Agenda packet, special meeting — Los Gatos City Council, June 3, 2025 (part 3 of 3)

ITEM NO. 1.

GARDEN LANE

LOS GATOS BOULEVARD
DN
BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG D
BLDG A
BLDG E

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY
6'-6"
7'-0"
4'-0" CLR.

VTA TRANSIT ROUTE 27 STOP
(EXISTING)

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

10.23.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

CIRCULATION EXHIBIT
1" = 20'-0"
N
24013
0' 20' 40'
1" = 20'

VTA TRANSIT STOP

CLASS I (LONG-TERM) BICYCLE PARKING

CLASS II (SHORT-TERM) BICYCLE PARKING
LEGEND
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL (MIN. 4' CLEAR). ACCESSIBLE ROUTE AS

INDICATED ON PLAN IS A BARRIER FREE ACCESS ROUTE WITHOUT ANY ABRUPT LEVEL CHANGES EXCEEDING 1/2" IF BEVELED AT A 1:2 MAX SLOPE, OR VERTICAL LEVEL CHANGES NOT EXCEEDING 1/4" MAX, AND AT LEAST 48" IN WIDTH. SURFACE IS STABLE, FIRM, AND SLIP RESISTANT.

CROSS SLOPE DOES NOT EXCEED 2% AND SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL IS LESS THAN 5%, AS MEASURED WITH A 2' LEVEL, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FREE OF OVERHANGING OBSTRUCTIONS TO 80" MINIMUM AND PROTRUDING OBJECTS GREATER THAN 4" PROJECTION FROM WALL (ABOVE 27" BUT LESS THAN 80" HIGH).

ALTERNATE PEDESTRIAN ROUTE (DIFFERENTIATED WITH DISTINCT PAVER

PATTERN WHERE SHARED ACCESS OCCURS WITHIN ALLEY)

VAN ACCESSIBLE STALL AND
LOADING AISLE, S.C.D.

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL

SHOWN TO FRONT ENTRY AT

ACCESSIBLE UNITS (REFER TO

ARCHITECTURE)

PERMEABLE PAVERS IN

DISTINCT PATTERN TO
DENOTE "SHARED ACCESS"

AREA AT ALLEY

LIGHTER AREA DENOTES
"PRIVATE RECREATION
SPACE" AT ABOVE-GROUND
LEVEL DECK OR BALCONY.

Page 373 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

DN
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
BLDG B
BLDG C
BLDG D
BLDG A
BLDG E

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY
(2) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(27) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(109) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(11) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(2) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(7) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(27) LAV DEN
5 GAL.
(6) TEU PRO
1 GAL.
(5) TEU PRO
1 GAL.
(5) TEU PRO
1 GAL.
(4) PRU CAR
5 GAL.
(6) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(15) LAV DEN
5 GAL.
(3) TEU PRO
1 GAL.
(3) TEU PRO
1 GAL.
(10) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(1) LAU NOB
15 GAL.
(9) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(2) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(12) ROS MEI
5 GAL.
(3) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(4) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(2) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(6) LAG NAT
15 GAL.
(2) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(3) TEU PRO
1 GAL.
(10) TEU PRO
1 GAL.
(810 sf) TUR SOD
SOD
(1) CLY CAL
5 GAL.
(2) CLY CAL
5 GAL.
(3) CLY CAL
5 GAL.
(2) CLY CAL
5 GAL.
(2) CLY CAL
5 GAL.
(4) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(2) PRU CAR
5 GAL.
(7) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(5) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(35) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
3" LAYER OF

BARK MULCH IN

ALL PLANTER
AREAS, TYP.

PLANT MATERIAL 3'

CLEAR OF FIRE

APPURTENANCES PER

NFPA STANDARDS,
EXCEPT GROUNDCOVERS, TYP.

PLANT MATERIAL MIN. 3'

CLEAR OF FIRE

APPURTENANCES PER

NFPA STANDARDS, EXCEPT
GROUNDCOVERS, TYP.
3" LAYER OF

BARK MULCH IN

ALL PLANTER
AREAS, TYP.

KEEP PLANTING 1'

CLEAR AT BACK OF
CURB FOR "STEP
OUT" SPACE. 3"

LAYER OF BARK
MULCH, TYP.

KEEP PLANTING 1'

CLEAR AT BACK OF
CURB FOR "STEP
OUT" SPACE. 3"

LAYER OF BARK
MULCH, TYP.

ENLARGED TREE WELLS FOR
NEW STREET TREES (MIN. 4' X
8', ROOT BARRIERS REQUIRED),
TYP.
(1) ELA DEC
15 GAL.
(9) MAG LIT
15 GAL.
(10) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(2) CIT VAR
15 GAL.

EVERGREEN SHRUBS
3'-4' HIGH TO SCREEN

PARKED CARS AND

UTILITY EQUIPMENT,
TYP.
(3) CIT VAR
15 GAL.
(5) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(2) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(53) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(1) ULM EMR
24" BOX
(7) MAG LIT
15 GAL.
(2) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(17) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(82) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(16) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(2) ROS MEI
5 GAL.
(13) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(19) ROS MEI
5 GAL.
(41) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(6) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(3) PIT VAR
15 GAL.
(142) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(11) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(33) ROS MEI
5 GAL.
(38) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(18) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(1) LAU NOB
15 GAL.
(3) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(18) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(11) DIE IRI
5 GAL.
(40) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(8) RHA MIN
5 GAL.
(15) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(2) PIT VAR
15 GAL.
(3) CLY CAL
5 GAL.
(19) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(16) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(36) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(68) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(8) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(2) CLY CAL
5 GAL.
(3) ULM EMR
24" BOX
(1) LAU NOB
15 GAL.
(135) BUX WGM
5 GAL.
(11) TRA JAS
1 GAL.

NEW 4' WIDE (MIN.) PARKWAY
STRIP WITH TREES ±25' O.C.,

REQUIRES ROOT BARRIERS
(40) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(8) PLA COL
24" BOX
SIGHT DISTANCE PER AASHTO, TYP. NO SHRUB EXCEEDS 3',
TREE CANOPY WILL BE MAINTAINED MIN. 15' FROM STREET AND MIN. 7' FROM SIDEWALK PER TOWN STANDARD PLAN ST-231

GARDEN LANE

LOS GATOS BOULEVARD
(7) ULM EMR
24" BOX
(109) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(1) ULM EMR
24" BOX
(10) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(131) CAR DIV
1 GAL.
(15) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(27) TRA JAS
1 GAL.
(41) CAR DIV
1 GAL.

SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT SIZE
TREES
CIT VAR CITRUS X VAR. / DWARF CITRUS AS AVAILABLE
WUCOLS (M), DWARF VARIETIES 15 GAL.

ELA DEC ELAEOCARPUS DECIPIENS / JAPANESE BLUEBERRY TREE WUCOLS (M), 30'H X 15-25'W 15 GAL.

LAG NAT LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI 'NATCHEZ' / NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE WUCOLS (L), 20'H X 20'W 15 GAL.

LAU NOB LAURUS NOBILIS / SWEET BAY
WUCOLS (L), 30'H X 10-25'W 15 GAL.

MAG LIT

MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 'LITTLE GEM' / LITTLE GEM DWARF SOUTHERN MAGNOLIA WUCOLS (M), 20-25'H X 10-15'W, SELECTED FOR SMALL NARROW FORM DUE TO

AVAILABLE PLANTER AREA
15 GAL.

PLA COL
PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA `COLUMBIA` / LONDON PLANE TREE
WUCOLS (L), 30-35' H X 30-35'W, USED SPECIFICALLY TO MATCH EXISTING TREES ACROSS LOS GATOS BLVD.
24" BOX
ULM EMR ULMUS PROPINQUA 'JFS-BIEBERICH' / EMERALD SUNSHINE® ELM WUCOLS (L), 35'H X 25'W 24" BOX
SHRUBS
BUX WGM BUXUS MICROPHYLLA JAPONICA `WINTER GEM` / WINTER GEM JAPANESE BOXWOOD WUCOLS (M), 2-3'H X 2-3'W (PRUNED) 5 GAL.

CLY CAL CLYTOSTOMA CALLISTEGIOIDES / VIOLET TRUMPET VINE WUCOLS (M), 15-25'H X 10-20'W 5 GAL.

DIE IRI DIETES IRIDIOIDES / FORTNIGHT LILY
WUCOLS (L), 2-3'H X3-4'H 5 GAL.

LAV DEN LAVANDULA DENTATA / FRENCH LAVENDER
WUCOLS (L), 2-3'H X 4-5'W 5 GAL.

PIT VAR PITTOSPORUM TOBIRA `VARIEGATA` / VARIEGATED MOCK ORANGE WUCOLS (L), 3-4'H X 4'W (PRUNED) 15 GAL.

PRU CAR PRUNUS CAROLINIANA / CAROLINA CHERRY LAUREL
WUCOLS (L), 8-10'H X 6-8'W 5 GAL.

RHA MIN RHAPHIOLEPIS UMBELLATA 'MINOR' / DWARF YEDDA HAWTHORN WUCOLS (L), 3-4'H X 3-4'W 5 GAL.

ROS MEI ROSA X `MEIRADENA` / ICECAP™ FLORIBUNDA ROSE
WUCOLS (M), 3'H X 4'W 5 GAL.

SYMBOL CODE BOTANICAL / COMMON NAME CONT WATER USE SPACING

GROUND COVERS

CAR DIV CAREX DIVULSA / EUROPEAN GREY SEDGE
WUCOLS (M) 1 GAL. M 20" o.c.

TEU PRO TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS `PROSTRATUM` / PROSTRATE GERMANDER WUCOLS (L), 4-6"H X 3-4'W 1 GAL. 18" o.c.

TRA JAS TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES / STAR JASMINE
WUCOLS (M), 1-2' T. X 6-8' W. 1 GAL. 30" o.c.

TUR SOD TURF SOD / DROUGHT TOLERANT FESCUE BLEND

WUCOLS (H) SOD

PRELIMINARY PLANTING LEGEND

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

10.23.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY PLANTING PLAN
L3
1" = 20'-0"
N
24013
0' 20' 40'
1" = 20'

WATER USE CALCULATIONS
LOS GATOS GREEN IS A TRADITIONALLY STYLED DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TOWNHOMES DESIGNED AROUND ACTIVE LIFESTYLES.

COMMUNITY IS CREATED AROUND A CENTRAL COURTYARD, REPLETE WITH FIREPIT, MOVEABLE FURNISHINGS, OPEN RECREATIONAL LAWN, AND SHADE TREES THAT ALL SAY "SIT AND STAY A WHILE." A GROVE OF CITRUS TREES CREATES AN OASIS OF EDIBLE PLANTING,

WHILE A MEDITATION GARDEN TUCKED AWAY FROM THE BUSTLE OF BUSY STREETS OFFERS A PLACE FOR CONTEMPLATION AND QUIET CONVERSATIONS.

CONSISTENT TREES AT EACH STREET FRONTAGE PROVIDE A WELCOMING PRESENCE AND VISUAL IDENTITY. LONDON PLANE TREES

MIRROR EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ACROSS LOS GATOS BLVD, WHILE A SMALLER, IMPROVED VARIETY OF ELM IS APPROPRIATELY SCALED FOR GARDEN LANE. A MIXTURE OF FLOWERING CRAPE MYRTLES AND EVERGREEN DWARF MAGOLIAS ENSURE THAT FLOWERS AND FOLIAGE ARE ATTRACTIVE YEAR ROUND. AT THE GROUND PLANE, BOXWOOD, ROSES, LAVENDER, AND MOCK ORANGE ARE A FEAST FOR THE SENSES, WHILE RECALLING TRADITIONAL GARDEN FORMS COMMON TO THE ARCHITECTURAL VERNACULAR.

IRRIGATION WILL BE PROVIDED VIA A CENTRAL, COMMON SYSTEM. PER THE CITY'S WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (WELO), A "SMART" SELF-ADJUSTING CONTROLLER, MASTER VALVE, FLOW SENSOR, COMBINATION OF INLINE DRIP AND MULTI-TRAJECTORY

MULTI-STREAM ROTATING (MTMSR) NOZZLES, AND DEDICATED HYDROZONES BASED ON WATER USE AND PLANT TYPE WILL ENSURE THAT WATER IS USED EFFICIENTLY, AND ONLY WHERE IT'S NEEDED. WATER CONSERVATION WILL BE ENHANCED BY A MINIMUM OF 3" OF BARK MULCH, TO INCLUDE RECYCLED CONTENT PER SB 1383.

WHERE PROVIDED AT BUILDINGS C AND D, COURTYARDS LOW PICKET FENCES AND GATES ENSURE VISIBILITY (MINIMUM 50% OPEN), WHILE PROTECTING PRIVACY. LANDSCAPE WITHIN THESE COURTYARDS WILL BE IRRIGATED AND MAINTAINED BY EACH HOMEOWNER.

LANDSCAPE DESIGN STATEMENT

SHRUBS SCREEN UTILITIES (INCLUDING CABINETS AND

EQUIPMENT), TO EXTENT POSSIBLE WHILE CONFORMING TO
ACCESS AND CLEARANCE REQUIREMENTS.

KEYNOTES
1 1
2 MIN. 30" HIGH, ANTICIPATED 36"-42" HIGH
MIN. 36" HIGH, ANTICIPATED 42"-48" HIGH
MIN. 42" HIGH, ANTICIPATED 48"-60" HIGH
2 3
2 1
2

Page 374 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

10.23.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE - TREES & LARGE SHRUBS
1" = 20'-0"

Page 375 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

10.23.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

L5
1" = 20'-0"

CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE

SHRUBS, GROUNDCOVERS, AND VINES

Page 376 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

10.23.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

FURNISHING & MATERIAL PALETTE
1" = 20'-0"

WHITE PICKET FENCE AT FRONT

YARD AREAS (OR EQUAL)
NOTE: MATERIAL & PRODUCT SHOWN ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE STYLE, FEATURES AND DESIGN INTENT ONLY.

MANUFACTURER AND/OR MODEL OF FINAL PRODUCTS MAY VARY BASED ON AVAILABILITY AND OTHER FACTORS.

SELECTIONS TO BE CONFIRMED DURING FINAL DESIGN.

CLUSTER BOX UNIT (OR EQUAL)
FIRE PIT (OR EQUAL; WOOD BURNING) MOVEABLE FURNISHINGS RECREATIONAL TURF (NATURAL LAWN)

CLASS I (LONG-TERM) BICYCLE LOCKER (OR
EQUAL)

CITRUS GROVE

CLASS II (SHORT TERM) BICYCLE

RACK (OR EQUAL)

METAL WASTE RECEPTACLE (OR EQUAL)

PERMEABLE PAVERS

CONCRETE PAVING

DECOMPOSED GRANITE
RETAINING WALL BLOCK: 8" X 8" X 16" CMU,

SPLIT FACE WHERE EXPOSED, LIGHT
CREAM/BEIGE COLOR (BASALITE 128 OR

SIMILAR)
RETAINING WALL CAP: MEDIUM GRAY,
SMOOTH OR LIGHTLY TEXTURED, 3" TALL,

CHAMFERED/DECORATIVE EDGES

PRECEDENT IMAGERY MATERIALS

SITE FURNISHINGS
BOLLARD LIGHT (OR EQUAL):

DENALI STAFF STYLE STAR
STYLE "L" LED, DIST. BY B-K
LIGHTING. COLOR: BLACK
POLE LIGHT (OR EQUAL): TOLBOD

11.4 POST BY LOUIS POULSEN, DIST.

BY B-K LIGHTING. COLOR: BLACK

Page 377 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

10.23.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY DETAILS
1" = 20'-0"
5'-0"
CLR.
8'-0" CLR.

WORKING
SPACE
3'-0"
MIN.

