ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
69 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
big, it 52’, but that’s only 7’ higher than would be
otherwise permissible, and it’s actually smaller than the penthouse building. So, it’s a big building, but I think, again, given where we are in the SB 330 world, it could be worse.
So, I think this, to Commissioner Stump’s
comments, leaves the CEQA traffic issue as really the only remaining one and I think the only one that really is going to impact this discussion.
In this case, an Initial Study was done, and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program were instituted, and as part of that the traffic was studied by professionals, and people who I’m glad to say are much more knowledgeable than I am on these, and I think as the Applicant noted, the numbers are the numbers. I would love to dispute them, and frankly, I am concerned about traffic, but I don’t have any evidence to argue that those numbers are wrong, and so I have to rely on our expert, and that’s what I’m going to do, so I would argue that CEQA has been satisfied in this case.
So, again, while I have issues with this project,
I wish it wasn’t next to the high school, I wish it was smaller, I don’t see grounds that allow us to deny the
project, but I would offer some suggestions.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
70 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I would like to go with Option 1 as the parking
situation. I think that better suits us and it’s a better fit for our town.
I would like the builder to work with school
officials to solve the issues that I foresee on Church
Street. Maybe there is some signaling we can use, some kind of warning lights that come out of the parking structure, something that would protect our kids in that area.
My understanding is that we’re a town that works
together in good faith. I’m looking forward to the parties working in good faith on this project, but with the record before us, I don’t see a reason where we can decline this project.
CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I agree with my fellow
commissioner’s statements. I think there are a couple of other things that I might recommend.
Again, like it said, working directly with the
high school on Safety and Logistic Plans for during
construction to make sure that we’re keeping everybody
safe.
I do want to say I think the retail hours should
be earlier.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
71 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I don't know if this would be a question for
Staff, but would we be able to make some notes in the
Conditions of Approval about not having large delivery
trucks or dump trucks at High School Court during school drop-off and leaving hours?
RYAN SAFTY: Thank you for the question. I don’t
see a reason why not, and I would actually confirm with Parks and Public Works Staff. Is there any chance we might have that currently?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: You might. I didn’t even read
it. You might read that condition.
JAMES WATSON: James Watson Parks and Public
Works. We do have conditions in there about construction traffic, travel times, haul routes, parking.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Is it the standard hours
though that we usually have in there?
JAMES WATSON: I believe it’s 9am to 3pm, but I’d
have to review the conditions.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: If we could maybe just adjust
it to be more like in the mornings not there between like 7am to 9am, and I think it’s like maybe 2pm to 3:30pm; I think those are typical. Chair Thomas has got it, like when it’s time to make a motion I can have better hours. Would that be acceptable so that we’re not having those large
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
72 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
vehicles in that section, one, for safety, but two, just for the nightmare of traffic anyway.
JAMES WATSON: We’re very open to that, and I’ll
even add to that that our encroachment inspector is always on top of school traffic and limits our contractors working in the downtown school area, and doesn’t allow any
encroachment work to begin during those traffic hindering times when there is no movement, and so we’re happy to make that condition.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I also just want to add too,
that I do agree with going with Option 1 for the parking options.
CHAIR THOMAS: I have one question for the CEQA
consultant actually related to the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and this was under AQ-1 for a mitigation
measure that all non-road diesel construction equipment will at minimum meet tier three emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, etc., and further, where feasible, construction equipment will use alternative fuel such as compressed natural gas, propane, electricity, or biodiesel.
I have a question. Most often the State of
California has stricter emission standards, but this is a case where it seems like the federal standard is what
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
73 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
applies, and when I went to go look this up it was not even linked currently on the EPA website, so I was wondering if our CEQA consultant would make a recommendation about an additional backup standard, or if that can be put into our Conditions of Approval in some way that it’s like what… Because the way that the statute is written is that since 2024 the federal government can adjust it however they see fit, and they might see fit to adjust it all the way down to nonexistent. Just wondering if the consult can offer a suggestion, or maybe the Town Attorney?
TERI WISSLER ADAM: Sure. Again, this is Teri
Wissler Adam with the EMC Planning Group, and I think we looked at this a little bit earlier, Mr. Safty and I, and suggested that maybe we could add some language to that mitigation measure that says that the tier three emission standards listed in the Code of Federal Regulations in
effect at the time this mitigation measure is adopted by the Town, so that would tie them into whatever is in effect right now.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Then I
would maybe make the recommendation, or if we could add an and/or if stricter regulations apply, then that takes
precedent. Is that a possibility?
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I’m going to defer to the CEQA
consultant.
CHAIR THOMAS: Is it a possibility to include the
standards that apply when the project application is
approved, or the most current stricter standards? I’m not anticipating, obviously, that this current administration is going to make the standards stricter, but the intent of this provision at the federal level is that it continues to become stricter over time, so it’s a possibility.
TERI WISSLER ADAM: I think that language can be
created that gives the Town the option of applying the
standard in effect as today if you adopt this mitigation measure, or stricter standard, if that’s in effect at the time of construction.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, obviously
you’re not making the findings, you’re doing a
recommendation, so we can find out whether or not that
creates any issues with the current State laws that they’re utilizing from a vesting perspective prior to getting to Council.
CHAIR THOMAS: Great, exactly. Okay, thank you.
