PREPARED BY: Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Town Manager, Assistant Town Manager, Town Attorney, and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
SPECIAL MEETING DATE: 05/27/2025
ITEM NO: 1
DESK ITEM
DATE: May 27, 2025
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: Chris Constantin, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Consider a Recommendation by the Planning Commission to Adopt a Resolution to Approve Architecture and Site, Conditional Use Permit, Subdivision, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Applications to Demolish the Existing Commercial Structures, Construct a Mixed-Use Development (30 Multi-Family Residential Units) with Commercial Space on the Ground Floor, Approve a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, and Remove Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned C-2. APNs 529-28-001 and -002. Located at 143-151 E. Main Street. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Architecture and Site Application S-24-007, Conditional Use Permit Application U-24-002, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-004, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-24-003. Property Owner: David Blatt, CSPN LLC.
Applicant: Kenneth Rodrigues and Partners, Inc. Project Planner: Ryan Safty.
REMARKS:
Attachment 11 includes the visual presentation prepared by staff regarding Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) and State Density Bonus Law.
Attachment 12 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 2025.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 143-151 E. Main Street/S-24-007, U-24-002, M-24-004, and ND-24-003 DATE: May 27, 2025
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachments previously received with the May 22, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration – March 21, 2025 (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2225)
2. Draft Resolution making the required findings and approving the applications subject to the Conditions of Approval (included as Exhibit A)
3. March 26, 2025, Planning Commission Staff Report, with Exhibits 2 through 22
4. March 26, 2025, Planning Commission Addendum, with Exhibit 23
5. March 26, 2025, Planning Commission Desk Item, with Exhibit 24
6. March 26, 2025, Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes
7. Applicant Letter from Legal Team
8. Existing and Proposed Building Footprint Comparisons
9. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Thursday, May 22, 2025 Attachment previously received with the May 23, 2025 Addendum Report:
10. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Thursday, May 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025
Attachments received with this Desk Item Report:
11. Visual presentation prepared by staff regarding Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) and State Density Bonus Law
12. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, May 23, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, May 27, 2025
Builder’s Remedy & SB 330
Town Council
May 27, 2025
Senate Bill 330
• Government Code Section
65941.1 authorizes
applicants to submit a
“preliminary application.”
Senate Bill 330
• “Preliminary application”
vests applicant to
development standards in
place at that time.
Senate Bill 330
• 143-151 E. Main Street
applicant vested prior
to HCD’s certification of
the Town’s Housing
Element.
Builders Remedy
• A Housing Element is one of the
required elements of a
jurisdiction’s General Plan and
must accommodate the
jurisdiction’s Regional Housing
Needs Allocation.
Builders Remedy
• The Town’s Regional
Housing Needs
Allocation is assigned
by the Association of
Bay Area Governments.
Senate Bill 330
• This applicant vested
prior to Housing Element
certification by HCD and
is using the Builder’s
Remedy.
Builders Remedy
• For residential development
projects that include very low, low,
or moderate-income households,
Section 65589.5 limits agency
disapproval or imposition of
conditions that render a project
infeasible.
Builders Remedy
1)Permissible grounds are:
a.Agency has adopted a Housing
Element that “substantially
complies” with state law and has
met or exceeded its Regional
Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”)
for income categories proposed by
project;
Builders Remedy
b. Project as proposed would have a
specific, adverse impact upon
public health or safety, and there is
no feasible method to satisfactorily
mitigate or avoid the specific,
adverse impact without rendering
the development unaffordable;
Builders Remedy
i.“Specific, adverse impact” means a
significant, quantifiable, direct, and
unavoidable impact, based on
objective, identified written public
health or safety standards, policies, or
conditions as they existed on the date
the application was deemed
complete.
Builders Remedy
c. Denial or imposition of
conditions is required in order to
comply with specific state or
federal law, and there is no feasible
method to comply without
rendering the development
unaffordable;
Builders Remedy
d.The housing development project is
proposed on land zoned for agricultural or
resource preservation that is surrounded
on at least two sides by land being used
for agricultural or resource preservation
purposes, or which does not have
adequate water or wastewater facilities to
serve the project.
Builders Remedy
e. Project is inconsistent with Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan land use
designation and on the date the SB
330 preliminary application was
deemed complete, the agency had
adopted a revised housing element
that was in substantial compliance
with state law.