TYPICAL TRANSFORMER SCREENING
1/8" = 1'-0" PLAN
VARIES
A. TRANSFORMER SHOWN; OTHER

EQUIPMENT SIMILAR
NOTES

LARGER EVERGREEN SCREEN

SHRUBS IN ADDITION TO, OR IN

LIEU OF, NARROW UPRIGHT

SHRUBS WHERE SPACE ALLOWS

HIERARCHY OF LARGER

SHRUBS, MID-GROUND

SHRUBS, AND GROUNDCOVER
(WHERE SPACE ALLOWS)
MINIMUM SCREENING: UPRIGHT EVERGREEN
SHRUBS WITHIN ALLOWABLE "CLEAR
WORKING AREA," APPROXIMATELY 3' WIDE,
BUT LESS THAN 5' TALL (SPACED FOR FULL

SHRUB-TO-SHRUB COVERAGE AT MATURITY)

REQUIRED CLEARANCE FROM PG&E

EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING PAD) TO TREES, PER
PG&E GREENBOOK 1.10.1
GROUNDCOVER ONLY WITHIN 8' OF

EQUIPMENT ACCESS DOORS PER PG&E
DOCUMENT 063422

EDGE OF TRANSFORMER PAD,
MAXIMUM 90" X 106" SIZE SHOWN
TREES MIN. 5' CLEAR FROM

EQUIPMENT TO TRUNK

BICYCLE RACK(S)
1" = 1'-0" AS NOTED
A. "VARSITY DOCK" RACK AS MANUFACTURED BY GROUND CONTROL SYSTEMS, CONTACT:
800.630.7225.

B. SURFACE MOUNT USING "WAK-215" WEDGE ANCHOR KIT PROVIDED WITH RACK C. INSTALL PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

D. QUANTITY SIZE, COLOR, AND OTHER OPTIONS AS SPECIFIED ON PLANS.

NOTES
PLAN 7'-0" MIN. CLEAR FOR PARKING
4'-0" MIN. CLEAR FOR LOADING
5'-0" CLR. RECOMMENDED FOR LOADING
SURFACE MOUNTING KIT (DV-215)

WITH EXPANSION ANCHORS AND

INJECTION MOLDED SUPPORT

BLOCK, AVAILABLE THROUGH
GROUND CONTROL SYSTEMS.

CONCRETE OR PAVING PER
PLANS
SECTION MIN. 2'-0" PER BICYCLE PARKING "STALL," 4'-0" CLR. PER SINGLE "RACK" 1 2

CLUSTER MAILBOX UNIT (CBU) INSTALLATION
1" = 1'-0" OR AS NOTED AS NOTED
Ø1/2" (8 PLACES)
1'-0" 4" 4" 28 1
2"
10"
1'-0"

ELEVATIONS
(1570-12 PEDESTAL) 1'-0" 6"
10"
1'-6"
16 3
4" 62 3
4" 34 1
4"
30 1
2" 14 1
2"
1'-0" 4"
10" 6" 1'-0"
10" 4"
1'-0"
1'-6"
16 3
4" 62 3
4" 48 1
4"
30 1
2"
RUBBER
PAD

RUBBER PAD
SUBGRADE, SCARIFY TOP 6", MOISTURE
CONDITION, AND COMPACT TO 90%
RELATIVE DENSITY.
1/2"Ø J-BOLT, (4) PER

PEDESTAL, SPACING
PER TEMPLATE. 3" MIN. CLR.

CONCRETE SHALL ACHIEVE
3,000PSI WITHIN 28 DAYS, AND
BE PLACED WITH 3.5" TO 4.5"
MAXIMUM SLUMP.

WELDED WIRE
MESH, 6"X 6" (W2.9
X W2.9), CENTERED

IN SLAB
4"
MIN.

ENGLARGED SECTION

AT FOOTING
NOTES 6", VIF

ELEVATIONS
(1570-16 PEDESTAL)
A. INSTALL CBU'S PLUMB AND LEVEL.

B. CONCRETE PAD SHOWN SHALL BE INSTALLED AT 2% MAX. SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE SITE CONDITIONS

AND IF REQUIRED, REPORT ANY OBSTRUCTIONS OR ADDITIONAL

WORK, INCLUDING REQUIRED RETAINING CONDITIONS, TO BUILDER PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID.

C. VERIFY USPS APPROVED NUMBER, QUANTITY AND LOCATION OF CBU'S PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.

D. APPROVED MANUFACTURER/UNIT: CUSTOM HOME ACCESSORIES
MODEL #1570-XX (XX= 8, 12, OR 16 UNIT MODELS), COLOR: DARK BRONZE.

E. MAILBOXES MUST NOT INTERFERE WITH REQUIRED VISIBILITY CLEARANCES.

Ø1/2" (8 PLACES)

PLAN AT CBU
1/2" = 1'-0"
CL
FLUSH

TRANSITION
60" MIN. DIA.

ACCESSIBLE TURNING
CIRCLE

OUTLINE OF

SINGLE CBU

EXISTING
SIDEWALK 5" TYP. INCREASE TO 2'-0" WHERE REAR ACCESS IS REQUIRED BY LOCAL POSTMASTER 4'-0" FOR SINGLE

CBU INSTALLATION
6'-10" FOR DOUBLE CBU INSTALLATION

ALIGN CL OF SINGLE

CLUSTER BOX, OR CL OF
GROUP, AT PL U.N.O.

OUTLINE OF

DOUBLE CBU

LIMIT OF CONCRETE PAD

FOR SINGLE CBU
60" MIN. DIA.

ACCESSIBLE TURNING

CIRCLE EXTENDED AT

DOUBLE CBU

FACE OF
UNIT 3'-2" TYP: VIF 1'-3", VIF 4'-0" TYP.: VIF
3

Page 378 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

10.23.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

PRELIMINARY FENCE/WALL DETAILS
1" = 20'-0"

PICKET FENCE WITH GATE
3/4" = 1'-0" ELEVATION
POSTS SPACED EQUALLY, 6'-0" MAX. O.C.

A. MATERIAL: REDWOOD, CEDAR, OR "AZEK" CELLULAR

PVC (PAINT GRADE)
B. ALL HARDWARE SHALL BE GALVANIZED.

C. COLOR: GATE LATCH AND MINGES SHALL BE FLAT
BLACK EXTERIOR ENAMEL. ALL WOOD SHALL BE

PRIMED AND PAINTED TWO COATS WHITE EXTERIOR
ENAMEL
NOTES
MIN 2" CLR.
2 X 2 PICKETS W/ 1:2

CHAMFERED TOP (ALL SIDES)
2 X 4 RAILS W/ 3/8"

COVED EDGES

ORNAMENTAL GATE
LATCH
2 X 2 CROSS BRACING

INSIDE GATE
±3'-6" (VIF)
3'-0"
MITERED 2 X 4 GATE

FRAME (BOTH SIDES)
4X4 POST WITH 1:2
CHAMFERED TOP (ALL SIDES) 3'-4" (3'-8" MAX) 4"
6 X 6 POSTS MIN. 2' BELOW
GRADE W/ 8"Ø DIA. CONC FTNG. MIN. 34" MAX 48" TO CENTER OF LATCH WHERE REQUIRED AT ACCESSIBLE ROUTES/ACCESS 2'-10" 1 SIDEYARD FENCE WITH GATE
3/4" = 1'-0" AS NOTED 2" CLR.
3'-0" GATE LEAF
2" CLR.
8'-0" O.C. MAX SPACE EVENLY 6'-0"
10" X 10"
GUSSET

PANELS,

EXTERIOR
RATED

PLYWOOD
(INT. SIDE)
2 X 4 GATE
FRAME (INT.

SIDE)
2 X 4

DIAGONAL

BRACE INSIDE
FRAME (INT.

SIDE)
2 X 6 CAP TO

MATCH FENCE

FINISH GRADE

ADJACENT POST

OR LEDGER AT

ADJACENT WALL
(SECURE LEDGER
TO BUILDING FRAMING WITH 1/4" X 4" LAG
SCREWS AND WASHER, COUNTERSUNK.

APPLY SILICONE CAULKING PRIOR TO

INSERTING LAG SCREW)
2 X 6 CAP, CENTER

ALL JOINTS ON
POSTS
4 X 4 POST,

PRESERVATIVE

TREATED WOOD
PER CRC 317.1.

FINISH GRADE

CONCRETE FOOTING PER
ASTM F537, SLOPE TOP FOR

POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY

FROM POST

ALIGN AND

RIP BOARDS

TO PROVIDE
FULL

BLOCKING AT

EACH SIDE OF
GATE
NOTES

ELEVATION
(PUBLIC SIDE)

SECTION

GATE ELEVATION
(AT PUBLIC

FACING SIDE)

PLAN AT GATE
(CAP OMITTED

FOR CLARITY)
PLAN
(CAP OMITTED

FOR CLARITY)
A. ALL FASTENERS SHALL

BE HOT DIPPED,

ZINC-COATED

GALVANIZED PER CRC
317.3.1.

B. ALL WOOD SHALL BE

DOUGLAS FIR OR

WESTERN RED CEDAR,
#2 OR BETTER, U.N.O.

C. STEP FENCE AT
POSTS. FOR GRADES
1:6 (17%) OR GREATER,

SLOPE PANELS WITH
GRADE.

RAILS FACE

PRIVATE SIDE
PUBLIC
SIDE

HEAVY-DUTY
HINGE, TYP.

OF THREE
LATCH, MAX.
60" ABOVE

FINISH GRADE
1/2 X 4 TRIM, TYP.
(TOP AND BOTTOM
ONLY)
1 X 8 BOARD,
TYP., OVERLAP
1-1/2"
2 X 4 RAIL,
TYP. (OPP.

SIDE)
2 RETAINING WALL
3/4" = 1'-0" AS NOTED

ELEVATION AT RETAINING WALL

PRECAST WALL CAP
(BASALITE 8" WIDE,

CHAMFER BOTH SIDES, SEE
'MATERIALS' FOR COLOR

FINISH GRADE
A. REFER TO PLANS FOR

EXACT LOCATION AND
HEIGHT.

B. REFER TO

STRUCTURAL PLANS

FOR FOOTINGS AND
REINFORCEMENT.

NOTES
8" CMU
WALL

SECTION 'C'

CAP AT CMU WALL

CMU UNIT, SPLIT FACE

TEXTURE AT ALL EXPOSED

SIDES, COLOR PER
'MATERIALS'

WOOD FENCE ABOVE
(WHERE OCCURS, NOT
SHOWN)
3

Page 379 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER
DN
METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER
METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY
SL
SL
SL
SL SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL

KHALID TARRAR

CITY VENTURES

ELEC REP

GAS REP

TELE REP

BEN LOPEZ
224044 925-240-2595

ELECJOBNO

GASJOBNO

TELEJOBNO

CATVJOBNO
224044

ELECPHNO

GASPHNO

TELEPHNO
669-216-0022
925-389-8632

JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLAN

JOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILS

JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEET

JOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS
SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION

JOINT TRENCH DETAILS
JT5
JT4
JT1
JT2
JT3
1125 L.F. OF JOINT TRENCH AND WALL MOUNTED LIGHTS

SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH THIS JOINT TRENCH PLAN SET

EX GAS
JT

EX JT
SVC
ECOH
EEOH
ECUG
EEUG
ETUG
ETOH
GAS
CUG
EUG
TUG
UOH
EUOH
EUUG

HIGH VOLTAGE

SUBSTRUCTURE VERIFICATION STAMP

APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL

HAIDER KAMMOONAH

QUALIFIED APPLICANT DESIGN ENGINEER
-

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS BLVD.

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
224044
SCALE:

JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE TITLE SHEET
N.T.S.
(5) NEW SERVICE COMPLETIONS (ELECTRIC, CATV, AND TELEPHONE TO (5) BUILDINGS THAT INCLUDE (47) CONDOMINIUM UNITS)
N
DESCRIPTION: BY: DATE: STATUS:

XXXX
XXXX

TARRAR UTILITY CONSULTANTS
ROACH CAMPBELL LANDSCAPE ARCH.

TARRAR UTILITY CONSULTANTS
A = APPROVED · ANS = APPROVED NOT SIGNED · NA = NOT APPROVED· F = FIRST SUBMITTAL · SS = SECOND SUBMITTAL · R = RECEIVED XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
XXXX
R
R

XX-XX-XXXX

XX-XX-XXXX
10-15-2024
10-15-2024
XXXX

BENJAMIN LOPEZ

XXXX XX-XX-XXXX XXXX
10-15-2024 R
10-15-2024 R
CBG
HUNT HALE JONES ARCHITECTS 09-10-2024 R

Page 380 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

10.23.2024

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
224044
SCALE:

JOINT TRENCH GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS
N.T.S.

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT

Page 381 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
"A"
"B"

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS BLVD.

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
224044
SCALE:

JOINT TRENCH DETAILS
N.T.S.

Page 382 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS BLVD.

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
224044
SCALE:

JOINT TRENCH SECTIONS AND DETAILS
N.T.S.

Page 383 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY
METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER
DN
METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER
METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGINGONLY

EX SD

EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS

EX SS

EX WT EX WT

EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT

EX WT

EX WT
FIRE
FIRE

EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT

WT WT WT
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
FIRE
SS
SS
SS
SD
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
FIRE

SD SD SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

EUOH EUOH EUOH
EUOH
EUOH

EUOH EUOH

EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH
EUOH

EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH

EX GAS

EX GAS
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG

EX GAS

EX GAS
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG
EEUG

EX GAS

EX GAS EX GAS EX GAS
EUOH

EUOH EUOH
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT
JT

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS BLVD.

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
224044
SCALE:

JOINT TRENCH COMPOSITE PLAN
1" = 20'
·
·
·

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY

INTENT TO CONSTRUCT

Page 384 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

ESL
SL
X

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS BLVD.

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

STREET LIGHTING GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS
NA

Page 385 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Aɸ
Bɸ

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS BLVD.

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

STREET LIGHTING GENERAL NOTES AND DETAILS
NA

Page 386 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER
DN
METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER
METER
STACK

TESTBLOCK & METER
HOUSE
PANEL
SPACE
FOR LV
PULL
MAIN
FEEDER
METER
STACK
METER
STACK
SPACER

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY

EV CHARGING
ONLY
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT

WT WT WT
SD
SD
FIRE
FIRE
FIRE

FIRE FIRE
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
FIRE

FIRE FIRE
SS
SS
SS
FIRE
FIRE
SD
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
WT
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
FIRE

SD SD SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SS
SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT
JT

JT JT JT JT JT JT JT JT
JT

EX SD

EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS

EX SS EX SS EX SS

EX SS

EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS

EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT EX WT FIRE

EX WT

EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS EX SS

EUOH EUOH EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH
EUOH

EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH
EUOH

EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH
EUOH
EUOH

EX GAS

EX GAS
EUOH

EUOH EUOH EUOH EUOH
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL
SL

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS BLVD.