After getting that question answered, I would like to echo what Commissioner Raspe and Vice Chair Burch have said
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
tonight. I also believe that forwarding a recommendation to Town Council to approve this is a motion that I would
support with a couple of changes, including what was just mentioned, and then the suggestions with regard to traffic and school during construction, and then lastly, just some landscaping suggestions that I have. Yes, Ms. Whelan.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: For the school, that was
construction activities only?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I made a comment concerning
coordination of the Site Logistics And Safety Plan during construction, and no allowing large delivery trucks or dump trucks to be on High School Court.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: And I think Commissioner Raspe
was speaking for operationally when the building was done, the entrance and exit from the underground parking.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Oh, that’s right. Sorry.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I suggested a flashing light
system, or we’ve all seen the buzzing, something that would protect or alert school kids as they’re walking.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Then with regard to the
construction condition, is the Commission thinking of
prohibiting trucks between 7am-9am and 2pm-4pm?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Yes.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Barnett.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
76 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I share the feelings of my
fellow Commissioners. I’ve been a resident of the Town for 44 years. I greatly sympathize with members of our
community who are appalled at the State law now, but that is our new legal environment and we don’t have a choice not to comply with it, at least without substantial negative ramifications.
I think the building height, as Commissioner
Raspe said, is not unreasonable; it could have been higher.
There was discussion about the short-term bicycle parking loss, but it is reasonable given the significant parking inside the garage.
It's a positive that the owner has made revisions
in accordance with the recommendations of the consulting architect.
I join in the preference for the two-level
parking.
The safety recommendations that we talked about
are also key.
Certainly, the addition of the below market
housing is a very positive addition for our community, even though it’s only six units.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
77 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I appreciate the open space, balconies, and
personal open space that is important to the community that will be living there.
There was the modification to the front façade,
which eliminated the vertical design feature at the Main Street entry and substituted a lower gable for the roof form, and I thought that was an excellent accommodation by the developer. Those are my basic comments.
CHAIR THOMAS: I would like to add that I agree
that more parking is preferred, however, we should note in the record for Town Council to look at and discuss that we prefer the two-level, but make the recommendation for both as is, but I’m open to hearing what my fellow commissioners think. Or maybe somebody wants to make a motion.
Commissioner Stump.
COMMISSIONER STUMP: (Inaudible) on the parking
point, more is better.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I would agree.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Yes, I agree.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Let’s forward it as a strong
recommendation to Council then for Option 1, and if you want, I can try to make a motion.
First, a question for Staff. This is a
recommendation to Town Council, not an approval?
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
78 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Correct.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Then I would move that we
recommend to Town Council that they approve the demolition of the existing commercial structures, construct a mixeduse development, 30-multi-family residential units, with commercial space on the ground floor, a Conditional Use Permit, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, and removal of large, protected trees under Senate Bill 330 on property zoned C-2, located at 143 and 151 E. Main Street.
APNs 529-28-001 and -002, Architecture and Site
Application S-24-007, Conditional Use Permit Application U24-002, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-004, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application MD-24-003,
whereas an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared.
I can make all the findings as set forth in our
Staff Report, with the additional modifications.
First, that while both parking options are
available, it is the Planning Commission’s strong
preference it use the larger parking option, which is
Option 1. That during construction, that additional traffic mitigation efforts be incorporated therein as discussed this evening, that after construction is completed that traffic mitigation continue on Church Street as discussed
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
79 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
this evening, that the hours of the commercial store be extended as earlier discussed, that the tier three
emissions shall be as set forth on the date of adoption or such stricter standard as may apply, and the additional landscaping comments made this evening. That’s my motion.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Was there something about
deliveries as well, a limitation on deliveries?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I think that was that same
comment about large delivery trucks or dump trucks on High School Court.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: That should be incorporated
with construction traffic.
CHAIR THOMAS: Is there a second? Vice Chair
Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Second.
CHAIR THOMAS: Do you want me to give the
specifics about the landscape tree options? No?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think we’ll craft it based
on the conversation this evening.
CHAIR THOMAS: Because the Applicant said that
they would be amenable to some changes of their onsite
plantings too, so I have a recommendation for that. No, you don’t want to hear it?
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 3/26/2025, Item #4,
143 & 151 E. Main Street
80 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Sure, you can provide your
recommendation.
CHAIR THOMAS: Just the columnar red maple be
swapped out for bay laurel.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: My motion is so amended.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Approved.
CHAIR THOMAS: Then something like the street
trees being vine maples or western redbuds, as I said
earlier. Thank you.
Any other discussion? I’ll call the question. All
those in favor, please raise your hand. And those opposed? The motion passes 4-2, and because it’s a recommendation, I am assuming there are no appeal rights.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: That’s correct.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you.
(END)
ITEM NO. 1.
020029.0001 4933-1774-4698.5
Miles Imwalle
D (415) 772-5786
[email protected]
May 21, 2025
Ryan Safty
Town of Los Gatos
[email protected]
Re: 143 and 151 East Main Street
Dear Ryan:
Thank you and others on the Town staff team for the effort in processing the application for the project at 143 and 141 East Main Street (“Project”). I am writing on behalf of the applicant to address a few issues as we head into the Town Council hearing: the need for a one level parking garage; cumulative impacts; and health and safety issues.