Senate Bill 330
1. Agencies are limited to five hearings
on an application;
2. CEQA applies.
QUESTIONS
Brent Knudsen
Los Gatos, CA 95030
May 25, 2025
By Email, to:
Matthew Hudes, Mayor ([email protected]) Maria Ristow, Council Member ([email protected]) Rob Moore, Vice Mayor ([email protected]) Chris Constantin ([email protected]) Mary Badame, Council Member ([email protected]) Ryan Safty ([email protected]) Rob Rennie, Council Member ([email protected])
Town of Los Gatos
110 East Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: 143 and 151 East Main Street Application
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Council Members, Mr. Constantin, and Mr. Safty:
I write to you believing we share a mutual love for Los Gatos and desire to maintain the beauty and community of one of the truly great towns of Northern California. 30 years ago, our family was considering communities to live in as we relocated to the area. We found Los Gatos to be a unique place of old-world community in the center of new world commerce – a perfect combination. Our three children attended Los Gatos High and we’ve been active in community and church activities. With our home and businesses just blocks from the high school we love hearing the band play, the cheering of football games, even grad night all night long. The views of the hills, the community feel, the people who live here because they love it – this is Los Gatos and is why I write you today.
I think we join with most members of the Los Gatos community who would welcome an appropriate development on this prime sight, but as my friend Peter Rehon quoted me in his letter to the Town Council, this is the wrong peg for this hole. You know it and we know it, but much like the emperor with no clothes, new California laws, including the Builder’s Remedy, have frightened the Town Council and Planning Commission into focusing more on the trees planted on the proposed site vs the lives and community that could be lost.
My study of the Builder’s Remedy and associated laws and regulations lead me to conclude that there are three reasons this proposed development is not appropriate: 1) severe safety issues, in perhaps the most vulnerable place of our community; 2) the aggregate impact when considering other developments in process; and 3) appropriateness for the community overall.
We trust you to represent and strengthen the character of our community and to protect us and our children. Do any of us really believe that a 4 story, 30 condo, 80 parking space, retail area across from a large high school and church that houses a pre-school protects the safety of our community? Do we really believe that 80 parking spaces and 30 condos averaging 2 people/cars each would result in 17 additional cars per day as suggested at the Planning Commission? I’m not a traffic expert but the numbers above don’t mix with high school students on bikes (regular/electric), high school cars, parents and business traffic (note my wife and I both have offices within blocks of the site), to equal an additional 17 cars. That conclusion has no clothes, and we all know it.
The original proposal for this site was 3 levels since 4 stories exceeds town zoning for the area. Our suggestion is not that the site remain undeveloped; but that the Town Council work with a developer to assure the right peg in the hole, perhaps 2 tasteful stories – retail and/or residential. The laws don’t just allow but require the town to do the right thing. The right thing for the safety and character of the community is to consider the safety and aggregate impact of all developments now in process, including one behind the high school, who the LGHS principal reports has been very courteous and constructive.
Let’s build our great community together. We trust you. Let’s not be asking ourselves “what were we thinking” even if one child is injured or worse. The trees won’t matter when lives are lost.
My very best.
Brent R. Knudsen
From: Shim, Kyu-Nam
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2025 5:04 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item 143 and 151 E. Main Street Mixed-Use Project (PUBLIC
HEARINGS )
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Written Public Comment for Town Council Meeting
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Development at 143-151 East Main Street Submitted by: Kyunam Shim
Address: Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council,
I am writing to submit this public comment in opposition to the proposed housing development at 143-151 East Main Street, which would introduce 30 residential units on a narrow roadway in a high wildfire risk area of Los Gatos.
This site lies within a designated wildfire hazard zone, and the only available evacuation route is a single, narrow road. Adding 30 new households would significantly increase congestion and could critically obstruct emergency evacuation efforts, putting both current and future residents at serious risk.
Several nearby streets—including College Avenue, Cleland Avenue, Reservoir Road, Jackson Street, and Alpine Avenue—all converge onto East Main Street, which serves as the primary evacuation route for the area. The proposed development sits directly along this critical corridor and would almost certainly create a choke point during emergencies, further jeopardizing public safety.
Tragic precedents highlight the danger of such decisions. In the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, CA, 85 lives were lost as residents were unable to evacuate in time due to traffic gridlock on narrow mountain roads. In 2023, the Lahaina fire in Maui claimed at least 99 lives amid severe evacuation delays caused by traffic congestion. In 2025, dozens died in the Palisades and Altadena wildfires in Los Angeles, where many residents were trapped in stalled evacuation traffic.
This is not a distant or hypothetical concern. In 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fire burned over 86,000 acres in the nearby Santa Cruz Mountains and forced more than 77,000 residents to flee. The fire demonstrated how quickly conditions can deteriorate in regions like ours—and how limited evacuation routes can become deadly. Los Gatos is not exempt from this threat. Worrying about evacuation routes is not a matter of preference or fear—it is a matter of public safety and life.