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

12.13.2024
317076.00
SCALE:

STREET LIGHTING SITE PLAN
1:20
ESL
SL
X

Page 387 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

NO PARKING

EV CHARGING
ONLY
EX
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2B
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL1
SL1
SL1
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL1
EX
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2B
SL2-2
SL2-2
SL1

0.00 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.04 0.12

0.15 0.78

1.18 0.34

0.06 0.02

0.02 0.03

0.08 0.06

0.05 0.02

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.02 0.08

0.09 0.03

0.02 0.08

0.05 0.05

0.05 0.07

0.10 0.31

0.45 0.69

0.31 0.19

0.16 0.15

0.14 0.16

0.14 0.10

0.07 0.05

0.33 0.33

0.41 0.39

0.39 0.39

0.31 0.20

0.12 0.07

0.04 0.03

0.02 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.02 0.03

0.05 0.07

0.09 0.05

0.03 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.02 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.02

0.02 0.01

0.01 0.03

0.03 0.04

0.05 0.09

0.13 0.20

0.28 0.33

0.29 0.30

0.31 0.27

0.29 0.28

0.20 0.14

0.10 0.06

0.54 0.52

0.51 0.52

0.61 0.52

0.30 0.17

0.11 0.07

0.04 0.02

0.02 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.02 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.02

0.02 0.03

0.05 0.08

0.13 0.21

0.34 0.47

0.49 0.53

0.57 0.50

0.51 0.41

0.25 0.14

0.09 0.05

0.51 0.52

0.56 0.57

0.50 0.35

0.22 0.14

0.09 0.05

0.03 0.02

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.00 0.01

0.01 0.01

0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.01

0.02 0.03

0.04 0.07

0.11 0.17

0.29 0.47

0.60 0.59

0.55 0.55

0.58 0.37

0.21 0.13

0.08 0.90

0.55 0.24

0.07 0.27 1.39

0.04 2.70 34.34 9.46 0.17

0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.40 0.43 0.22

0.02 0.02 0.11 0.50 0.16

0.15 14.70 44.37 2.09 0.47 17.20 24.45 0.26

0.05 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.61 1.02 0.11 1.08 0.00

3.87 32.50 1.51 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01

38.73 5.68 0.07 0.57 0.17 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.14 0.06 0.01

0.07 1.10 0.29 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 13.37 0.84

9.16 7.81 0.19 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 4.47 37.59

0.02 0.11 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.08 0.27 0.32 0.37

0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.18 10.15 29.75 0.91

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.07 2.12 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01

0.01 0.01 0.03 0.21 0.14 0.01

0.01 0.06 5.63 4.74 0.16

23.20 0.05 0.01

0.02 0.03 0.05

0.03 0.03 0.08 0.52 0.87

0.02 0.03 0.06 0.23 2.22

0.03 0.04 0.10 0.30 0.34

0.03 0.03 0.07 0.66 2.65

0.05 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.93 4.62

0.17 0.07 0.11 0.30 0.23 0.26

1.36 0.16 0.10 0.69 2.67 1.71

0.12 4.69

1.85 4.85

4.77 1.59

0.29 13.67

2.57 0.03

1.72 14.57

0.10 0.04

7.39 6.47

0.03 0.18

16.81 20.20

3.96 0.427.07

0.03 9.83

6.22 0.02

2.35 14.09

0.08 0.48

16.76 0.37

0.01 2.36

12.48 0.08

4.57 13.05

0.05 1.44

15.55 0.14

0.03 7.57

5.63 0.02

2.30 15.80

0.08 0.19

1.60 12.71

1.76 0.37 0.16

0.01 0.01

0.00 0.00

0.01 0.42

12.32 3.72

0.19 22.52

8.60 0.03

0.67 3.35

2.63 5.29

0.12 0.02

0.54 7.85

0.22 0.59 0.55

0.24 1.37

0.12 0.25

0.23 0.61

0.13 0.15 0.60

1.11 0.88 0.31 0.17 0.13 0.31 1.58

0.96 0.53 0.60 0.36 0.25 0.72 0.31 0.22 0.26

0.94 0.46 0.76 0.40 0.59 0.38 1.57 0.08 0.23 0.32

2.58 1.02 0.34 0.43 0.60 1.02 0.72 0.15 0.44

1.40 1.30 0.26 0.48 0.50 0.94 0.58 0.26 0.45 1.36

2.19 0.34 0.50 0.31 0.67 0.38 3.03 0.20 0.32

1.00 0.30 0.20 0.76 0.36 0.15 0.26 0.70

0.26 0.12 0.25 0.62

0.63 0.28 0.46

0.27 0.53 0.91 0.24

1.42 0.19 0.19 0.51 0.43

0.31 0.17 0.40 0.32

2.34 0.22 0.36 0.65

0.61 0.29 0.55 1.33

0.60 0.55 0.43 0.41

1.02 0.50 0.41 0.66

0.73 0.60 0.38 1.33

0.26 0.49 0.23 1.69

0.14 0.17

0.03 0.11 0.08 0.05

0.68 0.52 5.18 3.32 0.10

5.21 0.98 0.59 10.25

0.58 0.78 0.86 1.54 0.56

0.64 0.18 0.22 0.20 0.43 0.66

0.13 0.13 0.18 0.41

0.18 0.18 0.32

0.27 0.03 0.00

0.37 0.01 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.26 1.56

1.38 2.47 4.02

5.13 0.48

0.62 0.20 0.00

19.67 0.08

0.48 1.52

0.35 0.10

0.05 0.03 0.11

0.04 3.31 12.74 0.09

0.28 0.05 0.05

0.21 0.22

2.75 0.98

1.04 0.11

0.12 0.26

0.08 0.06 0.04

0.07 0.09 0.30

0.29 2.53

2.76 0.17

0.31 0.11 0.40

0.16 0.82 0.94

0.08 0.11

0.03 0.03

0.27 0.27 0.77 0.00

0.26 0.00

0.00 0.00

0.2 2.6
Calculation Summary
Project: LOS GATOS
Description CalcType Units Avg Max Min Avg/Min Max/Min
GARDEN LANE Illuminance Fc 0.12 1.18 0.00 N.A. N.A.

OPEN SPACE AREA Illuminance Fc 2.49 44.37 0.00 N.A. N.A.

PARKING LOT Illuminance Fc 0.61 4.69 0.01 61.00 469.00
PATHWAYS Illuminance Fc 4.34 22.52 0.00 N.A. N.A.

PRIVATE STREET Illuminance Fc 0.60 3.03 0.08 7.50 37.88 Luminaire Schedule - LED
Project: LOS GATOS
Symbol Qty Label Arrangement LLF Luminaire
Lumens
Luminaire
Watts
Description Filename
2 EX Single 0.900 3300 27 EXISTING COBRAHEAD BY OTHERS @ 30' + 6' ARM RSWS-B-HT-2ME-3L-30K7-UL-xx-N_ CONFIGURED.ies
5 SL1 Single 0.900 1928 25 LOUIS POULSEN TOLDBOD 11.4 - 3K @ 10.5' LC US_Light_Measurement_TOPT_11.4_30K_ A0270_louis_poulsen.ies
55 SL2-2 Single 0.900 726 10.77 AFX SATW091508Lxx @ 8' SATW091508Lxx_IES.IES 24 SL2B Single 0.900 1157 20.2111 BK LIGHTING UO-LED-4000K-WW-1-42-WHP-INC-MT UO-LED-X141-WW-1-42-13819078.05.ies AGI32 VERSION 21.2
AGI (C) 2024 LIGHTING ANALYSTS, INC.
10268 W. CENTENNIAL ROAD, SUITE 202
LITTLETON, CO 80127
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * SALES REPRESENTATIVE: ALR; KRISTIAN REYES
differences will occur between measured values and calculated values. lighting calculations. If the real environment conditions do not match the input data, dimensions, reflectances, furniture and architectural elements significantly affect the variations. Input data used to generate the attached calculations such as room measurement techniques and field conditions such as voltage and temperature tolerances in calculation methods, testing procedures, component performance, Some differences between measured values and calculated results may occur due to Calculations have been performed according to IES standards and good practice.

BY: APPLICATIONS ENGINEERING; RAMON ZAPATA
REPORT FOR: TARRARL UTILITY CONSULTANTS
PHONE: (510) 638-0158 - FAX (510) 638-2908
OAKLAND, CA 94621
P.O. BOX 2265
7777 PARDEE LANE

ASSOCIATED LIGHTING REPRESENTATIVES, INC

ALL VALUES SHOWN ARE MAINTAINED HORIZONTAL FOOTCANDLES AT GRADE LAMP, BALLAST, ELECTRICAL, AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS.

LAMP, RATINGS, FIELD PERFORMANCE WILL DEPEND ON ACTUAL

IS BASED ON ESTABLISHED IES PROCEDURES AND PUBLISHED

PHOTOMETRIC DATA USED AS INPUT FOR THESE CALCULATIONS
DATE
1" = 20' 1 OF 1 10.22.2024 7

SCALE SHEET REV

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
DRAWING NO. / INPUT FILE

LOS GATOS
.
22887REY-R7.DWG / 22887REY-R7.A32

Page 388 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Town Attorney and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/23/2025
ITEM NO: 6

ADDENDUM
DATE: April 22, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Commercial Structures, Construct a Multi-Family Live/Work Development (55 Units), a Conditional Use Permit for a Live/Work Development, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees, Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned CH:HEOZ.

Located at 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard. APNs 424-19-048 and 424-19- 049. Architecture and Site Application S-24-015, Conditional Use Permit U-24- 006, Subdivision Application M-24-008. No Additional Environmental Review is Necessary Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162: Subsequent EIRs and 15168: Program EIR, Since the Proposed Project’s Environmental Impacts were Adequately Addressed in the 2020 General Plan EIR and/or 2040 General Plan EIR, as Applicable. Property Owner: Jonathan Peck. Applicant:

City Ventures. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 17 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the April 18, 2025, Staff Report:

1. Final Initial Study – March 2025
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2223)

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval

4. Location Map

5. Project Description Letter

6. Letter of Justification

7. Consulting Architect’s Report
ATTACHMENT 4 Page 304
ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard/S-24-015, U-24-006, and M-24-008 DATE: April 18, 2025

8. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report

9. Letter of Justification for SDBL Concession and Waivers

10. Final Arborist’s Report

11. Neighbor Outreach Summary

12. Visual Renderings

13. Objective Design Standards Checklist

14. Site Photos

15. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 7, 2025

16. Development Plans
Received with this Addendum Report:

17. Public Comments between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025

Page 305 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Zoha Rousta
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 9:53 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Regarding 15349-15367 Los Gatos Blvd Project [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Commission,
I hope this message finds you well. My name is Zoha, and I’m writing on behalf of my daughter, Liana, who is a 3rd grader at an Elementary school in Los Gatos. Liana is deeply concerned about the proposed development on Los Gatos Boulevard, and she has written a letter expressing her thoughts on the project.

As a young resident who loves our town and cares about nature, Liana wanted to share her feelings about the impact this project may have on our community. I hope you’ll take the time to read her heartfelt message and consider her perspective as you make decisions about the future of Los Gatos.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. We appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this important conversation.

Sincerely,
Zoha

Page 306 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Public Comment Regarding 15349–15367 Los Gatos Blvd Project Dear Planning Commission,
Hi, my name is Liana, and I’m in 3rd grade at a school in Los Gatos. I love our town, and I care a lot about nature and animals.

I’m concerned about the proposed development on Los Gatos Boulevard. Los Gatos is a beautiful, historic town known for its green spaces and old trees. This project doesn’t match the small-town needs, and I don’t think it’s good for our community. The roads and infrastructure weren’t made for so many people and buildings.

If the development goes ahead, it could cause a lot of problems. First, there will be more traffic, and that will make it harder for people to get around. It might take longer to get to school or work, and we could even see more accidents because of the extra cars on the road. Also, with more buildings, we may not have enough space for everyone to park. Our town could become crowded, and the charm that makes Los Gatos special could start to disappear.

It’s also very sad that the plan includes cutting down large, protected trees. Trees are important because they help animals live, clean our air, give us shade, and make our town beautiful. It feels even worse that this is happening during Earth Week, a time when we should be caring for nature. Once the trees are gone, we can’t bring them back.

I’m also worried about how this might affect our environment. More buildings mean less open space for animals to live, and the construction could harm the plants and trees around. The noise and pollution could make the town less peaceful and healthy.

There are better ways to grow our town without hurting the environment. I hope we can protect our town’s special character and keep it beautiful for future generations.

Thank you for listening.

Sincerely,
Liana

Page 307 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Alex Kamas
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 7:02 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item #6
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
My name is Alex Kamas and I live near the proposed development at 15349 and 15367 Los Gatos Blvd.

This is a well thought out and much needed development.

Not only will the development provide desperately needed housing, but these homes will also give families a way to get access to the great schools in Los Gatos, ensuring that low enrollment doesn’t force Los Gatos schools to close. I’m a teacher and I’ve seen the projected enrollments for districts in our county and they’re not optimistic.

According to the California Dept of Education, ten years ago, Los Gatos Union School District had 3,320 students. Last year, it had 2,673. That’s a decline of 20% in less than a decade. If that trend continues then Los Gatos might be forced to follow the path of districts like Cupertino which have had to close multiple schools in the last few years due to a 30% decline in enrollment.

Our students and their families are more than numbers though. They’re an integral part of who we are. I look at my students and I worry that the place they’re growing up in will be inaccessible to them in the future. If we don’t build new housing then most of my students will be forced to move far from their friends and families.

I’m excited to meet the people who will become my neighbors. I want to see them enrich our community and fill it with even more character. I’m asking that the Planning Commission vote to approve this project.

Thank you.

Page 308 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Des Kam
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2025 7:25 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item #6
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
To the Planning Commission,
I live two blocks from the planned development at 15349 and 15367 Los Gatos Blvd. I’d like to share my wholehearted support and excitement.

This is a great spot for these homes. They would be within easy walking distance of grocery stores, restaurants, two parks, and they aren’t far from the creek trail. The site is adjacent to stops for both public transit and tech commuter shuttles.

These homes would benefit anyone from empty nesters looking to downsize, young families needing room to grow and a place to plant roots, and families like mine who want more choices in deciding where they live.

I hope that the commission sees the value in approving this project, and other housing developments, not just for helping Los Gatos achieve its housing goals, but because of the real people that will get the opportunity to live and thrive in this community.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Desmond Kamas

Page 309 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 9:34 AM
To: Clerk <[email protected]>
Subject: Subject: PC Meeting 4/23/25 - Item 6 - Objection to Tiering from 2040 General Plan EIR – Application S-24-015 (15349 & 15367 Los Gatos Blvd)
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Date: April 22, 2025
To:

Chair and Members of the Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Subject: Objection to Tiering from 2040 General Plan EIR – Application S-24-015 (15349 & 15367 Los Gatos Blvd)
Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:

On behalf of the Los Gatos Community Alliance, we submit this comment to respectfully object to the Town’s reliance on the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for its CEQA determination regarding Application S-24-015, a proposed 55-unit live/work development at 15349 and 15367 Los Gatos Boulevard. While this project is not a Builder’s Remedy application, it is being reviewed and processed in the context of an unprecedented volume of high-density housing proposals, including a substantial number of Builder’s Remedy projects, which are changing the development landscape of the Town in a significant and foreseeable way. ⸻
Project Context – Not a Builder’s Remedy Project, But Part of a New Development Pattern Application S-24-015 seeks approval to:
• Demolish existing commercial structures

Page 310 ends

ITEM NO. 1.
• Construct a 55-unit multi-family live/work development at 35/DU per acre • Obtain a Conditional Use Permit and Condominium Vesting Tentative Map • Complete grading, site improvements, and removal of large protected trees • Be reviewed under SB 330, which limits local discretion in project approvals Although this project is not proceeding under the Builder’s Remedy provision of state housing law, it is one of many current proposals that reflect a material departure from the development patterns and assumptions studied in both the 2020 and 2040 General Plans and their respective EIRs.
⸻
Tiering from the 2040 EIR Is Inappropriate
CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 prohibits tiering from a previously certified EIR when substantial new information or changed circumstances arise. Since the certification of the 2040 General Plan EIR in 2022, the Town has received at least a dozen Builder’s Remedy applications, many of which propose:
• Much higher densities than what was studied in either General Plan • Clustering along Los Gatos Boulevard, compounding localized and cumulative impacts • Minimal inclusion of below-market-rate units, potentially triggering further rezoning This volume and concentration of development is new information of substantial importance under CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3)(B), and it was not contemplated by the 2040 General Plan EIR. Therefore, it is legally inappropriate to rely on tiering from that document to assess this or similar projects.
⸻
Cumulative Impacts & Net Loss Concerns Not Evaluated
The Town has not conducted a cumulative environmental impact analysis of the collective effects of these concurrent projects, including Application S-24-015. Impacts related to vehicle miles traveled (VMT), greenhouse gas emissions, infrastructure capacity, tree removal, noise, and neighborhood compatibility cannot be properly understood when each project is reviewed in isolation.