I. The Project Must Include a One Level Parking Option
The first issue we wanted to address is the Planning Commission’s stated preference for a twolevel parking garage. To be clear, we are requesting a one-level parking garage with the option for a second level, not the other way around. The purpose of proposing two options is to ensure project feasibility. While the two-level configuration (Option 1) includes more stalls, the one-level configuration (Option 2) provides enough stalls to meet market demand and it also has the important additional benefit of being much more cost effective. During these times of high construction costs and price uncertainty, it is essential that the Project approval include a onelevel configuration. We have discussed this with the Town Attorney and she has agreed that nothing prevents the Town from approving the Project with this optionality. The purpose of this letter is to be clear that we are seeking a Project with one level of parking; the second level option provides flexibility if the market supports that configuration in the future, but it is secondary to the one-level design.
II. Cumulative Impacts Have Been Addressed
During the Town’s April 7, 2025 joint study session and in more recent correspondence, concerns have been raised over the potential cumulative environmental impacts of multiple Builder’s Remedy projects being proposed across Los Gatos. Commissioners and Councilmembers questioned whether individual project-level CEQA reviews sufficiently accounted for broader, Town-wide effects. I am writing to explain why this Project does not raise such concerns. The Project stands apart in several legally and factually material respects – including its completed CEQA review, alignment with prior cumulative impact analyses, and its size and location.
ATTACHMENT 7 Page 502
ITEM NO. 1.
Ryan Safty
May 21, 2025
020029.0001 4933-1774-4698.5
A. The Project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration Adequately Analyzes Cumulative Impacts
The Town prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Project, which included a comprehensive Initial Study that evaluated potential cumulative environmental impacts, as required by CEQA. The MND was presented to the Planning Commission, and it has already recommended that the Council adopt the MND. The analysis concluded that all potentially significant impacts, including cumulative impacts, would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels. The fact that there is a Planning Commission-recommended MND for the Project places it in a distinct position compared to other Builder’s Remedy projects for which environmental review remains incomplete. With this legally compliant MND presented to the Town Council, the Town must act now and approve the Project without delay.
The reason the Town must adopt the MND is that, based on recent legislation (AB 1633), failure to adopt a legally adequate MND “effectively disapproves” a housing project and is a violation of the Housing Accountability Act. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(J); 65589.5.2.) B. The 2040 General Plan EIR Studied Sufficient Buildout Capacity to Cover the Project and the Town’s Current Development Pipeline While the MND’s cumulative impacts analysis is sufficient, we want to point out that the Town’s 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) previously analyzed a maximum residential buildout that exceeds what is currently permitted under the Housing Element plus the total number of units contained in the currently proposed Builder’s Remedy projects. That is, the 2040 General Plan EIR accounted for the cumulative impacts of the proposed Builder’s Remedy projects. To understand this, a little background is required:
• In 2022, the Town adopted the 2040 General Plan, which was studied in the 2040 General Plan EIR. That EIR assumed that the 2040 General Plan would result in an increase of 3,738 new units.
• Subsequently, the Land Use Element of the 2040 General Plan was rescinded due to a referendum. Therefore, after the referendum, the 3,738 units that had been studied were no longer permitted.
• In 2024, the Town approved the 2023–2031 Housing Element, which planned for an additional 2,312 units. The Town prepared an Environmental Assessment confirming that the 2040 General Plan EIR, which assumed 3,738 units, also covered the Housing Element, which allowed for a lower number of units.
• Before HCD certification of the Housing Element, several Builder’s Remedy projects were proposed at densities that exceed the underlying zoning. In total, these projects propose 931 more units than were planned for in the 2023–2031 Housing Element. • Concerns have been raised that the Builder’s Remedy units have not been accounted for because their density is greater than what is allowed. However, that is not true as the
ITEM NO. 1.
Ryan Safty
May 21, 2025
020029.0001 4933-1774-4698.5
total units studied in the 2040 General Plan EIR did, in fact, cover these “excess” units:
the General Plan EIR studied 3,738, which is more than 1,400 units greater than what is allowed under the new Housing Element. The Builder’s Remedy projects propose only 931 units that go beyond what was allowed by the Housing Element – leaving a remaining buffer of nearly 500 units. For reference, see Exhibit 1, which summarizes the Builder’s Remedy projects, their densities, and the unit calculations relative to the Housing Element’s and General Plan EIR’s buildout assumptions.
Although the 2040 General Plan Land Use Element was rescinded, the 2040 General Plan EIR remains valid and relevant. CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 authorizes the use of a programlevel EIR to support later project decisions when cumulative impacts have already been reviewed at a broader level. To be clear, the MND completed a Project-specific analysis of cumulative impacts and that alone is adequate CEQA coverage. However, in addition, the Town can also look to the 2040 General Plan EIR as a secondary source for cumulative impacts analysis.
Although the 2040 General Plan EIR found that full build out would result in significant and unavoidable impacts, the Project does not have cumulatively considerable contribution to those impacts:
• GHG-1 (Emissions): The 2040 General Plan would result in 5.29 MT CO₂e per service population annually by 2040 – exceeding the 1.02 MT CO₂e efficiency threshold that was in effect at the time – even with mitigation. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Project meets all four of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s performance standards and contributes its fair share toward achieving the State’s 2045 carbon neutrality goal. Further, BAAQMD has developed a new threshold of significance that is focused on ensuring that projects do not establish new infrastructure that would be inconsistent with long term GHG goals, such as by including natural gas. The Project will be all-electric and is otherwise consistent with the updated GHG threshold. Therefore, it does not contribute to this impact. • GHG-2 (Exceeding Targets): According to the General Plan EIR, the General Plan’s construction and operational emissions would exceed State and Town GHG targets and conflict with the CARB 2017 Scoping Plan, SB 32, and EO B-55-18. In contrast, as described in the MND, the Project complies with all applicable performance-based standards and does not conflict with adopted GHG reduction plans. It also meets the updated BAAQMD recommended thresholds. It therefore does not have a cumulative GHG impact.
