minimize wildfire-related losses. It also demonstrates that defensive measures can improve but do not guarantee survivability, which highlights the continued importance of planning for evacuation and emergency access.

VII. Conclusion
As climate change and housing pressure continue to impact the State’s landscape, wildfire risks, and development needs, local agencies need to thoroughly evaluate where and how new development is planned and constructed. With careful forethought during the various planning processes and thoughtful environmental review at the individual project development stage, new development can be designed and positioned to minimize future wildfire risks, enhance fire resiliency of our communities, and protect the health and safety of California’s residents and natural resources. While the applicable rules, requirements, and analytical tools to reduce wildfire risk are evolving, this guidance is intended to provide suggestions for how best to comply with CEQA when analyzing and mitigating the wildfire risks of development projects in the wildland-urban interface and other fire prone areas. 51 See Alexandra D. Syphard, et. al., Multiple-Scale Relationships between Vegetation, the WildlandUrban Interface, and Structure Loss to Wildfire in California (Mar. 12, 2021), at p. 13, MDPI FIRE 2021 [noting that “the most effective fire risk reduction approach will account for multiple factors at multiple scales and will incorporate simultaneous strategies”].
52 Patrick W Baylis, et al., Mandated vs. Voluntary Adaptation to Natural Disasters: the Case of U.S.

Wildfires (Dec. 2021), National Bureau of Economic Research, available at https://www.nber.org/ papers/w29621.
53 Eric E. Knapp, et al., Housing Arrangement and Vegetation Factors Associated with Single-Family Home Survival in the 2018 Camp Fire, California (2021) FIRE ECOLOGY 17:25, available at https://fireecology. springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s42408-021-00117-0.pdf [37 percent of homes built between 1997 and 2008 survived, while 44 percent of homes built between 2008 and 2018 survived]. 54 Eric E. Knapp, et al., Housing Arrangement and Vegetation Factors Associated with Single-Family Home Survival in the 2018 Camp Fire, California (2021) FIRE ECOLOGY 17:25, available at https://fireecology. springeropen.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s42408-021-00117-0.pdf.

From: Shabina Mirajkar < >
Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2026 10:02 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Cc: Sameer Bidichandani
Subject: Public Comment Regarding 178 Twin Oaks Dr. Development Proposal [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Town Council Members,
I am writing as a concerned local resident to express my strong opposition to the proposed luxury development at 178 Twin Oaks Dr. Our community faces serious safety, environmental, and infrastructure risks if this project proceeds as currently planned.

Please submit these as public comments.
• Environmental Impact & EIR: This sensitive hillside has served as Resource Conservation Space for decades. The destruction of over 200 protected trees and habitat for local wildlife requires a comprehensive Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate alternatives and prevent irreversible biological loss. • Geologic & Slope Hazards: Building on a steep hillside inside a designated Geologic Hazard Zone poses significant risks of land movements and soil instability.

Approving extensive grading and cut-and-fill requests without a finalized erosion and sediment control plan puts down-slope properties in direct jeopardy. • Fire Safety & Evacuation: Located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, adding multi-unit residential density to narrow hillside roads creates critical safety bottlenecks. Narrow access points will severely hinder resident evacuations and impede emergency response vehicles during a wildfire.
• Traffic & Neighborhood Strain: The surrounding street infrastructure was not designed for this level of construction or daily traffic volume. The increase in vehicle trips will congest neighborhood streets, compromising safety for local families and students at nearby schools.
• Stormwater & Drainage Risks: The neighborhood already experiences local drainage and flooding issues. Introducing unvetted bioretention structures on steep slopes creates health and safety risks without offering proven, long-term stormwater management.

Los Gatos City CouncilAugust 11, 2026

Los Gatos City Council
August 11, 2026