Furthermore, the Builder’s Remedy application for Phase II of the North 40 is likely to trigger the “No Net Loss” requirements under Government Code §65863. This will obligate the Town to rezone additional sites to meet low- and very-low-income housing targets, creating another foreseeable layer of environmental consequences that remain unstudied. Please refer to the attached No Net Loss Analysis.
⸻
Conclusion
Even though Application S-24-015 is not a Builder’s Remedy project, it is being processed amid a wave of high-density housing proposals that cumulatively alter the Town’s planning and environmental baseline. These changes invalidate the assumptions of the 2040 General Plan

Page 311 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

EIR, and CEQA does not permit the Town to rely on tiering from that document under Section 15162.

We therefore urge the Planning Commission to reject the conclusion that no further environmental review is necessary, and to require that the Town conduct a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR to properly evaluate the cumulative and foreseeable impacts of current development pressures.

Sincerely,
Los Gatos Community Alliance
Facts Matter; Transparency Matters; Honesty Matters
www.lgca.town

Page 312 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

No Net Loss Analysisof Pending and Approved Projects VL L M A Total Total Units - Table 10-3 RHNA Credits and Sites Strategy 694 421 411 845 2,371 6th Cycle RHNA 537 310 320 826 1,993
Surplus Above RHNA 157 111 91 19 378
Net Site Impact from Proposed and Approved Projects
>50 Los Gatos-Saratoga Road (Los Gatos Lodge) (86) (70) (52) 103 (105) >15349-15367 Los Gatos Blvd (19) (5) (5) 38 9
>North 40 (184) (11) (92) 274 (13)
>ADU actual production 2023 and 2024 adjustement 6 4 (15) (5) (10) Total Adjustments (283) (82) (164) 410 (119)
Remaining Housing Element Site Inventory Surplus/(Deficit) (126) 29 (73) 429 259 Note:

This analysis is conservative with regard to the remaining surplus because there is no evidence the Housing Element assumed unit production of 2,371 will be distributed by income as planned. The Housing Element Site Inventory assumes 47% (694+421/ 2371)of the total units will be very-low and low income units. Actual production has shown that no more than 20% of the units produced will be very-low and low income units. If this analysis was adjusted to reflect "realistic development by income category" the remaining surplus would be less. Or stated another way the net loss numbers would be even greater.

Page 313 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Planning Manager
Reviewed by: Town Attorney and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov

TOWN OF LOS GATOS

PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 04/23/2025
ITEM NO: 6

DESK ITEM
DATE: April 23, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval to Demolish Existing Commercial Structures, Construct a Multi-Family Live/Work Development (55 Units), a Conditional Use Permit for a Live/Work Development, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Site Improvements Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees, Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Property Zoned CH:HEOZ.

City Ventures. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 18 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, April 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 23, 2025.

EXHIBITS:

Previously Received with the April 18, 2025, Staff Report:

1. Final Initial Study – March 2025
(available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2223)

2. Required Findings and Considerations

3. Recommended Conditions of Approval

4. Location Map

5. Project Description Letter

6. Letter of Justification

7. Consulting Architect’s Report
ATTACHMENT 5

Page 314 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard/S-24-015, U-24-006, and M-24-008 DATE: April 23, 2025

8. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report

9. Letter of Justification for SDBL Concession and Waivers

10. Final Arborist’s Report

11. Neighbor Outreach Summary

12. Visual Renderings

13. Objective Design Standards Checklist

14. Site Photos

15. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 7, 2025

16. Development Plans
Previous Received with the April 22, 2025, Addendum Report:

17. Public Comments between 11:01 a.m., Friday, April 18, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025
Received with today’s Desk Item Report:

18. Public Comments between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, April 22, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 23, 2025

Page 315 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: heddi shariat
Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 7:53 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: proposed project located at 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Planning Department,
I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed development that would replace local businesses with new housing. Our small businesses are the heart and soul of this community—they provide essential services, create local jobs, and help preserve the unique character of our town. Replacing them with housing not only removes vital resources but risks permanently altering the feel and function of our neighborhood.

While the development may appear visually appealing from Garden Lane, the primary frontage would sit between a busy gas station and Silicon Valley MRI, directly across from Trader Joe’s and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. This is already one of the most congested areas in town. It’s difficult to understand how residential housing could be considered viable in such a high-traffic, commercial-heavy location.

There are many other, more suitable areas for new housing—places that wouldn’t come at the cost of local business or community identity. I urge you to reconsider this plan and prioritize thoughtful development that strengthens rather than compromises the fabric of our community.

Sincerely,
Heddi Shariat
EXHIBIT 18 Page 316
ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

Page 317 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
1 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
A P P E A R A N C E S:

Los Gatos Planning
Commissioners:

Jeffrey Barnett
Susan Burnett
Steve Raspe
Rob Stump
Town Manager: Chris Constantin
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6

Page 318 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
2 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
P R O C E E D I N G S:

VICE CHAIR BURCH: As we go into the next item, I
have to recuse myself, so I will be turning over chairing of the Planning Commission to Commissioner Raspe.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Vice Chair. I
will now call our next matter, Item 6, that is consider a request for approval to demolish existing commercial
structures, construct a multi-family live/work development of 55 units, a Conditional Use Permit for a live/work
development, a Condominium Vesting Tentative Map, Site
Improvements requiring a Grading Permit, and removal of large, protected trees under Senate Bill 330 on property zoned CH:HEOZ, located at 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard.

APNs 424-19-048 and 424-19-049. Architecture and Site
Application S-24-015, Conditional Use Permit U-24-006, and Subdivision Application M-24-008. Property owner is
Jonathan Peck, Applicant is City Ventures, and the project manager is Sean Mullin.

May I see a show of hands, Commissioners, of
those who have visited the project. Thank you, and any
disclosures?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: This is an overdisclosure, but perhaps some decades ago I represented Dr.

Page 319 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
3 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Peck with respect to this building, but I certainly don’t think that that would affect my judgement today. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for that. Mr.

Paulson, I see Mr. Mullin is not here this evening. Will you be delivering the report?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. Yes, I will
deliver the Staff Report. Good evening, Commissioners.

First, I’m going to turn it over to the Town Attorney so she can provide background on the regulatory framework
applicable to this project.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Thank you. This is a Senate
Bill 330 project that is also seeking to utilize State
Density Bonus Law, so I’ve prepared a brief presentation to go over what those laws provide.

Senate Bill 330 authorizes applicants to submit
what’s called a preliminary application, and that
preliminary application, once submitted, vests an applicant to all the Town’s development standards that were in place at the time that a complete preliminary application was submitted to the Town.

This project vested to development standards that
were in place. While the project would be eligible to
utilize Builder's Remedy, the project has opted to rely solely on the State Density Bonus Law.

Page 320 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
4 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
As the Commission may recall, the State Density
Bonus Law allows for increased densities in exchange for applicants providing different levels of affordability in their project, and so once they’ve met their required
threshold of affordable units, applicants can request
Density-Bonuses, incentives, concessions, and waivers.

This particular applicant is not seeking
increased density. The Applicant is, however, seeking
incentives, concessions, and waivers, which is authorized by the State Density Bonus Law even though an applicant is not seeking a Density-Bonus.

Incentives and concessions basically include
items that will result in cost reductions, and the intent of the legislation is that cost reductions enable
developers to provide affordable housing. Other examples of incentives or concessions would be approval of Mixed-Use zoning, reductions in setbacks, square footage, parking, etc.

In addition to incentives and concessions,
applicants are entitled to seek unlimited waivers of
development standards that would have the effect of
physically precluding the development as proposed at the allowed density.

Page 321 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
5 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
That is an overview of SB 330 and Density-Bonus
Law, and I’m available if the Commission has any follow-up questions.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioners, any questions
for the Staff Attorney? Okay, Mr. Paulson, then we’ll hear a Staff Report.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you. As proposed, they
are looking to demolish the existing commercial structures on the site; it’s approximately an acre-and-a-half site.

They’re looking to construct 55 multi-family units, four of which will be live/work units, which is somewhat unique for the Town. In those 55 units there will be eight BMP units, as evidenced in the Staff Report. The makeup of the units is there are studio units, two-bedroom units, and threebedroom units.

The height meets the max height of the Housing
Element Overlay Zone, which is 45’. These range, I think, somewhere between 41.5-45’, so they do comply with that.

Access currently is taken from Los Gatos
Boulevard; however, this access will be taken solely from Garden Lane.

The parking requirement, they’re entitled through
the Density-Bonus to reduced parking standards, and so this proposed project is required to have 79 pursuant to those

Page 322 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
regulations. They actually have 88, and there are nine
guest spaces—I went back and counted them, Commissioner Stump—those two on the cover page weren’t added; there are nine guest parking spaces.

Ms. Whelan spoke about concessions and
incentives. They’re seeking a concession to the BMP Program Guidelines. They don’t have, for instance, any threebedroom BMPs. The BMP Guidelines ask for a mix similar to what the other units are, and so they don’t have threebedroom units, and then they also don’t have some of the larger units, which are two of those components.

Then a number of waivers: setbacks, driveway
length, garage width, and then a number of waivers for the Objective Design Standards, and those are outlined in, I believe, Exhibit 9 of your Staff Report.

The project was evaluated to make sure that we
could comply with No Net Loss Law. This site will not
render the need for the Town to rezone any sites at this point, as, again, included in your Staff Report. Those
findings are included in the finding and we can move
forward from that standpoint.

Lastly, an Initial Study was prepared. Following
the completion of that Initial Study it was determined that

Page 323 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
7 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
they were eligible for CEQA exemptions through Section
15162 and 15168.

There were and Addendum and a Desk Item for this
matter tonight, and then Staff is available. We have our environmental consultant available, and then we have Parks and Public Works Staff, via the Town Engineer and Traffic Engineer, available as well. That concludes my report.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for that report.

Commissioners, any questions for Staff, including our
consultant? Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I continue to have concerns
about CEQA and the study that we are doing. At the
Commission meeting a couple of meetings ago I brought up the whole issue of cumulative impact, and as we take a look at what has happened to us, it’s unprecedented in Los Gatos history probably to have this significant number of
projects, 15, many of them that do not meet the Town’s
standards.

By the way, I’m not pointing that out as an
issue, I’m just saying that’s the reality that we’ve got greater densities, and even in the Los Gatos Boulevard area now we’ve got greater clustering that’s taking place.

I guess my question is at what point in time do
we consider the substantial impacts or changed

Page 324 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
8 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
circumstances to our situation? That probably ties back to our 2040 program EIR. It does not describe the environment that we are in today.

Again, I’m not trying to pick on any one project,
I’m just looking at the entire program that we’re looking at now, so I don’t even know what kind of question I’m
asking you, Mr. Paulson, but I’ve got concerns about our CEQA study.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I can start, and then the
Town’s CEQA consultant may have information to add. The Director and I were both present to the study session at which the concern about cumulative impacts was raised, and since then we’ve had conversations with a few CEQA
consultants about the best way to analyze those cumulative impacts; we’re still in those discussions.

One alternative would be to prepare a supplement
to the EIR that was done for the 2040 General Plan. Another alternative would be to enhance the discussion of
cumulative impacts that’s done for each individual project.

We haven’t landed on the ideal solution just yet, but we are having those conversations.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Just a follow-up question. I
realize this is the $64,000 question, but how long do you think those discussions will take to reach a conclusion?

Page 325 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
9 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I hesitate to give a firm date,
but I suspect we could have a recommendation within a
month.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Additionally, through the
Chair, I’ll have our environmental consultant add some
additional information, because there’s the cumulative
impact of if and when all of these or some of these get approved, that’s really the action point.

Then there is this idea of in that group what
subset, an individual project, and group of two or three projects, ten projects out of the 15, when does it really become cumulatively considerable from an impact
perspective? But let me allow our CEQA consultant, Mr.

Pappani, to speak.

NICK PAPPANI: Nick Pappani, Vice President with
Raney. We are under contract with the Town to prepare the environmental analysis for the proposed project, and I just wanted to add a little bit further information for your consideration. That would be with respect to the analysis here that we’ve prepared.

The analysis is looking at is the scope of this
particular project within the General Plan EIR? The way we look at that is to determine whether the project would
create any new significant impacts not previously

Page 326 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
10 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
identified in the General Plan EIR, or if the project would substantially increase the severity of an impact previously identified in the General Plan EIR.

With respect to the questions of the Builder's
Remedy applications, and particularly the concentration of certain projects along the Los Gatos Boulevard corridor, I would suggest from an environmental impact standpoint that the issue there is one of increased traffic, of increased congestion, and that directly relates to the Level of
Service and the amount of congestion within that area of the Town.

The State has shifted, as you probably will know,
with respect to how to determine traffic impact
significance in CEQA, from Level of Service and congestion to Vehicle Miles Traveled. As you’re probably aware, the 2040 General Plan EIR determines traffic impacts
significant by Vehicle Miles Traveled, and so that’s the focus that we had in this analysis for this project.

So, really, the question of the concentration of
these other projects and that cumulative effect, while it’s an important consideration, it’s not one for this
environmental document, because it’s related to primarily Level of Service and congestion.

Page 327 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
11 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
In terms of effects on Vehicle Miles Traveled,
the industry standard guidance, which comes from the
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association,
shows data that by increasing residential densities you reduce VMT, and that has to do with the different product types that come along with these denser projects; they tend to have residents that travel less.

We’re comfortable with the current analysis that
adequately addresses potential effects of the cumulative projects, which isn’t one of congestion. If there are any other concerns related to other potential environmental topics, I’m happy to address those, but I just wanted to focus at least on traffic, which I think is a primary
consideration of this increase, and how it’s really one of congestion and Level of Service, and that’s not relevant to the current environmental analysis.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for that response.

Commissioners, any further questions either for this
speaker, or for any other member, or Staff? No. Let’s go with Commissioner Burnett to begin, and I’ll then go down the line.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. I have a
question for Staff. How can we move forward with these
developments when we’re contemplating maybe thinking about

Page 328 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
12 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
the Cumulative Impact Study or a supplement to our 2040 General Plan, when we have to take into consideration all the projects that we’re going to be faced with, and that would go into one grouping? How can we single out one when that one may actually become included in the total picture? Not only that, the 2040 General Plan, as we know,
did not have all the evidence that we have now with our Builder's Remedy projects, our SB 330, Density-Bonus,
Builder's Remedy; I mean, we’re talking a lot here. I know when I attended the Planning Commissioner retreat there was quite a subject that CEQA is actually our friend, and that if we have questions and if our lead, which is our city… The fair argument standard is also something that
comes into play here. If it’s obvious that there are going to be issues, it needs to be looked at.

My question is how can we carve out this one
project when it may be looming that what would happen if a decision were made to do a Cumulative Impact Study, then would this project be let to go ahead and not be part of the solution? Thank you.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: My thoughts on this project are
that it’s consistent with the density and the height that was proposed in the Housing Element Overlay Zone, and the effects of that have already been analyzed, and so it

Page 329 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
13 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
doesn’t seem like there is more to study if something is consistent with a program that was already adopted.

I do think there is a difference with the
Builder's Remedy projects that are not consistent with
density or heights that were previously analyzed, but there are provisions in the State Housing Accountability Act that the Town will need to be conscious of that to prohibit
unreasonable delays, and so I think it will just have to be something that’s discussed project-by-project.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, also Mr.

Pappani might be able to offer some additional comments.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Please.

NICK PAPPANI: Yes, thank you, again. Just to add
to that, I would note that the CEQA Guidelines and the
guidance for cumulative impact analysis in Section 15130 does clearly allow for the recognition that not every
single project contributes to a combined significant
impact. Take, for example, aesthetics. You might have
several of these Builder's Remedy projects that have
increased height above and beyond allowable standards,
however, this particular project that’s compliant with the General Plan and the zone from a heights perspective
doesn’t incrementally contribute towards a potential
significant aesthetic effect, and so it is allowable to

Page 330 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
14 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
determine this project’s particular incremental effect to potential combined impact as less than significant, and that’s what I would suggest is the case here.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Commissioner
Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: This could be for Staff or
Mr. Pappani. As I understand, he’s making the point that our current CEQA analysis for the General Plan used Vehicle Miles Traveled, but the Level of Service applies, and I’m wondering if you could explain how that came about?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’ll start. Prior to State law
being modified, we always looked at Level of Service, which is intersection congestion, as Mr. Pappani mentioned. State law changed, and from a CEQA perspective they moved to the Vehicle Miles Traveled. So, from a CEQA perspective, that’s all that gets analyzed from a traffic perspective.