• T-1 (Transit): Although the General Plan anticipates significant and unavoidable impacts to transit due to increased demand and congestion, the Project would generate only 17 net new daily trips and reduced trips during AM and PM peak hours. This minor amount
ITEM NO. 1.
Ryan Safty
May 21, 2025
020029.0001 4933-1774-4698.5
of additional trips did not even warrant a traffic study. This incremental contribution is negligible and will not result in a cumulatively considerable impact to transit. • T-4 (VMT): According to the General Plan EIR., the General Plan’s buildout would exceed VMT thresholds Townwide. However, this is not an issue contributed to by the Project. In comparison, the Project’s VMT per service population is 20.1 – well below the Town’s 26.1 threshold – and its total VMT contribution (1,577) is far less than 6.5% of the Countywide baseline (37,244,566). Accordingly, the Project does not have a cumulative VMT impact.
For these reasons, to the extent there are concerns about cumulative impacts, the Town can look to the 2040 General Plan EIR to confirm that the Project will not have significant cumulative impacts even when considering all proposed Builder’s Remedy projects.
III. The Project Redevelops a Commercial Use and is Isolated from other Builder’s Remedy Projects
While the above analysis shows that the Project’s cumulative impacts have been addressed, we note that the severity of most cumulative impacts depend in large part on their size and proximity to other projects. In this regard, it is noteworthy that the Project is largely isolated from other Builder’s Remedy projects. The Project is also comparatively modest in size and involves redevelopment of an existing site.
Many Builder’s Remedy projects are occurring in proximity to each other in the northern portion of Town, particularly around the junction of Highway 17 and Highway 85 where there are over 700 Builder’s Remedy units proposed. In contrast, the Project proposes only 30 units in an area of Town with few other Builder’s Remedy projects, and therefore does not contribute to localized compounding of infrastructure or transit burdens that have been the focus of recent Town discussions. As a redevelopment project, the Project’s impacts are further minimized as it is replacing existing uses, which is why it only has 17 net new trips and a reduction in AM and PM peak hour trips. Therefore, even if there are still concerns about the cumulative impacts posed by the various Builder’s Remedy projects (notwithstanding the Project’s MND or the prior analysis of the 2040 General Plan EIR, discussed above), such concerns should not be directed at the Project.
IV. The Health and Safety Exception is Very Narrow and Not Applicable Some community members have raised the question of whether denial of the Project could be justified on the basis of health and safety concerns, particularly given the Project’s location adjacent to Los Gatos High School. While we acknowledge the importance of these concerns, it is important to clarify that the health and safety exception under the Housing Accountability Act is limited in scope and is not applicable here.
ITEM NO. 1.
Ryan Safty
May 21, 2025
020029.0001 4933-1774-4698.5
Such a denial is only permissible where the Town can demonstrate that the Project violates an objective, pre-existing health or safety standard, causes a specific, adverse impact that cannot be mitigated, and is supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The statute states that it is “the intent of the Legislature” that conditions supporting this standard would “arise infrequently.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(3).) That is, the Legislature directed a presumption that housing does not typically create a health or safety impact. This is a high legal threshold, and general community concerns do not satisfy it.
Any concerns raised do not meet that high legal threshold and, in any event, the applicant has taken great care to ensure that any safety issues are meaningfully addressed. The Project has undergone detailed environmental and safety review through its MND, which was recommended for adoption by the Planning Commission. The MND and Project Conditions of Approval (“COA”) include several measures that directly address concerns raised by the School District/High School in the May 8, 2025 letter, including:
• Restriction on Time-of-Day Construction Deliveries: COA #110 prohibits material delivery vehicles from parking or dropping-off along High School Court during school commute hours (7:00–9:00 AM and 2:00–4:00 PM) on days the school is in session.
This condition addresses the concerns raised about construction conflicts with pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle activity around the High School. • Safety Coordination with Los Gatos High School: COA #105 requires that the Contractor develop a detailed Project Safety Plan in coordination with the School District specifically addressing traffic control, pedestrian detours, noise, and student safety during peak school hours. Additionally, the developer must prepare a Construction Management Plan (COA #22; MM AQ-1) and a Transportation Demand Management Plan (COA #84) to ensure ongoing coordination with Town staff and emergency services to maintain pedestrian safety and minimize vehicle conflicts. • Garage Safety Design: COA #85 requires that the Project include audible and visual warnings at the Church Street garage entrance to aid pedestrians, particularly those with visual and hearing impairments.
• Pedestrian and Traffic Safety at High School Court: The School District expressed concern about potential sight line obstructions at the intersection of High School Court and East Main Street. However, the Project would actually improve sight lines compared to the existing condition. While both the existing and proposed buildings abut the sidewalk, the existing building is closer. In addition, based on feedback from Public Works and in compliance with Town Standard Drawing ST-232, the Project includes angled corners to address safety and sight line issues. Compliance with this standard directly addresses the sight line concern. The Hexagon study also evaluated sight lines
ITEM NO. 1.
Coblentz
Patch Duffy
& Bass LLP
Ryan Safty
May 21, 2025
at the Church Street garage entrance and found no safety impact. The Town has included COA #75, which requires ongoing compliance with this sight line standard.