Additionally, approving this project would likely set a precedent for further development along East Main Street. Once this project is approved, it becomes much more difficult to deny similar proposals, potentially compounding the safety and infrastructure risks across the broader community.
I respectfully urge the Town Council to deny this proposal or ensure that robust fire mitigation strategies and alternative evacuation plans are fully established before any approval is granted. With wildfires growing more frequent and severe, protecting lives must be the town’s highest priority.
Thank you for considering this comment.
Sincerely,
Kyunam Shim
Written Public Comment for Town Council Meeting
Subject: Opposition to Proposed Development at 143-151 East Main Street Submitted by: Kyunam Shim
Address: , Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Mayor and Members of the Town Council,
I am writing to submit this public comment in opposition to the proposed housing development at 143-151 East Main Street, which would introduce 30 residential units on a narrow roadway in a high wildfire risk area of Los Gatos.
This site lies within a designated wildfire hazard zone, and the only available evacuation route is a single, narrow road. Adding 30 new households would significantly increase congestion and could critically obstruct emergency evacuation efforts, putting both current and future residents at serious risk.
Several nearby streets—including College Avenue, Cleland Avenue, Reservoir Road, Jackson Street, and Alpine Avenue—all converge onto East Main Street, which serves as the primary evacuation route for the area. The proposed development sits directly along this critical corridor and would almost certainly create a choke point during emergencies, further jeopardizing public safety.
Tragic precedents highlight the danger of such decisions. In the 2018 Camp Fire in Paradise, CA, 85 lives were lost as residents were unable to evacuate in time due to traffic gridlock on narrow mountain roads. In 2023, the Lahaina fire in Maui claimed at least 99 lives amid severe evacuation delays caused by traffic congestion. In 2025, dozens died in the Palisades and Altadena wildfires in Los Angeles, where many residents were trapped in stalled evacuation traffic.
This is not a distant or hypothetical concern. In 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fire burned over 86,000 acres in the nearby Santa Cruz Mountains and forced more than 77,000 residents to flee. The fire demonstrated how quickly conditions can deteriorate in regions like ours—and how limited evacuation routes can become deadly. Los Gatos is not exempt from this threat. Worrying about evacuation routes is not a matter of preference or fear—it is a matter of public safety and life.
Additionally, approving this project would likely set a precedent for further development along East Main Street. Once this project is approved, it becomes much more difficult to deny similar proposals, potentially compounding the safety and infrastructure risks across the broader community.
I respectfully urge the Town Council to deny this proposal or ensure that robust fire mitigation strategies and alternative evacuation plans are fully established before any approval is granted. With wildfires growing more frequent and severe, protecting lives must be the town’s highest priority.
Thank you for considering this comment.
Sincerely,
Kyunam Shim
From: Victor Sergienko
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2025 8:57 PM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Cc: Люся
Subject: Public Comment Item #1 (143-151 E. Main Street development) [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Officer,
We are homeowners on Carlton Ave, and we have a child in Los Gatos High School.
Our family is strongly opposed to the development proposed at https://mccmeetings.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/losgatos-pubu/MEET-Agendad59047b34b99495cb318725b2029a142.pdf .
First, traffic in the downtown area is already heavy. For example, at high school time, it's a disaster - when people need to get to work!
Add 50 cars from 30 new units parked in the streets, add their guests' cars, and the scale of the disaster will double.
Second, the proposed building is too large and tall for the historic part of the city; it does not fit the city's character and is unnecessary for the center and its residents.
Third, its location near a school threatens student safety, which is unacceptable.
Fourth, the project plans to remove old historic trees in a city that has temperatures above 100 degrees for six months a year, where every green plant is vital.
We did not move to this small green town to see it turned into concrete jungles.
Best regards and with the hope for a reasonable decision, Victor Sergienko, Lucy Schehlova.
From: Reilly Musser
Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 7:42 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment re: 151 & 143 Main Street
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
I oppose the 30-unit condo unit at 151 & 143 Main Street. The development will add congestion to our downtown roads. The size of the building is not meant to be downtown LG. This development will also add to congestion during high school pick up, drop off and lunch. It will also add new neighbors that may feel the need to complain about the high school kids or high school traffic and then will want to the high school to make concessions. Los Gatos is not meant for the high-density housing is being approved. We need more restaurants and retail sites, not housing. In general, the town council needs to stop approving the high-density housing units – its ruining the small town feel of Los Gatos.
Thank you for your consideration,
Reilly Musser