In addition to the VMT, we also still require the
LOS traffic impact analysis, and so that is not a CEQA
issue, that’s a project issue, and there is information on the number of trips in the Staff Report. So, from a traffic perspective, to put it more plainly, what Mr. Pappani was saying is from a CEQA perspective traffic is not an issue, because there is not a VMT issue. In addition, we adopted

Page 331 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
15 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
significant overriding considerations for VMT in our 2040 General Plan, because we knew it couldn’t be mitigated.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Very helpful. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Commissioner
Stump, I think you had a follow-up question.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: This was again about the
Housing Element Overlay Zone. Could you remind us of what the density was that was laid out in that zone?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: In the Housing Element Overlay
Zone for this site?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Exactly.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thirty to 40 dwelling units
per acre.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: What is the density for this
particular project? I’m not seeing a single calculation for that. I’ve seen it in the drawing; it was not calculated the way I was expecting it to be calculated.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: There is a number, I think
it’s somewhere in the low thirties is how it’s calculated currently, and yes, depending on whether you’re looking at gross, net, or are we including the roadways in that
calculation, because typically we exempt those. Are we
counting the BMPs in that calculation, because we have
another General Plan or Housing Element policy that says we

Page 332 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
16 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
don’t count it as density, whereas with typically for these projects we are counting it as density, so there are some nuances there, but they are in that range from Staff’s
perspective.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Commissioners,
any further questions for Staff? Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: A follow-up. If I’m
reading the Staff Report correctly, the Town does not have a definition for live/work units, and I’m not good at
reading plans, so the question I have is how are those two units different from other units?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think it’s four, and the
Applicant can probably provide you some additional
information, but generally in the 30,000’ level there’s an area that would be used for a commercial operation of some sort, which is directly adjacent to abutting residential units, but the Applicant can probably provide you more
details.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Any more
questions for Staff? Seeing none, I’ll open the public
portion of this hearing and invite the Applicant, who I believe is Pamela Nieting. Please state your name for the record, and you’ll have five minutes to speak.

Page 333 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
17 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
PAMELA NIETING: Thank you so much. My name is
Pamela Salas Nieting.

But first, I wanted to thank you. I was going to
thank the Chair and Vice Chair, but they’re not here, so thank you, Planning Commissioners, for being here today.

And also, to Staff. I know Sean Mullin couldn’t be here today. Hopefully he’s not Zooming, because he’s supposed to be taking a family vacation. But also, to Staff, James and Mike, and the many others that have worked with me.

Like I was mentioning, my name is Pamela Salas
Nieting, and I’m Vice President at City Ventures. I also am a planning commissioner in my hometown, so I know what it’s like to have a love for the home that you live in, and the dedication that it takes to be here.

For those of you that don’t much about City
Ventures, we are a sustainable, local, Bay Area builder that primarily focuses on infill developments and
developments that are close to transit. Our company came to life as part of a core belief in creating partnerships with municipalities.

Speaking of partnerships, and before I dive into
the actual project, I feel very honored that I got to work in partnership with the Town of Los Gatos on a site that was identified in the Housing Element. So, for me the goal

Page 334 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
18 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
of today is to breathe life into the vision that the Town had for the property long ago.

The one-and-a-half-acre site is located at the
corner of Los Gatos Boulevard and Garden Lane,
approximately one mile south of Highway 85 and one mile north of Blossom Hill Road, and it is currently home to an existing shopping center.

Here's a quick sneak peek. The Town did beautiful
renderings, so I just wanted to walk you through the
existing conditions of Los Gatos Boulevard west. Los Gatos Boulevard north, you can see the proposed versus the
existing. Garden Lane on the east view, and then Garden Lane on the south view.

The current access to the site is off Los Gatos
Boulevard in its existing condition. You can see that there are three driveway cuts.

Now, for the show today, which is the project.

It’s 55 for-sale, all-electric, townhomes that vary from studios to three-bedrooms, and square footage is ranging from 300 to 1,500 square feet. The project, as Mr. Paulson has noted before, is providing eight below market rate
units, four at low AMI, and four at moderate.

Along Los Gatos Boulevard, I’ve marked them here,
Commissioners, those are the live/work units, and we

Page 335 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
19 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
designed the project to have two access points plus the parking lot on the north side, that Mr. Paulson had
discussed also. My favorite part at the center of the
project is the central green space, which I feel like is really the heart of the project.

Here's a better image to show the site plan
against existing conditions. As you can see, the existing site used to only have access to Los Gatos Boulevard. We’ve flipped it around, so now it’s off Garden Lane.

An important aspect of the project was access to
VTA, and most importantly, we provided pedestrian
connectivity throughout and on Garden Lane to Los Gatos.

As I mentioned before, the heart of the project
is that open space, which was really curated with this
development in mind. You can see that we also included a bulb-out at Garden Lane, and that was to provide an
extended sidewalk to complement access to Oak Hill Park that is kitty-corner to the site.

Here are a few images of our green space, and
last but not least, I probably won’t have time, is the
architecture. We know the architecture in downtown Los
Gatos has a special place and influence, and so for our proposed architecture we brought a little piece of downtown to Los Gatos Boulevard, all while keeping it unique.

Page 336 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
20 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
You see here the historic Austrian woodwork
balcony, the exposed timber framing on the eaves, and then the next slide, the exterior brick cladding design.

Thank you so much for listening to me today.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much for those
comments. Before you sit down, I’m sure my fellow
Commissioners have one or two questions. Commissioner
Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you for your
presentation; very helpful. And thank you also for the
feedback that our consulting architect did give you and that I do believe was seriously considered. I realize
you’re dealing with constraints, but it was nice to see the response.

That said, I’d like to talk about the front
setback a little bit, because I know that was a subject that was brought up by the consulting architect and he
considered it to be a concern that setbacks appear smaller and more rigid. This was his quote, “and other similar and existing setbacks along the street frontage,” even
including when he was speaking at the Los Gatos Boulevard, and I know that you’ve made some adjustments. Can you share those adjustments with us?
PAMELA NIETING: Yes.

Page 337 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
21 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Let me stop there with that
question. I might have a follow-up, but can you share those adjustments?
PAMELA NIETING: Absolutely. I will do my best. I
also have our lead architect here.

What we did for Los Gatos Boulevard from an
architectural perspective, since we were running out of space and there was the minimum density that we had to hit to bring your vision to life, is we added additional façade elements along Los Gatos Boulevard to activate that, so you’ll see those special pops of architecture. That’s me being a novice. I’m a civil engineer; I apologize.

And that’s why the units are facing Los Gatos
Boulevard, and structurally speaking, because that’s what I can speak to, we even stepped it, because there’s quite a grade change from Los Gatos Boulevard to Garden Lane, so we added in those elements to make sure that you could face and be present and activate Los Gatos Boulevard instead of being sunken in.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Sir, before you begin, if
you could State your name for the record.

DAN HALE: Good evening, Dan Hale with Hunt Hale
Jones Architects. I appreciate Mr. Canon’s comments; he’s

Page 338 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
22 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
reviewed our work in the past, it’s always very insightful and very appropriate.

Maybe along with what Pam was talking about, one
of the things that he spoke about and we talked to Sean Mullin about, I think he gave some examples of some other townhome projects in the area, and up and down Los Gatos Boulevard actually, but in our opinion they were also in areas that were a little less dense and more residential feeling, and we felt like this is kind of in the core of the commercial area, and so we wanted to bring a little more—I don’t want you to take this the wrong way—of an
urban front to it, which typically has a little less
movement. So, between the constraints that Pam mentioned and looking at where this was in Los Gatos Boulevard, cars going by at 30-35 miles an hour, we wanted to make it a little more of an urban building.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I guess the question, again,
would just be so the setbacks are running from 5’ to what? DAN HALE: About 8-10’ if you look at the recess
in the building.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Sorry, you said 5’ to…
DAN HALE: To about 10’.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: To 10’. Thank you.

Page 339 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
23 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I wonder if you could
respond to my earlier question about the design of the work units?
PAMELA NIETING: Yes. This is something that
we’ve done in other projects. Essentially, the unit is
almost encompassed within the actual housing unit, but it’s kind of like a shopkeeper almost, like back east where
people would come out their front door and then walk into their own little unit. Because the commercial is going
away, we were trying to come up with a creative way to
bring some economic vitality by way of anything creative.

This is what I’m hoping, that in those new residents—
because the units are going to be sold together—there might be a mom like me who wants to work out of her home but be able to sell something. This is where I’m hoping that
creativity can come into play.

But, it’s a completely separate unit that has an
interstitial door, Commissioner, so when you’re in your unit you can literally just pop right in and then pop back out, and it’s the four that face Los Gatos Boulevard.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Commissioner
Burnett.

Page 340 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
24 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. To follow
through, I’m concerned about the frontage, the setback, because we have a very large project going on Los Gatos Boulevard right now, and it’s a 15’ setback, and it is very looming and very, I think, obtrusive. I mean, it’s quite large, and you feel like it’s right on the street.

I find your definition of urban area is
characterized by high population density and infrastructure of built environment, and I don’t think that describes Los Gatos actually, and even though you’re at the end of Los Gatos Boulevard, I think we still need to keep the
character and feeling of the Town, and we have to be
reminded that there is a neighborhood behind this
development, so I think we should try to continue on the neighborhood feeling. Our architect, Mr. Canon, who is
great, did mention that, and you did mention that it was recessed 5-8’, so when you’re talking about recess, what are you talking about? The doorway, or where is this
recess, because it would be 5-8’?
PAMELA NIETING: Yes. I don't know if we can go
back to the site plan just to have something to speak to.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: It wasn’t in the book.

PAMELA NIETING: I was slide #10, I believe. In
order to soften it, Commissioner, you can see… I hear you

Page 341 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
25 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
about we’re not in New York where you want the façade just hitting you like a big brick wall, which is kind of what you have with that feeling along Garden, because there are giant walls all throughout Garden Lane, and so the
landscaping here and the little walkways and pathways that walk up to the units, and the 24-inch…15-inch gallon trees, I believe it was 24-inch, it was all very intentional to help soften the feel. While we couldn’t get the setback that the architect wanted with the white picket fence—I mean, everybody wants that—we did make it very, very
intentional to provide those individual walkways, the
landscape pockets, the trees, so you have all those
elements in a smaller size, but all still meaningful.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you for that.

I don’t quite think it would satisfy my need for it to have more of a setback rather than just 5’; I think that’s very close to the street.

The next concern I have, and our architect did
bring that up also, what we always strive for is
individuality of the different little homes. I compliment your design, and I appreciate you working mostly with our architect’s design and suggestions, so I do compliment you on that, but I also compliment you that you’re not using Builder's Remedy, but you’re working with the Town and

Page 342 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
26 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
helping to develop a really nice project here, which others have, and it works very well.

But my next question would be I know you have
three building materials, and the Town architect suggested using those building materials to differentiate between each of the…like you said in the packet. Just sort of give a feeling of some articulation there and some feeling. I mean, it just softens the whole look of the building, I think, so that would be important, and it wouldn’t be a hard thing to do to use each material on different units.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’m sorry, did you want to
respond to that comment?
PAMELA NIETING: Oh, sorry. I apologize, I
thought you were asking what are the materials that we’re using, but I hear you about making sure that we have that variety, that undulation of the different architecture
materials.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Would you consider
accepting or going along with our architect’s suggestion in that regard?
DAN HALE: If it’s a strong opinion of the
Commission, we can come back and investigate it. It was a conscious decision when we were designing the facades not to do the individual units.

Page 343 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
27 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
One, this product type is narrower than some
other townhome unit examples that he provided. Our unit width is typically 16’. Many times, a normal townhome we think of as 20-21’.

The other thing, I’m going to go back to my view
of the context. It’s in more of a commercial area, the
buildings are larger scale, they have larger pieces of
massing to them, and so we’re trying to fit in a little bit in the existing neighborhood where we provide larger pieces of massing of the building, instead of chopping it up into individual small pieces.

We had a discussion with Planning, but interested
to hear your comments.

PAMELA NIETING: May I ask, Commissioner, would
you want us to try to do that along Los Gatos Boulevard proper to kind of show that variety up front? Is that the street?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Well, I keep referring
back to Mr. Canon’s suggestion. I think his suggestions are very good. I think it would soften the building, and again, this isn’t an urban city, this is a small town, and I think it would be more pleasing to the citizens of Los Gatos to have more charm associated with it. Not that your building

Page 344 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
28 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
isn’t a nice design, but I’m just saying you could go
further.

PAMELA NIETING: Why don’t we do this: I can
absolutely look at the finish schedule and see how we can make each little unit pop a little bit more. Part of what we’re trying to do with Planning was just kind of have it feel more uniform, but that is something that we can look into. I will take that comment.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much.

Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Parking is truly the
unwinnable situation for the developer, for the Town, and certainly for the residents when there is going to be
significant development around a residential area. Our code would require an additional 40 spaces, and again, I’m not debating that, I’m just stating the fact that our code
would have said there needs to be 40 additional parking spaces tied to this development.

I guess my big concern, and maybe you can share
another development you have, because it seems like
probably one-and-a-half or two cars per unit where, I
guess, it was one-and-a-half cars you had, because not
everyone has a two-car garage. But there are 88 parking

Page 345 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
29 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
spaces for the private garages, and then nine guest parking spaces.

What has been your experience with these reduced
parking requirements? I’m just going to call it overflow, because I’ve got to believe there’s going to be overflow.

So, what have you seen in your other developments, and
where does that overflow go? I know the answer is, “it
depends,” but I’m just interested.

PAMELA NIETING: I have a better answer than, “it
depends.” In the beginning, when I introduced who City
Ventures was there was a reason why City Ventures always chooses sites in infill developments close to transit.

Because our units, as I had spoken to before, are between 300 and 1,500 square feet. They’re intentionally made
small.

The Casita Coalition is an organization that
deals with ADUs, and they talk about the element that’s been proven, affordability by design. There is also what we’ve seen, parking by design. So, when you have these very specific infill locations, that’s why I brought up the fact that we have all that accessibility throughout, the bike racks, that was important, short-term, long-term, and the fact that the transit stop, the VTA bus stop is right in

Page 346 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
30 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
front of our site, that’s for a reason, why we’re looking out for those sites, because we’re not building big sites.

Yours truly used to live in the city in a 700
square foot apartment with two babies, and we walked
everywhere and took transit, and so I’ve seen it work with a certain generation, and particularly when you’re offering those size units, and we are offering that accessibility also to transit, so it’s better than “it depends.”
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Yes, Commissioner
Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Another question. There
are no one-level units, correct?
PAMELA NIETING: These are three-story townhomes,
you’re right.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Right. So, for someone who
is disabled, or the elderly even, and with no elevators.

PAMELA NIETING: You’re right, there are no
elevators in a three-story townhome; it’s just like a lot of the homes here that are two stories. But, by code we do have ten percent of the units that are ADA accessible, and they make certain provisions for like larger bathrooms. My brother is in a wheelchair, so like being able to move
around in a wheelchair, etc.

Page 347 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
31 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you very much for your
presentation. You’ll get an opportunity at the end for a closing presentation, I think up to three minutes.

PAMELA NIETING: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’ll now open the public
portion of the matter. If you are in the audience and you haven’t had a chance yet and you wish to speak, please fill out one of the yellow cards; I have several here before me.

When it’s your turn to speak, please come to the podium, state your name, adjust the microphone as appropriate—as you can see, we’ve had some issue with that tonight—and you’ll have three minutes to speak. I will begin, then, with James Paulson. Thank you, Mr. Paulson.