We appreciate the concerns expressed by members of the community, including the School District. However, we believe that the Project as designed and conditioned responds to these concerns. And to be sure, none of the issues rise to the level of an objective, unmitigable public health or safety impact that would justify denial under State law. Instead, the Project's response demonstrates thoughtful, meaningful engagement and a commitment to safety-first development.
V. Conclusion
For all the reasons set forth above, the Project should not be delayed due to generalized cumulative impact concerns or speculative health and safety claims. We urge the Town to proceed with confidence in the existing legal and environmental framework and allow this wellconsidered, community-oriented Project to advance without further delay.
Very truly yours,
Pta Lo
Miles Imwalle
Cc: Joel Paulson ([email protected])
Gabrielle Whelan ([email protected])
David Blatt ([email protected])
Ken Rodrigues ([email protected])
Craig Spencer ([email protected])
020029.0001 4933-1774-4698.5
Ryan Safty
May 21, 2025
020029.0001 4933-1774-4698.5
at the Church Street garage entrance and found no safety impact. The Town has included COA #75, which requires ongoing compliance with this sight line standard.
We appreciate the concerns expressed by members of the community, including the School District. However, we believe that the Project as designed and conditioned responds to these concerns. And to be sure, none of the issues rise to the level of an objective, unmitigable public health or safety impact that would justify denial under State law. Instead, the Project's response demonstrates thoughtful, meaningful engagement and a commitment to safety-first development.
V. Conclusion
For all the reasons set forth above, the Project should not be delayed due to generalized cumulative impact concerns or speculative health and safety claims. We urge the Town to proceed with confidence in the existing legal and environmental framework and allow this wellconsidered, community-oriented Project to advance without further delay.
Very truly yours,
Miles Imwalle
Cc: Joel Paulson ([email protected])
Gabrielle Whelan ([email protected])
David Blatt ([email protected])
Ken Rodrigues ([email protected])
Craig Spencer ([email protected])
ITEM NO. 1.
Exhibit 1
Summary of Town Builder’s Remedy Projects and Comparison to General Plan and Housing Element Buildout Capacity
Exhibit 1
Summary of Town Builder’s Remedy Projects and Comparison to General Plan and Housing Element Buildout Capacity
Exhibit 1
Summary of Town Builder’s Remedy Projects and Comparison to General Plan and Housing Element Buildout Capacity
Exhibit 1
Summary of Town Builder’s Remedy Projects and Comparison to General Plan and Housing Element Buildout Capacity
Exhibit 1
Summary of Town Builder’s Remedy Projects and Comparison to General Plan and Housing Element Buildout Capacity
Exhibit 1
Summary of Town Builder’s Remedy Projects and Comparison to General Plan and Housing Element Buildout Capacity
ITEM NO. 1.
Housing Element Buildout Builder's Remedy Units Builder's Remedy Net Units (minus Housing
Property* Project Name Assumptions** Proposed*** Element assumptions) 1/101 S. Santa Cruz Ave Post Office 58 58
2|14849 Los Gatos Blvd North 40 - Single Building 27 120 93 3115300 and 15330 Los Gatos Blvd {ACE Hardware 48 175 127 41178 Twin Oaks Dr Surrey Farms 12 12
5114288 Capri Dr Capri Fruitstand 119 119
6115495 Los Gatos Boulevard Newtown 238 238
71980 University Ave Cryptic 68 68
81647 N Santa Cruz State Farm 11 11
9114789 Oka Road Walnut Orchard 26 138 112
10] 143-151 E. Main Street Café Dio 30 30
11/101 Blossom Hill Road Oswalt Building 63 63
TOTALS 101 1032 931
2023-2031 Housing Element Builder's Remedy Net Units Total Units 2040 GP Max Buildout Remaining Capacity
2,312 931 3,243 3,738 495
* Although eligible for Builder's Remedy, the Los Gatos Lodge, Genuine Automotive, and the North 40 Phase II - Multi-Building projects do not invoke Builder's Remedy protections, and are not included above. Other projects listed above also may not invoke BR, potentially increasing the available remaining capacity under the 2040 GP Max Buildout.
** See Housing Element pages D-38 (Site D-6), D-22 (Site C-1), and D-43 (Site E-2). *** Current figures from City's "SB 330 Application Tracker" as of May 5, 2025.
Town BR Projects - Development Tracker - Draft 4918-7841-7205 v.3.xlsx
Project Name
Housing Element Buildout
Assumptions**
Builder's Remedy Units
Proposed***
Builder's Remedy Net Units (minus Housing
Element assumptions)
1 101 S. Santa Cruz Ave Post Office 58 58
2 14849 Los Gatos Blvd North 40 - Single Building 27 120 93 3 15300 and 15330 Los Gatos Blvd ACE Hardware 48 175 127 4 178 Twin Oaks Dr Surrey Farms 12 12
5 14288 Capri Dr Capri Fruitstand 119 119
6 15495 Los Gatos Boulevard Newtown 238 238
7 980 University Ave Cryptic 68 68
8 647 N Santa Cruz State Farm 11 11
9 14789 Oka Road Walnut Orchard 26 138 112
10 143-151 E. Main Street Café Dio 30 30
11 101 Blossom Hill Road Oswalt Building 63 63
101 1032 931
Builder's Remedy Net Units Total Units 2040 GP Max Buildout Remaining Capacity 931 3,243 3,738 495
Property*
TOTALS
2023–2031 Housing Element
2,312
* Although eligible for Builder's Remedy, the Los Gatos Lodge, Genuine Automotive, and the North 40 Phase II - Multi-Building projects do not invoke Builder's Remedy protections, and are not included above.
** See Housing Element pages D-38 (Site D-6), D-22 (Site C-1), and D-43 (Site E-2). This column conservatively assumes zero for all sites that are not Housing Element Sites, even though residential may be allowed. This overstates the "excess" number of Builder's Remedy units. *** Current figures from City's "SB 330 Application Tracker" as of May 21, 2025.
Town BR Projects - Development Tracker - Draft 4918-7841-7205 v.3.xlsx
ITEM NO. 1.
C 2024 KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, INC.
PROJECT NO.DRAWN BY SCALE
DATE
K E N N E T H R O D R I G U E S & P A R T N E R S I N C . 4 4 5 N o r t h W h i s m a n R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 M o u n t a i n V i e w . C A 6 5 0 . 9 6 5 . 0 7 0 0
38.675
CHECKED BY
AS SHOWN
151 EAST MAIN STREET
LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA
LOS GATOS
MIXED-USE
01.15.2024
APN# 529-28-001APN# 529-28-002
REVISIONCONSULTANTS
06.15.2024 1ST REVISED SUBMITTAL10.30.2024 3RD REVISED SUBMITTAL 131 EAST MAIN ST,
BRICK & CONCRETE ROOF
PEAK ELEVATION = 407.7± FEET
C H U R C H
S T R E E T
E A S T M A I N S T R E E T
H I G H S C H O O L C O U R T DEMO BUILDING 151 EAST MAIN ST, ONE STORY CONCRETE BUILDING ROOF PEAK ELEVATION = 400.6 ±FEET 143 EAST MAIN ST ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY ENTRY
EXISTING OFF-SITE STREET
TREE TYPICAL
2 A0.11
3 A0.11
A0.11
1 4
A0.11
05.19.2025
NOTES
SEE LANDSCAPE PLANS FOR DEMOLITION OF
EXISTING TREES. REFER TO STREET T-1.0 FOR
ON-SITE TREES TO BE REMOVED AND
REPLACEMENT TABLES & NEW PROPOSED TREES
EXISTING PARKING
22 STALLS
TOTAL FLOOR AREA
7,225 SF
EXISTING ON-SITE TREES (3) TO BE REMOVED.
SEE SHEET T-1.0,T-1.1 & T-1.2 FOR ON-SITETREES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACEMENTTABLES OF NEW PROPOSED TREES
EXISTING
LANDSCAPE AND
CONCRETE WALKS
OUTLINE OF EXISTING
BUILDING
OUTLINE OF PROPOSED MIXED
USE BUILDING
9'-4"
5'-11"
3'-2"
.
. 0'-8"
1'-6"
4'-11"
ITEM NO. 1.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2025 5:55 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15772 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Kyunam
Last Name Shim
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
143 and 151 East Main Street
Message (Required) Dear Los Gatos Planning Department,
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed
development at 143 and 151 East Main Street, which would introduce 30 housing units on a narrow roadway in a fire-prone area of Los Gatos.
This part of town is within a designated high wildfire risk zone.
In the event of a fire or other emergency, the only available evacuation route is a single, narrow road. The addition of 30 households in this location would significantly increase traffic congestion and could severely hinder evacuation efforts, putting the lives of both existing and new residents at risk.
I respectfully urge the City of Los Gatos to reconsider this development or ensure that comprehensive safety measures and alternative evacuation plans are in place before any approval is granted. With wildfire threats becoming increasingly frequent and severe, prioritizing public safety is more important than ever.
ITEM NO. 1.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
Sincerely,
Kyunam Shim
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
ITEM NO. 1.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:55 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15863 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Field not completed.
Last Name Field not completed.
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number Field not completed.
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
143-151 E. Main St
Message (Required) Letter to Council requesting EIR for SB 330 projects Add An Attachment if
applicable
scan0789.pdf
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
From: cory fuller
Sent: Friday, May 2, 2025 12:40 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment: Special Meeting 143-151 E. Main Street [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good morning -
I write to support this project that I believe is special in that it actually accomplishes something very rare in our Town. Namely, new housing in our downtown core that is desperately needed to reduce our car dependence and builds in walkability.
This is housing that will provide customers and parishioners to the businesses and churches and all that is downtown, We should welcome that if we care about our downtown businesses.
It is also important because in 2025 families come in all shapes and sizes and we need variations of missing middle housing to accommodate this fact.
Finally, it is modest in size and scope compared to the seven story, hundreds of units developments we are increasingly seeing. 30 units is a nice small size perfect for our small Town feel.
Thank you,
Cory Fuller
ITEM NO. 1.
From:
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2025 10:08 PM
To: Joel Paulson <[email protected]>
Cc: Town Manager <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Clarification Request Regarding Builder’s Remedy and the Status of the January 30, 2023 Housing Element
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To: Mr. Joel Paulson, Director of Community Development From: Los Gatos Community Alliance -
Date: May 5, 2025 Email 1
Dear Mr. Paulson,
I am writing to request clarification regarding the legal status of the Town’s Housing Element adopted on January 30, 2023, and its relationship to Builder’s Remedy eligibility for projects filed during the intervening period before state certification on July 10, 2024.
The Staff Report for 143 and 151 E Main Street project states the Town’s sixth cycle Housing Element was certified by HCD on July 10, 2024. It further notes that the preliminary application for the project was vested as of May 3, 2024—prior to certification—and therefore qualifies as a Builder’s Remedy project.