JAMES PAULSON: Thank you. Good evening, my name
is James Paulson; I live at 253 Oakdale Drive, which is the corner directly across from the back of this proposed
addition. Where there’s a fire hydrant on the corner,
that’s my home.

My wife and I bought our home just before my son
was born in 1983, and he’s lived there ever since, and now he and his wife also live with us with our grandson, and our granddaughter is there often to visit, and we go down

Page 348 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
32 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
to the playlot all the time, and one of our concerns,
obviously, is the traffic.

We already have huge traffic problems on Garden
Lane; it’s a back way for everyone to get through our
neighborhood, whether it’s Highland Oaks where Commissioner Burch lives, or going up through Benedict Lane, all those typical routes, so obviously this is going to impact us if this goes through.

About 30 years ago it was proposed to put a
gardening place there, and it was denied having access on Garden Lane because of traffic. So, now here we are putting in a huge unit, which is going to be way more traffic. The street already has a huge amount of parking issues from the problems with the people who work at the carwash; they park along our street. We have street trimmers, tree people, illegally parking on our street. We have RVs parking there all the time.

So, obviously we’re concerned about the traffic
and the impact on our neighborhood, having this big
increase on there, and with owner/builders being able to push their projects through, I don't know why the Town
needs to push this one through before we satisfy the
owner/builders ones.

Page 349 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
33 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
So, those are our big concerns for myself, my
neighbors, my children, our grandchildren. I’m third
generation here trying to enjoy this, and as we keep
building up and urbanizing around us. This is proposed now catty-corner to the Ace and is supposed to be one
eventually, which as you know, is one of the 15 projects.

Then the big one where the George Brown workout place
behind McDonald’s is, and Erik Swanson is.

We’re being claustrophobed by all of this, and
what used to be a nice neighborhood for us—a nice
residential neighborhood when Leonard McGamond (phonetic) lived there across the street from us, and he was 83 when we moved in in 1983—and now we’re just going into an urban environment, which is not what we wanted.

We went to sell our home years ago and the
realtor said, “You bought on the wrong side of the
boulevard.” Well, apparently, it’s just getting worse.

Thank you very much.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for those
comments. Before you sit down, Commissioners, any
questions? Yes, Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: What’s your on-street
parking like now in your neighborhood?

Page 350 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
34 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
JAMES PAULSON: It’s terrible. Garden Lane is
completely packed all the time. Like I say, I understand that the people at the carwash need a place to park, and they’re parking along there. The tree trimmers come in with their chippers all the time, and they park there. Big Creek Lumber from Santa Cruz, every time there’s a big job they come in, because it’s right off the freeway. They’ll park their double-trailers there and they’ll take off and unload one, come back, hook up their next one, and this is at 7:00 in the morning waking us up.

I like to sleep in a little more than I used to.

I used to always be up at 6:00 and drive up to Palo Alto to work, and I was part of that traffic, which changing this to a Vehicle Miles Traveled versus the actual impact of the insanity of the traffic there. My wife is a retired nurse, we were very conscious of all the emergency vehicles coming through there all the time. So, yes, it’s been pretty bad.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Any other Commissioners? No.

Thank you so much for your comments. Next speaker, Karen Yamamoto, please. If you’ll come to the podium, and you’ll have three minutes. Thank you.

KAREN YAMAMOTO: Hi, I’m Karen Yamamoto. I live
off Benedict Lane, which is right off Garden Lane. I am

Page 351 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
35 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
speaking on behalf of myself and a couple of my neighbors who could not be here.

We’re not too happy with the fact that this is an
SB 330 build that should not be approved right now, only because the SB 330s, we want to have them all together when you guys decide what to do, because our infrastructure is going to be infected.

We’ve already had sewage backed up into our homes
from the North Forty. We’ve already had impact on the North Forty, and all our power outages; we had seven just from the first phase, in one year. Do you think that another development that has waivers is going to take into
consideration our infrastructure needs?
I’m looking at the parking. With these two sevenstory buildings that from New Town… I know we’re not supposed to discuss any one building, but there are six right there. They’re in the middle of it. I guarantee these three SB 330s are going to have an impact on us. It needs to be put on hold, don’t approve it right away, but take into consideration CEQA and how this is going to infect our lives.

It’s not just traffic, it’s our lives, it’s our
health. All of these constructions, whether it is cheaply done or not, needs to be analyzed with CEQA. It needs to be

Page 352 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
36 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
really looked at as a whole, not as individual projects.

Please do not approve this today, but take into
consideration that…
I’m running out of time. I have one other
question. What are the height limits, because their
buildings are 54’ high. I thought our height limitation was 42’.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much. Before
you sit down, Commissioners, any questions for this
speaker? Seeing none, again, thank you for your attendance and your comments tonight. My final yellow card is Mr.

Fagot.

LEE FAGOT: Lee Fagot, speaking as an almost 30-
year resident of the Town of Los Gatos, and I’m not
representing any group, I’m speaking just as an individual in town.

I believe that Ms. Yamamoto made some very good
points about considering this development in the context of all the other developments that are being proposed along the Boulevard, which is facing some issues of the water table underneath that area, that street, all along there.

The fact that it lies along a series of
earthquake fault zones along there, that’s going to also be impacted by these other developments.

Page 353 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
37 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The other infrastructure concerns of the
utilities, including sewage, water, electricity, and so forth, are all going to be impacted.

I believe the design that is being proposed is
interesting. In other areas that are zoned for 45’ heights, this development would be more appropriate than what we see along the Boulevard. I appreciate the fact that they’ve considered the variety in the design, so that it’s not so impactful as looking at this brick wall, for example, but the fact that it’s only about 5-8’ back, that’s just three rows of seats away from the street to the building that goes up 45’. That doesn’t look like anything in the Town of Los Gatos, and once we make an exception for something like this, then the bar is lowered to that level.

The point that Ms. Yamamoto made to consider this
as a context of all the other submissions and then make a judgement and a recommendation makes sense. In the
meantime, like I said, I think the design, in an area that does already have an allowance for 45’, with a proper
setback, not 5-8’, makes more sense, but that site on the Boulevard with the infrastructure challenges and the CEQA considerations, it’s not a good fit, so my recommendation to that point is delay, refer this to another site

Page 354 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
38 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
consideration, but do not approve it going forward as it stands on that site. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you so much. Before
you sit down, Mr. Fagot, any questions from our
Commissioners? Seeing none, thank you again for your
attendance this evening.

Those are all the yellow cards I have. Mr.

Paulson, anybody on Zoom?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Thank you, Chair. I do not see
any hands raised on Zoom.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Then I will give the
Applicant an opportunity to approach again. You’ll have up to three minutes to address some of the comments you heard, or answer any questions of Staff. Thank you.

PAMELA NIETING: I’m very thankful for my
education as a licensed civil engineer, because I feel like I can speak a little bit eloquently on this.

From a utility perspective, we hired some of the
best engineers, CBG, and all of this looked at thoroughly, from capacity, sizing, etc.

Also, we did a lot of geotechnical studies, and
we also are following and abiding by the AP Act, and so we had two different types of geotechnical engineers just to make sure that we had the correct findings about what Mr.

Page 355 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
39 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Fagot had discussed about the faults that are, frankly, a lot in the area that we have.

With regard to CEQA, and I know that Staff can
discuss this, the project is looked at individually and within the context of the Housing Element when it’s tiering off; that’s the beauty about CEQA law, that it looks at it.

I know that Mike Vroman can also speak to this.

We not only did the VMT and LOS, but Mike also recommended— which I’m very thankful that he did—driveway counts along Garden Lane, because we were concerned… I don't know, Mike, if you want to talk about that. But we did that
specifically for the different concerns of the neighbors.

One quick item, for about the last two weeks I’ve
come at different hours of the day to kind of see what
traffic patterns are, and if I may say, there are actually different traffic patterns based on the end use, meaning like if it’s residential versus commercial, and so I know that it may feel like a lot, and I don't know, Mike, if you want to talk about the driveway counter, where there wasn’t any impact when they looked at that. But we did care about the neighbors on Garden Lane, so we did do that.

I think that was all the comments. Neighborhood
parking, traffic, utilities, and then geotechnical
perspective I think is what I heard.

Page 356 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
40 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Mike, don’t feel that you need to come up. I just
wanted to let them know that you did do that.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, and before you
sit down, Commissioners, any follow-up questions to the Applicant? Actually, as long as I have you, two questions.

The currently existing site, the egress and
ingress are from Los Gatos Boulevard. You have essentially closed that off except for Pedestrian Way, and put it onto Garden Lane. Did you ever consider as part of this project having the driveways come back onto Los Gatos Boulevard? Was that a consideration, or does the site make that
impractical or impossible? What was the reason you didn’t do it that way?
PAMELA NIETING: It had to do with traffic and
congestion. We wanted to make sure there was fluid in and out, and again, when we looked at it, you’re looking at it not from a commercial. In a commercial you have a lot of in/out, in/out during the day, versus residential you have different hours, and that’s why yours truly today sat
outside of the site on Garden Lane looking at that cute little park, because I also have young children, just
trying to see. All of the workers were gone by then, so I just kind of sat there, and that was very important for us, and that’s why we had not just one in/out, we had two

Page 357 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
41 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
in/outs plus a third for the parking. That’s why you have one, two, three to hopefully have a fluid movement of
vehicles, because we didn’t want to impact the neighbors.

Oh, and then, Commissioner Burnett, the 5’ is
only in one part of a pinch point of the building where the edge of it is, but when the units that face the Boulevard are 15’ from the face of curb to the face of the building, so I did want to say that; we just verified it right now.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, and one more
follow-up question. You’re asking for many waivers, but you’re only asking for one concession, and that is the BMP count. You don’t want to offer a three-bedroom, low- or moderate-income unit. Can you discuss why that’s not part of the mix? I would think having a larger unit for a lowincome family would be desirable in that.

PAMELA NIETING: This is a bit of conjecture; I’m
not speaking all builders, but I’ve worked for a few. The BMR units essentially for all builders comes at a loss, so we have a negative, and so normally that is why density is important, because you’re trying to spread the cost. In this case it was literally for financial reasons, to make the project affordable.

One thing that City Ventures prides itself on is
to not do an in-lieu fee and to build the homes on the

Page 358 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
42 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
site, versus paying for the Town or cities to have money that just sits there, and then no one comes in and builds affordable housing.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I appreciate the response.

Commissioner Stump had a follow-up question.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I just want to get a
clarification. You were speaking about setbacks once again, and you said there is only one instance of a 5’ setback because it’s kind of a pinch point, but then everything else went to 15’?
PAMELA NIETING: Because I think Commissioner
Burnett asked about Los Gatos Boulevard, having…
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Exactly, Los Gatos
Boulevard.

PAMELA NIETING: And I apologize that I didn’t
put that exhibit on my slides, but there’s a pinch point that’s closer to the Rotton Robbie, that’s the size of the building that gets too close, but otherwise we just
measured it; it’s 15’ from the curb to the face of the
building.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Commissioners,
any other questions? No. Thank you, again, for your
presentation this evening. I’ll close the public portion of this matter and open up the discussion to my fellow

Page 359 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
43 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
commissioners for questions or comments. Feel free to ask questions of Staff, any Staff members we haven’t heard of, or discuss among ourselves. Commissioners, I open the floor to you. Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Let’s start with
transportation. The project will need to implement a
Transportation Demand Management Plan. Can you illuminate for us a bit what is in a Transportation Demand Management Plan?
MIKE VROMAN: That would be included as part of
the Conditions of Approval, and it’s mandated because there are ten or more units. As was noted, there is not VMT
impact because this project is consistent with the General Plan and the Housing Element, and the traffic study did show a density of like 35.25 units per acre, so it was
within the 30-40 units per acre density of the General
Plan.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Mr. Vroman, can you give the
Commission an idea of what types of items are used in a TDM?
MIKE VROMAN: Yes, in a TDM plan there are
amenities they can have to facilitate bike use and bus use.

They can issue bus passes or discount passes for residents,

Page 360 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
44 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
or try to work something out with VTA, especially since they are so close to the bus stop.

They also could do things to encourage the
live/work units, or something that will reduce trips,
because theoretically people will be living and working there, and therefore they won’t be leaving to go to another job.

Probably the biggest things here are the
proximity to the bus stops, but also bike facilities,
facilitating pedestrian and bike access through the
property.

And other things, like provide high Internet
speeds to encourage people to work from home.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thanks. Can I do a follow-up
on transportation?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Please.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: The traffic study estimates
266 new daily trips over existing conditions. For those people that are not professional traffic engineers, it’s hard to wrap your head around a number like 266 and say no impact. So, how do you go about explaining to people that are not traffic engineers that a number like that really is not significant?

Page 361 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
45 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MIKE VROMEN: It would be 266 new trips, and a
local residential street is expected to handle about 1,000 vehicles per day. If you look at it over the course of the day, the same people are driving 15 hours, so that’s about 60 trips per hour for an average street.

The more critical thing we look at to determine
traffic impacts is what the peak hour traffic is going to generate, and as Ms. Nieting referred to, our standard in Los Gatos is 20 new trips per peak hour. So, if a project generates 20 new trips in a peak hour, either AM or PM, that will necessitate a traffic study. I think I’ve
explained in the past that most agencies in Silicon Valley require 100 new trips to require a traffic impact, but
because Los Altos we have strong concerns about traffic impacts, we require the threshold is 20 new peak hour
trips.

As Ms. Nieting referred to, this project would
have generated under ten new peak hour trips, however,
because the three existing driveways were on Los Gatos
Boulevard, ten new trips on Los Gatos Boulevard wouldn’t be very impactful, but because there are no driveways
currently from this property that go into Garden Lane,
that’s what she was referencing as to why the Town required them to do a traffic study.

Page 362 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
46 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Ordinarily, by just going by the rules it
wouldn’t be required, but because there will be more than 20 new trips on Garden Lane, that’s why we required it, and that’s why she said she’s glad we did require it, because that’s an issue now.

The new trips on Garden Lane would be 31 PM peak
hour trips and 26 AM peak hour trips. Those will be going out. Since there are no trips there, those will all be new trips for Garden Lane. That works out to about one every two minutes for each hour, so based on the existing traffic now, and we did have traffic studies done to look at
existing conditions primarily at Garden Lane and Los Gatos Boulevard where we have the signalized intersection, there was very little to no change in the Level of Service, which as Director Paulson mentioned, is no longer a CEQA
requirement, but we still look into Level of Service and we still do that analysis for projects within the Town.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Commissioner
Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: This is for Ms. Whelan.

The setback exemption or concession is something that’s been included in the application, so my question is
understanding that members of the population feel that

Page 363 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
47 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
that’s not appropriate for this site, do we have the option to require that there be a further setback?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: As a general rule, the Town
can’t deny a waiver that would physically preclude the
project as proposed, but what I would like to do is go to the statute, and I can read you the grounds for denial out of the statute. That might take me a couple of minutes.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: We talked earlier about
the cumulative impacts and the potential study by the Town of that, but I believe you said that it would be legally inadvisable to wait for that report to come out before
dealing with this project, is that correct?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: As a general rule with regard
to the Housing Accountability Act, if there’s any reason to delay a project, it should be like for a beneficial result.

So, if this density was already analyzed for when the
Housing Element Overlay Zone was adopted, and this project is consistent with the Housing Element Overlay Zone, the question to ask is what new information would come out of that study?
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you, that’s very
helpful. I think those are my questions for now. Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Any other
questions, Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Stump.

Page 364 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
48 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Switching over to the world
of parking. Obviously, based on State law we don’t have much of a say on parking requirements for this project, or really any of these other like projects that are now in process.

From the Town’s perspective we’re short 40
parking spaces in this project, based on our own code
requirements. This is more of a global question, so it’s not project-specific, but how is the Town going to start dealing with inadequate parking, which we already deal with in the downtown area, and now we’re potentially pushing inadequate parking out into our more residential areas? There may not be an answer tonight, I understand that, but what solutions?
Or, if we don’t have solutions, I would really
start encouraging us to be looking at what solutions can we put in place? If I lived over on Garden Lane, or if I lived over in this gentleman’s neighborhood, I would probably say let’s go to permit parking, or something along those line.