However, the April 30, 2025, Staff Report to the Planning Commission regarding the N40 development contains the following statement:
“Although this project meets the new definition of a ‘builder’s remedy project,’ the applicant instead has chosen to be subject to the Town’s Housing Element adopted on January 30, 2023, and the NF-SP zoning in effect on the vesting date of April 18, 2023….” This appears to suggest that the January 30, 2023 Housing Element was legally valid and applicable to projects after the date of adoption.
This contradicts the prior assertion.
ITEM NO. 1.
Could you please clarify the following:
1. Was the January 30, 2023 Housing Element considered legally in effect at any time before state certification on July 10, 2024?
2. If it was not, does that mean any project vested during that window from January 31, 2023 until July 10, 2024 would qualify as a Builder’s Remedy project under State Housing Law?
3. Can a project applicant voluntarily choose to adhere to the provisions of the Housing Element adopted January 30, 2023 and applicable zoning, even though it was not certified by HCD and found to not comply with State Housing Law?
4. Does that waive their ability to invoke Builder’s Remedy, even if they would otherwise qualify?
This clarification is essential for accurately interpreting project applications and guiding applicants on their rights and obligations under current housing law.
Thank you for your guidance on this matter.
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
ITEM NO. 1.
-----Original Message-----
From: Lulu Yahoo <
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Dio condo
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear council members,
I am writing to let you know that we strongly oppose the development of the condo building at the cafe dio site. This plan is unbelievably irresponsible. We as neighbours can’t even imagine who would come up with such idea and what their motivation is other than destroy this town.
My son was hit by a car while riding his bike two winters ago right in front of the high school.
It’s all because the traffic was so bad and the cars are driving so aggressively and impatiently to get through. How on earth did this project pass environment impact evaluation such as traffic and parking? Accidents involve cars and bikes happen quite a bit on LG blvd during the commute hours, adding this condo will put all the kids going to school on foot or bike in an even more dangerous situation. If the project goes through despite of community outcry, then the city would be accountable for the consequences, isn’t it?
Lulu
ITEM NO. 1.
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 10:46 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Online Form Submission #15874 for Community Development Contact Form [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Community Development Contact Form
First Name Youn Jung
Last Name Ko
Email Address
(Required)
Phone Number Field not completed.
Tell Us About Your
Inquiry (Required)
Comment Regarding A Planning Project
Address/APN you are
inquiring About
(Required)
143-151 E Main Street
Message (Required) Subject: Concerns Regarding Proposed Development at 143– 151 E. Main Street
Dear City Council / Planning Commission
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed development of a 30-unit building at 143–151 E. Main Street, directly adjacent to the only high school in our city.
The high school is already facing long-standing issues of overcrowding, and introducing a high-density residential project in such close proximity would only exacerbate the situation.
While development may appear beneficial in general, this specific project could overwhelm our already strained
infrastructure.
Furthermore, a new three-story building in this area would likely trigger additional redevelopment in the surrounding
neighborhood, altering the character of our historic downtown.
The streets in this area are only one lane in each direction and
ITEM NO. 1.
are not equipped to handle increased traffic. This poses safety concerns for both residents and high school students,
especially during peak hours.
In addition, the site lies within a wildfire-prone area. In the event of an emergency evacuation, access is currently limited to a single narrow road. Increasing residential density in this location would make evacuation efforts more difficult and dangerous.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the city to reconsider or closely re-evaluate the proposed development at 143–151 E.
Main Street. The safety, accessibility, and quality of life of our community must remain a top priority.
Sincerely,
Youn Jung(Lucy) Ko
Add An Attachment if
applicable
Field not completed.
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
ITEM NO. 1.
From: Magary, Kate
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 4:51 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: 151 & 143 Main Street condo development comment [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi,
I am a science teacher at LGHS and I would like to say I appreciate the town building more housing near downtown. In fact, I would like to encourage more housing (of any kind) that is affordable for teachers given the high cost of housing in the county and the lack of affordability for public employees including teachers and classified district staff. I live in Mountain View and our local elementary district has partnered with the city to build affordable housing for school district employees.
I would also like to make sure that the town's plan includes traffic safety at the intersection where this is to be built. A traffic study should be done along E. Main Street and Los Gatos Blvd. including the crosswalks adjacent to LGHS. The long stretch of road without stop signs or lights is scary as a driver and I worry about our students crossing safely and drivers being able to safely exit the parking lot and planned garage along High School Court.
Additionally, some of the crosswalks along this street (from downtown all the way to Blossom Hill) could use more pedestrian visibility at the unprotected intersections and crossings, such as lights to alert drivers when pedestrians are in the crosswalk. Given how many young students are walking along this route, not just from LGHS but also Van Meter and Fisher, it is important to protect their routes to school.
Kate Magary
Physics and AP Physics 1 teacher - Los Gatos High School Room 306
ITEM NO. 1.
-----Original Message-----
From: Anna Sanders
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 5:49 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment regarding the proposed 30-condo unit development at 151 & 143 Main Street (Cafe Dio site)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To the Members of the Town Council:
I’m a long time Los Gatos resident and a parent of a Los Gatos High school student, and I strongly oppose the building of 30-condo unit near Los Gatos High school for the reasons provided below:
- noise and dust from the construction which will disrupt high school classes - potentially unsafe situations due to the construction site so close to high school - adding up to already dire traffic and parking situation in the downtown and particularly near high school
- adding up to already high population density of Los Gatos town and thus putting a toll on our public schools and other important infrastructure, including kids’ infrastructure.
Unfortunately, there is a feeling that Town Council doesn’t have the best interests of currents residents at heart. Los Gatos already seems to be not very kid friendly town, with underwhelming playgrounds that are wearing out and in need to be renovated; with nonexistence of kids centers or indoor playgrounds; with lack of overall kids’ infrastructure.
Instead of addressing these issues, yet another housing unit (among other housing proposals) is about to be approved.
I think it is time for the Town Council to prove that current residents and their interests matter the most, and not to put our high schoolers in jeopardy. If not just money matters for Town, but the quality of life, Town Council needs to reject that housing proposal near Los Gatos High school.
ITEM NO. 1.
From: lucia gehrkre <
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 5:59 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Cafe Dio development
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello,
As a lifelong resident of Los Gatos and alum of LGUSD and LGHS, I was shocked to hear of the plan to put apartments next to LGHS. If you have ever had to drive down E. Main at pick up or drop off, you know extreme traffic you will be forced to navigate. As a parent of two LGHS students, I have to say I fear an emergency in or near LGHS. There is no way emergency personnel, parents, students and staff will be able to get in or out of this area.
There is no solution to the traffic issues, but adding apartments will just exacerbate an already dangerous situation. I hope you see this extreme danger and vote no on this development.
Please help save this our kids and community from a very unnecessary danger.
Thank you.
Lucia Arredondo
Blossom Hill teacher and proud LGHS parent.
ITEM NO. 1.
From: Montgomery Kersten
Sent: Monday, May 5, 2025 7:45 PM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Condo development near LG High School
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
As a resident of Los Gatos, and with three sons attending Los Gatos High School, I strongly object to any approval of this development.
The reason is the density of traffic in this area is already completely bumper to bumper, and adding more residents to this area, and the time of construction will simply destroy the ability of any citizen or student to drive in this area. Getting to and from the High School will be impossible. Why would we do this to our community for some real estate developer's profits?
Today, every morning and every afternoon, high school traffic totally paralyzes all streets around the high school.
Were construction of the proposed development to begin, forever after our students will be eternally late to classes, and to pickup.
I am stunned this proposal was ever approved by any aspect of Los Gatos' Planning Department.
I urge the members of our Town government who read this message to themselves get in their car tomorrow and drive to the 7/11 by the High School by 8:15AM, and then just watch how traffic is impossible now. Then turn right out of the 7/11 and go down the street all the way to the exit for Highway 17 and watch the mile long line of cars hoping to get to the high school. NOW: imagine what it would be were this project to be approved: NO movement of cars whatsoever.
We can stop this stupidity now.
Montgomery Kersten
Los Gatos
ITEM NO. 1.
From: James Lloyd
Sent: Tuesday, May 6, 2025 2:40 PM
To: Matthew Hudes <[email protected]>; Rob Moore <[email protected]>; Mary Badame <[email protected]>; Rob Rennie <[email protected]>; Maria Ristow <[email protected]>
Cc: Wendy Wood <[email protected]>; Clerk <[email protected]>; Chris Constantin <[email protected]>; Gabrielle Whelan <[email protected]>; Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: public comment re item 1 for 5/6/25 Council meeting [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits the attached public comment re item 1 for tonight's Council meeting, the proposed 30-unit “Builder’s Remedy” project at 143 and 151 E. Main Street, which includes 6 low-income units.
Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/
ITEM NO. 1.
May 6, 2025
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main St.
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 143 and 151 E. Main Street To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Los Gatos Town Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Town of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 30-unit “Builder’s Remedy” project at 143 and 151 E. Main Street, which includes 6 low-income units.
These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”) and SB 330.
Under the HAA,1 a city (or town) may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least 20 percent of the total units to lower households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city's housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1).2) This statutory provision temporarily suspends the power of non-compliant municipalities to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) The Town’s Housing Element was not in substantial 2 These code section numbers correspond to the HAA as it existed when the preliminary application for the project at issue was submitted (i.e. before AB 1893 went into effect). 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA.
However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under the previous version of the law. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (f)(7)(A).) 2221 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org
ITEM NO. 1.
compliance with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted.
The Town must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed.
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will bring new customers to local businesses; it will grow the Town’s tax base; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the Town to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.
Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
2 of 2
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
From: Dana Juncker
Sent: Thursday, May 8, 2025 10:54 AM
To: Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Condo Development, Cafe Dio location
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Good morning,
I am writing to express my concern with the condo development at the Cafe Dio location near the high school.
Has there been a traffic safety study done? There is already traffic issues around the high school. Parking issues and limitations on parking that make it almost impossible to do business, grocery shop in Los Gatos anymore. I'm also very concerned about emergency response times to the high school.
If the planned developments actually go in at the Cafe Dio and Los Gatos Lodge locations, there needs to be some serious traffic and emergency response planning for the area. The town council cannot just green light development projects without infostructure planning.
And planning for the worst-case scenario at the school and how the emergency response is going to get there. How about another road that runs through the Los Gatos Lodge property direct to the highschool? Cutting off the need to go around on Los Gatos Blvd/N Santa Cruz Avenues to reach the highschool.
Someone needs to be on the side of the town and the kid's safety. Not just Governor Newsom's pawn. The Council is doing a disservice to the people and the businesses by greenlighting these projects and not letting the town know how it will all function cleanly, safely and respectfully.
Where's the plan?
Thank you,
Dana Juncker
"Come to the woods, for here is rest" ~ John Muir
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.