So, has any thought been given to how we’re going to manage this parking challenge that’s kind of getting pushed out into the neighborhoods?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’ll start, and then I’m not
sure if Parks and Public Works might have some other ideas.

Page 365 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
49 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I know it has been discussed, I can’t remember,
in formal or informal settings, knowing that these projects were coming, not just the Boulevard, but some other
locations where the State requires the Town to allow them to have the reduced parking requirements.

As to what mechanisms or options might be
available to help minimize that impact for surrounding
neighborhoods, one idea would be some kind of parking
limitations from a time perspective or permit perspective, but I’m sure there are other ideas that the Town ultimately may consider. I’m not sure if Mr. Heap, the Town Engineer is aware of any other thoughts, even though they may not currently be in motion.

GARY HEAP: Yes, thank you. Gary Heap with the
Public Parks and Public Works Department.

We are working on a residential parking permit
program policy document. Right now, we do have a number of residential parking permit areas in Town, but they haven’t been put in really over the years and established with a set of criteria within a policy document, so we are working on that document and should have that ready for
distribution and public review in the next several months.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you.

Page 366 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
50 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. Commissioners,
any further questions, thoughts?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I have an answer on the waiver.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, if you would.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: The statute, which is
Government Code Section 65915, provides that the public entity shall grant the waiver requested by the Applicant, unless the Town makes a written finding based on
substantial evidence that the development standard for
which the waiver is requested would not physically preclude the construction of the development at the densities and with the concessions or incentives that are permitted under Density-Bonus Law.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for the
information. Commissioners, any other questions for Staff? No. Any other thoughts or comments generally? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Again, referring to our
Town Architect, I believe he did address the idea about if we did have more of a setback, and he gave a way to make up units. I forgot exactly where it was in his report, but the developer could make up units elsewhere to keep the
density, but change some of the configuration.

Page 367 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
51 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for those
thoughts. I’ll go ahead and lay out a couple of my
thoughts. As I’ve sat here, I’ve jotted down some notes.

Perhaps in no particular order.

I think we have to begin the analysis with the
understanding that this site was listed in our Housing
Element. It was designed to be developed for this very
purpose. Housing, which includes affordable housing
elements, is what’s going to go in this spot, and frankly, it’s what should go in this spot. I think our town needs more housing and more affordable housing products. We can argue about what that looks like, and how many units are going to be in there, but I think this is an excellent
location for this type of product.

They could have developed this project as an SB
330; they elected not to. They’re using the Density-Bonus Law, and I want to thank the Applicant for that. I think in the end it results in a better product for them and for the Town.

This project as currently designed complies with
the Housing Element Overlay Zone, so, for instance, it’s tall but it’s not more than the Housing Element Overlay Zone permits, 45’; they’re within their limits.

Page 368 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
52 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
The aesthetics, I generally find them appealing.

The design, I understand Architect Cannon has some
additional thoughts, and some of those I think were pretty good, but the notion, for instance, of making each
individual unit appear as an individual unit, I think,
would be an error. If they’re only 16’ wide, for instance, I think what you’re going to get is almost New York City appearance structure: very narrow units as opposed to a longer, more streamlined façade.

They think the density is about right; I think
they’re not asking for anything specific there. Per my
previous comment, I wish there was an additional BMP unit for three bedrooms. I think a family of lower income status in that facility would benefit from that, but I understand why they can’t do that.

Parking is going to be a challenge, no two ways
about it, but according to the Density-Bonus Law, they are at their numbers. They’ve hit their numbers; they’re not asking for anything there. We are not at a no net loss
problem.

With every project we’re going to have a traffic
issue; there’s just no two ways about it. This site, I
think, has some benefits in that it’s got the bus stop, it’s close to the freeway. I think it’s going to benefit,

Page 369 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
53 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
hopefully taking some of the traffic directly off our
streets into alternative means; that’s my hope. Again, the traffic study seems to indicate that there will be impacts, but not so significant as to raise a CEQA challenge.

Again, I want to compliment the builder. They’ve
done, I think, as good a job as you’re going to do on this site. There are going to be issues. In this Town, we’re not going to have any perfect projects. This one checks a lot of boxes. I think it’s the best you’re going to do at that site.

Those are my initial thoughts, but I welcome
further comments from my Commissioners. Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: From my perspective, this is
a good project, but I have continuing concerns about CEQA.

The CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 that was
applied or discussed in the Staff Report, the same section used to conclude that additional environmental review is not necessary, also recognizes that, “Significant effects previously examined may be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR,” which I would argue would be the 2040 General Plan Program EIR. “In these cases, a
subsequent EIR may be required.”
With the application of Builder's Remedy in Los
Gatos, the Town is facing unprecedented development beyond

Page 370 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
54 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
what we have ever experienced, and beyond what we studied certainly in the 2020 General Plan or the 2040 General Plan EIR, including higher densities.

As an example, eight of the 15 Builder's Remedy
projects… And folks, I’m clumping them all as Builder's Remedy, even if they’re not invoking Builder's Remedy, as the Applicant here is not, but until recently they were all identified as Builder's Remedy projects.

Eight of the 15 projects have densities ranging
from 59 dwelling units per acre to 225 dwelling units per acres. Six of the 15 projects are clustered along Los Gatos Boulevard. Densities of these projects range from within the Housing Element Overlay Zone, 31 dwelling units per acre to 132 dwelling units per acre. Four of the six Los Gatos Boulevard projects range from 62 dwelling units per acre to 132 dwelling units per acre.

And again, I am not a CEQA expert, I’m just
someone who keeps asking the questions and saying a
cumulative impact study of some sort needs to be done. A supplemental CEQA report needs to be done that’s going to really look at and study our current reality.

The volume and concentration of Los Gatos
development is new information of a substantial importance under CEQA Guidelines; that same section we referred to,

Page 371 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
55 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
but you go down and paragraph A, subsection 3, subsubsection B speaks to this directly and was understandably not contemplated or studied in 2020 for 2040. We just had no clue about what was coming, therefore it’s legally
inappropriate to rely on (inaudible) from that document to assess this or similar projects.

I would say that’s my position. I am not an
attorney. I’m doing my darndest, digging into CEQA and
looking around, and getting good advice and counsel from our own Town Attorney and torturing her with questions, and I appreciate her willingness to speak with me about that.

I guess the way I would view this, my preference
is to try to get to the point where we’re got a conclusion and decision about a cumulative impact study and that I would make a motion tonight to continue this to a date
certain. Why? I really hate going forward with the prospect of saying I can’t make Finding #1, so therefore, if we’re going to go forward with a vote, I’m going to vote no, and I really don’t like that prospect, because I do believe this is a good project. It’s not the project that I’m hung up on so much as it is the CEQA question. I will stop now.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: I appreciate that comment,
and just in the frame of discourse, if I might,
Commissioner Stump. I guess my question would be, then, and

Page 372 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
56 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I think it’s the same question the Town Counsel asked, what could we learn for this project specifically that would be different?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: But I think that’s what the
cumulative issue is, right? And again, I fully understand that some of these projects that are put forward may never come to fruition, but right now we have to assume they are.

So, right down the street, sharing the same
intersection, a nine or ten story building at Ace Hardware.

You say well, it’s only 266 vehicles here, and then what’s the number of vehicles there? If we don’t look at the sum total of what’s going to go on on Los Gatos Boulevard, in this case particularly, we are looking at, I think, some disastrous traffic consequences.

That’s probably dramatic, but I’ll just use that
word. We’re looking at some disastrous traffic consequences if we just look at these one at a time. I agree, one at a time, it looks pretty good, but now, what’s the additive? What’s it going to look like? So, I guess that would be my response, Chair Rasp.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: And I appreciate that. Thank
you so much. Commissioners, other thoughts? Commissioner Barnett.

Page 373 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
57 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I believe that the
Applicant has checked all the boxes, if I can use your
phase, with respect to the legal requirements for the
project. I think the architecture is acceptable, and I’m concerned that any delay for a program EIR regarding the cumulative impacts would be putting the Town in a position of legal risk.

That’s not saying that I wouldn’t like things to
be different, but at least in this case we know that the Town has approved the traffic impacts for this project, and frankly, I don’t know what can be done to alleviate traffic Town-wide when the Builder's Remedy and the Density-Bonus are allowing these types of projects to occur.

There was one interesting comment by the
developer of considering architecture changes, and the
thought occurred to me that we could have a motion
approving the project with the recommendation that the
developer work with Staff to consider the compliance with the recommendations of the consulting architect, Mr.

Cannon.

Those are my general thoughts. I think we do need
additional housing. I think affordable housing is very rare in the Town, and is very much required for people trying to

Page 374 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
58 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
get started in the Town, and some of our service staff, and fire people, and the policemen as well.

So, overall, I would approve the project with the
recommendation of at least consideration of further
compliance with the recommendations of Mr. Cannon at a
Staff level.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for those
comments. Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. I tend to
agree with Commissioner Stump. After attending a
commissioner meeting up in Santa Rosa talking about CEQA, I think we’re actually on solid ground. We’re looking at the whole picture here, not just one little slice, and I think that’s what I came away with from at this meeting, that I think a supplemental report, a re-look, is mandated.
“Substantial evidence supports a low threshold fair
argument that a project may have a significant impact
effect regardless of contrary evidence.”
So, the fair argument standard is very important,
and I know when we had our combined meeting with the
Planning Commission and Town Council, the CEQA consultant that was with our Town Attorney, Ms. Kautz, mentioned the fair argument standard is powerful, and it’s something that (inaudible) needs to look at.

Page 375 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
59 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I think Planning Commissioners represent the Town
of Los Gatos and the citizens, and this is a new project coming in, and again, I think we have to look at the total impact of all the projects that may come forward, and
that’s why I feel we’re on solid ground with CEQA. I think CEQA actually wants us to do something like this if
substantial evidence comes forward, and I don’t think that was taken into consideration in our 2040 General Plan at all. It was based on much different numbers, much different densities, and so at this point I have to agree with
Commissioner Stump and his summary.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for those
comments. Commissioner Barnett and Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The item before us
involves a recommendation to the Council.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: And in that context, if
there’s a split on the Commission as to the right way to go, could both of those perspectives be presented as a
recommendation for consideration by the Council?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’ll say no, to start out
with, and Ms. Whelan can correct me. Council will get
verbatim minutes, so they will hear whatever conversations happened as the motion goes, but if you end up in a 2-2

Page 376 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
60 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
tie, then that would result in a recommendation of denial being forwarded to the Town Council.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I guess I was going to
refer back to what Ms. Whelan shared with us a while ago when I asked the question, because again, some good work has been done behind the scenes to talk about how do we handle CEQA in this unprecedented number of projects that we’ve got coming at us that in a lot of cases we have very little control over, and CEQA is one of the things that we can use, because it’s really also designed to protect the public, and that’s the public that’s here currently, our residents.

Now, I also believe it protects the public that
we’re going to be inviting to live in our community as
well, because if we do this well, and we understand the impacts well, and we plan for those impacts, they will be the beneficiaries of less traffic issues, etc., so we’re just trying to avoid other severe consequences.

And if we don’t do that, if we just sort of move
forward one at a time, then we’re not exercising our duty the best; we’re exercising our duty, but at worst the Town could even face a CEQA lawsuit. We talk about lawsuits. I

Page 377 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
61 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
don’t like talking about lawsuits, because I don’t think anybody really needs to sue anybody, but we’re talking
about potentially a developer saying we’re now going to go to court. The public can take us to court as well. Our own residents can file a class action if they don’t believe that we’re doing the work that is needed to study, that’s needed to really lay out a thoughtful plan for this
community housing plan, and I think we all want that. We all want below market rate housing. We want those things. I will stop there, Chair.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: In addition, this doesn’t
mean that we will not have projects coming forward. All this means is that we’ll take a second look and maybe have the backing of what CEQA wants us to do, take these second looks when circumstances have changed, and have some new concessions or waivers that are not allowed. I can’t get into that, because I don’t know that, but what I do know is that development could continue, we would just have a
little more control, because we would have a lot of new facts that the Town could consider in the projects.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. My sense is we’re
divided. I’ll just reiterate my prior comments without
belaboring the point.

Page 378 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
62 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Again, we’re going to see a great many projects
in this town in the many months coming forward, and I don’t disagree, we have to consider them cumulatively. But even given that analysis, I don't know how that would change this particular project.

This project I find to be well designed, within
it the overlay zone limits asking for concessions which I think are not unreasonable, and so I don’t think the
cumulative analysis, even if performed, which I agree
should be performed, significantly should or would alter this project, and for that reason I would support it.

But I believe we are at a 2-2 tie, and so my
question, I guess, to Staff is the way forward. Should it be a motion for, and if that fails, then a motion in the alternative against, and then with those two failed
motions, leave it at that and have it go to Town Council? Or a single motion? Would that represent the 2-2?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: A single motion would suffice,
and then it would go… If the votes stay as they are, it will go as a recommendation of no to the Town Council.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Very good. Then
Commissioners, I will take it upon myself to make the
motion to consider a request for approval to demolish
existing commercial structures, construct a multi-family

Page 379 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
63 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
live/work development of 55 unit, a Conditional Use Permit for a live/work development, a Condominium Vesting
Tentative Map, site improvements requiring a Grading
Permit, and removal of large, protected trees under SB 330 on property zoned CH:HEOZ, located at 15349 to 15367 Los Gatos Boulevard. APNs 424-19-048 and 424-19-049.

Architecture and Site Application S-24-015. Conditional Use Permit U-24-006. Subdivision Application M-24-008.

I can make all the required findings, and as part
of that motion I will include a recommendation for Staff and developer to work further to implement the design
changes recommended by the consulting architect. That is my motion. Let me hear from Town Counsel.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Because this is an SB 330
project the Town is limited to holding five public
hearings, and so that’s something to consider.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Continuing it would be to a
third hearing, because the first conditioned counts as a hearing as well.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Very good. If I may ask,
what is the result of running out our hearing?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: It is deemed approved.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes, Commissioner Barnett.

Page 380 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
64 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The five applies
cumulatively to both the Planning Commission and to the Council, correct?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The total of all Town hearings
is limited to five.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioners, I’m going to
put my motion on hold for one second and open the
discussion to the Applicant’s request. The request is, as opposed to a denial, to continue the motion, which would have the effect of adding at least one more hearing to the mix, so it would take us from two hearings to three
automatically, which would only leave two in reserve, which puts the Town slightly closer to peril, is the best way of putting it. Commissioners, any thoughts on the Applicant’s request, given that footing?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Through the Chair, I would
just offer also, the two Commissioners who aren’t here this evening are both recused, so the four of you are going to be sitting up there again with the new person when and if they start in May, then ultimately that’s the landscape, but there could end up being a similar scenario.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Understood. Very good. One
argument could be, then, the quicker we get it to Town

Page 381 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
65 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
Council, given the divided Planning Commission, the better landscape for the Town of Los Gatos given legal peril. Is that a fair statement?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I think it’s ultimately up to
the Planning Commission. You can continue the item; that’s perfectly fine. It may end up hamstringing future hearings.

You can act on it with a recommendation one way or the
other, so either way is perfectly fine.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: Thank you very much. I guess
what I’m coming back to is really wanting to get clarity around CEQA, and I know Ms. Whelan, you said that perhaps that would maybe be a four-week process; you can’t lay a promise on that.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: And when I mentioned the four
weeks, I meant landing on a solution.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: No, no, I understand that.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Not finished (inaudible).

COMMISSIONER STUMP: No, I fully understand that,
in that we land on a solution, and I don’t know how that applies here, that if we were to say let’s continue this to a date certain, four weeks out, six weeks out, if we have a solution in four weeks, I don't know what difference it makes other than we’ve got a way forward.

Page 382 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
66 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
As I said, I like this project. This is not a
matter of saying I’m against the project, but my concern is CEQA, and this whole discussion about yes, we should
consider doing cumulative impact, that I know that
conversation is still taking place, and if we were coming back with that settled, I would more than likely at that point in time be a yes vote. I’m not trying to hold anybody hostage, I’m just saying I need clarification around where we’re going with CEQA study. That’s why I was going to make a motion, Chair, to do a date certain, but again, I realize there are unknowns here and I can understand why we would take a vote either way.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. I appreciate
those comments. Yes, Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I wonder if we could
reopen the public hearing to allow the developer to explain why they would prefer to have a continuance.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioners, any
objection? I’ll do it, subject to a limit of three minutes.

Thank you, I appreciate that.

PAMELA NIETING: The reason for the continuance
is because I strongly believe in the work that Nick Pappani and Raney did. It’s interesting, because when you talk
about a CEQA exemption, it makes it seem like there was no

Page 383 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
67 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
work done, but there were a numerous amount of technical studies, and so maybe what we can do is that Nick can put it into more simple terminology, because you’re right, we are not CEQA attorneys, and I am certainly not a traffic engineer, so my hope is that Nick can put it into language that we can all understand, review the cumulative impact, and be able to present something that everyone can stand by, because I want you to be able to say to Staff, “Well done. You did a good job on that CEQA,” which I know they did, because as an engineer I reviewed the document myself, so that’s literally the only reason for the continuance is to be able to provide that, please. And just because it’s also a good project.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you for those
comments. I’ll re-close the public portion of the hearing.

Commissioner Stump.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: I would agree. I read
through the CEQA work that was done, and I would consider it to be fine work, but when I look at the underlying EIR that it’s resting on, that’s where my concern is, that
program EIR, and what we were studying at that time. We were studying nothing greater than 40 dwelling units per acre. The Housing Element environmental assessment that followed leaned totally on the General Plan EIR, and so my

Page 384 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
68 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
position is not so much quality of work, because the
quality of work was excellent, I agree with you. It’s not so much that; it’s we still are not looking at cumulative impact.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Let me ask you a question
again. This is for Commissioners and Staff. I’m trying to incorporate Commissioner Stump’s and Commissioner Burnett’s ideas regarding CEQA into the motion. How about if we
fashion the motion, and I don’t want to box anybody in, but a motion approving the project, again, subject to the
recommendations of working with Staff on the consulting approval, and then further recommendation that the Town Council incorporate or evaluate the use of a cumulative EIR process as part of this project and all future projects? Would that satisfy you?
COMMISSIONER STUMP: It’s not so much satisfying
me. I think I’d have to look to the Town Attorney as well as say is this something that we could do. Because
basically we’re trying to give a project, and ultimately a deadline, to the Council.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: What I’m trying to do maybe
has the cart and the horse here. I’m trying to protect the project, protect the Town on the number of hearings we
have, but at the same time express our concerns on this

Page 385 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
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
matter so that Town Council can decide whether to… Because ultimately, it’s their determination since we’re only
making a recommendation. If part of the recommendation is to consider the cumulative impacts of the project as well, would that be a reasonable and appropriate recommendation for us to make to Town Council?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: In recommending approval, one
of the findings that the Commission would be making is that the CEQA work that has been done for the project to date is adequate, and so if the Commission were to recommend
approval, the Commission would need to make that finding.

That said, the Commission could make that
finding, and then in addition recommend that the Town
proceed with a cumulative impacts analysis for all the
pending SB 330 projects.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioners? Commissioner
Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: So, would that include
this project? And I commend our Chair this evening for
trying to come up with a decision here. So, my question would be would Staff work as quickly as they can to develop a supplemental report based on the cumulative impact so that it would go hand-in-hand, so it wouldn’t be delayed longer and longer so more projects would slip in? But

Page 386 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
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
again, would this project be included in the study that we would recommend?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: No, because if the Commission
is recommending approval tonight, one of the findings is that the CEQA that was done for this project is adequate.

Then with regard to timing, I’m estimating that Staff will have a proposed solution to the cumulative impacts question in about a month’s time. Then I would say a fair estimate, if the Town elects to go with a supplemental EIR, I will say that preparation of a supplemental EIR is estimated to take at least six months.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioners, any further
thoughts? I’m not sure where that leaves us. Is it a fair summary, then, to say that if we outlined the motion that I just summarized, essentially it would be a tacit approval of the EIR for this project, but then a requirement that this project be considered together with all future
projects as part of a cumulative analysis. Is that a fair way to say it?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: One avenue would be, if the
Commission were inclined and were able to make the
findings, that the CEQA was adequate for this project, but to independently recommend to the Council that the Council

Page 387 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
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
direct Staff to develop a method for analyzing cumulative impacts for all SB 330 projects.

COMMISSIONER STUMP: We can say it would still be
included in that cumulative analysis, even if we’ve made the findings and we go forward with the recommendation to approve tonight, the data from this project would still be part of the cumulative findings?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: That’s correct.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioners, given that
understanding of recommendations, that would be my motion.

Maybe just by a show of hands, not a formal vote, those that would support a motion of that caliber before I
formalize it. Or comments, please.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: My only comment is we are
facing another very large project coming up next week, and how does that fit in the picture?
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I’ll defer to Staff.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Next week’s meeting will be
more of a study session, because the CEQA is not yet
complete for that project.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioner Stump.

Page 388 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
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
COMMISSIONER STUMP: Sorry for the follow-up
question. When do we expect that CEQA study to be completed on that project?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I don’t have an answer for that
tonight.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Commissioner Barnett.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: I second the motion as
presented by the Chair.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. We have a first
and a second. First, Staff, do you understand the motion that’s currently presented?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: As I understand it, the
Commission is considering making all the findings for
approval, and then having an adjunct recommendation to the Town Council that the Council direct Staff to develop a method to study the cumulative impacts of the SB 330
projects.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Including the current
project.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: With the additional
recommendation on the consulting architect recommendations for design elements. Those would be our two supplemental

Page 389 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 4/23/2025
Item #6, 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard
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
recommendations. That’s the motion, and I believe
Commissioner Barnett, do I have your second on that motion? COMMISSIONER BARNETT: Well, it just occurred to
me, in addition to findings we’re supposed to make the
consideration under 29.21.50 of the code for granting an Architecture and Site Application.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: My motion is so amended.

COMMISSIONER BARNETT: The seconder agrees.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: All right, we have a first
and second. Commissioners, any additional comments or
thoughts? If not, I’ll call the question. All those in
favor of the motion, please indicate by raising your hand.

It carries 4-0. Mr. Paulson, are there appeal rights?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: There are not appeal rights,
since this is a recommendation. Staff will move forward and work with the Applicant on next steps.

COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you very much, and
thank you, all, for your attendance and for your work on this matter.
(END)

Page 390 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 1 of 2 ends

April 28, 2025
Mr. Sean Mullin
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
Re: 15349-15367 Los Gatos Boulevard, revised response to architectural peer review by Cannon Design Group dated 29 July 2024.

Dear Sean,
As a response to Planning Commission comments on April 23rd, our team took an additional look at the architecture particularly at Los Gatos Boulevard in relation to the comments by Cannon Design Group. Our architect Dan Hale, of Hunt Hale Jones provided a sketch for the units facing Los Gatos Boulevard that shows an intent to create more individuality of each townhome unit with the following architectural expressions:
• A massing break of 18” between the two facades can be provided which also creates a break in the roof line.
• A secondary option for the deck to allow for a roof in addition to the original trellis can be provided.
• There are small but intentional changes at the dormer window at the massing break. • Material changes can be provided so that materials are different between adjacent units • Color variation can be used to add additional individuality for each unit.

A hand sketch of the proposed architectural expressions can be seen on seen in Exhibit A0.1 attached herein.

Additionally, I did want to highlight the previous incorporations made to the architecture and the site as a result of a comprehensive response to Cannon Design Group’s comment. We integrated the changes noted above in our response as follows:

Response to Recommendations:

1. Guest Parking and Internal Pedestrian Circulation
The guest parking location is strategic as it creates an additional buffer from the proposed residences and the existing gas station. This buffer also contains necessary water quality infrastructure. The required density required a careful placement of parking. The current parking is easily accessed and visible from the street.

Pedestrian connectivity and circulation has been enhanced by incorporating a “Woonerf”street concept where the interior street is a shared space and designed to encourage pedestrian circulation and activity. A pedestrian connection has been added from Los Gatos Blvd through Building A & E to the interior street. The interior loop street incorporates pavers with a portion having a different color highlighting a pedestrian path. Approximately 50% of the units have decks that face the interior street, activating and enhancing the resident experience. These elements will make the interior circulation a shared space for pedestrians and autos not a typical townhome alley.

ATTACHMENT 7

Page 391 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Additional pedestrian connections through the buildings were considered but this would preclude maintaining the proposed density.

2. Los Gatos Blvd. Frontage:

Slight adjustments have been made to the ground floor footprints to six of the eleven units in Building A providing additional Façade Plane Depth along Los Gatos Blvd.

In response to Planning Commission comments the following items may also be incorporated:
• A massing break of 18” between the two facades can be provided which also creates a break in the roof line.
• A secondary option for the deck to allow for a roof in addition to the original trellis can be provided.
• There are small but intentional changes at the dormer windows where the proposed massing break are proposed.

3. Garden Lane Frontage:

The landscape plan shows a landscape buffer that is being added in addition to carefully positioned trees along the edge that enhance the proposed development and in turn do not cause an artificial wall along Garden Lane. The project maximized the location of new trees both at the edge and within where feasible.

Revisions had been made to the interior of the end units that face Garden Lane and Los Gatos Blvd.

These changes have allowed additional windows and massing elements on the end unit elevations, additionally vines with wires have been added on the first floor. These improvements provide the appropriate massing relief for elevations that face the street.

4. Façade Roof Slopes:

The low sloped Gable roof on the first floor have been replaced with shed roofs.

5. Façade Articulation and Materials:

This area of Los Gatos Blvd. is a mixture of commercial and existing residential influencing an urban residential character. For this reason, the buildings and massing for Buildings B -E are proposed to have both a mixture of larger massing elements in context of the larger scaled more urban commercial buildings whereas Building A (facing Los Gatos Boulevard) will be designed with an individual townhome expression as described in response #2 above and seen in Exhibit A0.1.

Sincerely,
Pamela Nieting
Vice President
City Ventures

Page 392 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

CONCEPT FACADE REVISIONS
BLDG. A

FRONT ELEVATION - EAST
BLDG. A 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-7"
F
F
F
F
F
F F
F
F
F
F
F ± 39'-2"
3 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PROPOSED GRADE
3X-4XA 1C 3-4C 1A 1A 2B 1XA 1A 3-4C 1C 3X-4XA-M
1ST FLR S.O.G
1ST FLR. PLATE
2ND FLR. SUBFLR.
2ND FLR. PLATE
3RD FLR. SUBFLR.
3RD. FLR. PLATE
330.8 9'-1" 9'-1" 8'-7"
1ST FLR S.O.G
1ST FLR. PLATE
2ND FLR. SUBFLR.
2ND FLR. PLATE
3RD FLR. SUBFLR.
3RD. FLR. PLATE
328.5
330.8
328.2
329.3

EXISTING GRADE
16'-9" 15'-10" 15'-10" 6'-93
4 " 5'-101
2 " 6'-3
1 2
" 5'-10
1 2
" 6'-9
3 4
" 15'-10" 6'-9
3 4
" 5'-10
1 2
" 6'-3
1 2
" 5'-10
1 2
" 6'-9
3 4
" 15'-10" 15'-10" 16'-9"
176'-0"
10'-7" TYP. BALCONY WIDTH
<15' TYP. LIGHT FIXTURE

DISTANCE VINES WITH
WIRES, TYP.

C H U N T H A L E J O N E S A R C H I T E C T S
DATE:

PROJECT:

LOS GATOS GREEN

LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA

04.28.2025
317076.00
SCALE:

CONCEPT FACADE REVISIONS
A0.1
1/8" = 1'-0"
4/28/2025 10:22:52 AM, -PROGRESS SET - NOT FOR BID/CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES

Page 393 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Beth Grimes
Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2025 11:26 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Cc: ; Beth Grimes ; Mark Grimes
Subject: Input on 15349-15367 Los Gatos Blvd project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Planning Commissioners,
Thank you for the discussion around the project for 15349-15367 Los Gatos Blvd at the Planning Commission meeting on 4/23/25. We wanted to provide some feedback both on the meeting accessibility as well as the topic discussed.

As for meeting accessibility, we were tuned in via YouTube but were unable to provide comment because there was no clear Zoom link for this meeting. Then, once in the meeting using credentials from the 03/26/25 meeting, we had the hand raised but were never acknowledged.

As for the development proposal, we are in agreement that this project is so much more considerate of trying to meet the Town's character than other LG Blvd projects. We are however concerned about the following:
1) Parking - The street parking along Garden Lane is often full both during the day and overnight - car wash workers parking for the work day, tree trimmers and lumber companies using this area for staging trucks and vehicles, and others living out of their cars and RVs. We appreciate the enthusiasm for people to use public transit, but this is a massively unrealistic expectation. With 55 units, we can expect there to be at least ~75 cars. Does the proposed parking area adequately cover this expectation? If not, these excess cars will worsen an already problematic parking situation. 2) Neighborhood traffic - We are concerned that this new development will cause a significant increase in thru traffic for our neighborhood. We already experience high-speed cut through traffic on Corinne and Benedict for those looking to avoid lights and congestion on LG Blvd. With this new housing development targeted to families and with access on Garden Lane, we are concerned this will encourage folks to use these alternative routes to bring their kids to school and avoid LG Blvd. Additionally, Corinne, Benedict, and Chiro all lack sidewalks, causing a concern for pedestrian safety and children walking and biking to school.
3) Street Lighting - Garden Lane currently lacks adequate street lighting and request that the Town considers investing in improved street lighting as a part of this project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Best,
Mark & Beth Grimes, Alexandra & Matthew Paras
Los Gatos, CA 95032
ATTACHMENT 8

Page 394 ends

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.

Page 395 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 396 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 397 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 398 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 399 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 400 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 401 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 402 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 403 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Shirley Reekie < >
Sent: Sunday, May 4, 2025 5:30 PM
To: Planning <[email protected]>
Subject: Objection and request re proposed development at 15349/15367 LG Blvd [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Please see my attached letter detailing my objection and request regarding this development.

If it would also help my case to speak at the meeting, please advise.

Thank you for listening--I hope.

Shirley Reekie

Page 404 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos, CA 95032
May 3, 2025
Objection and request regarding proposed new development at 15349 and 15367 Los Gatos B’d As you will clearly see from these pictures/schematics provided by you, my property will be very much overlooked by this proposed new development. I request that the “large protected trees” that currently border the NW of this site (along Garden Lane) NOT be removed. If they are, my property will be very much overlooked by the second and third floors of these proposed buildings.

I am not against the development—people have to live somewhere—(although people in my neighborhood have endured far more development than those living to the south end of Los Gatos, primarily with the North 40 building, and with more to come there) but I fear that the proposed removal of the “large protected trees” along Garden Lane, and their eventual replacement by (obviously) much smaller trees, will greatly impact my enjoyment of my property. As you will see below, I have several windows that face Garden Lane and I also have a yard that I work in and enjoy, currently unoverlooked by anyone. An alternative would be to reduce the size and number of windows on the buildings that will overlook me, but the easier and better answer is surely to leave the trees.

If trees are protected how can, or indeed should, they be removed? Please reconsider the “large protected trees” removal so that those of us who live in properties that will be overlooked by this proposed development will not have their properties so adversely impacted. See attached to view the obvious impact—these pictures are from your plan.

My house is circled in red and shown
also above
Shirley Reekie, Owner

Page 405 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 406 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 407 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 408 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 409 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Page 410 ends

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos City CouncilJune 3, 2025

Los Gatos City Council
June 3, 2025