ITEM NO. 1.
Errata Sheet
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025
treatment and flow-duration controls for the full range of flows, from one-tenth of the twoyear flood event up to the 10-year event.
Based on the above, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in erosion, siltation, or flooding on- or off-site, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Consequently, implementation of the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant impact.
a-d. According to maps prepared as part of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire and Resource Assessment Program, the project site is not located within an SRA; however, the site is located within a Very High FHSZ.3
The project site is currently undeveloped and contains scattered oak woodlands throughout. Development of the proposed residential uses would include the clearing of on-site fuel sources and, thus, is not anticipated to increase wildfire risks at the site relative to the existing conditions within the project site.
Additionally, the proposed project would be required to comply with all applicable requirements of the CFC through the installation of fire sprinkler systems, fire hydrants, and other applicable requirements. In addition, the proposed project would be subject to the requirements of Chapter 7A of the CBC which include, but are not limited to, use of ignition-resistant materials, fire-intrusion design of roofing and vents, and use of glazed exterior windows and doors. The proposed project would also be situated near existing roads, water lines, and other utilities, which would reduce risks related to wildfire due to the existing development generally acting as a fuel break because of a lack of natural debris (e.g., vegetation) within developed sites.
Wildfire risks are not anticipated to be exacerbated during project operation, as the anticipated residential uses typically do not involve operational components that would increase the risk of wildfire. Development of the site for residential uses would help to reduce the risk of wildland fire in the area due to site improvements, such as roadways, driveways, and irrigated landscaping, which would reduce readily combustible vegetation. Additionally, pursuant to Mitigation Measure VII-1, the project design would be required to show that final grading or improvement plans incorporate all recommendations included within the site-specific GGHI prepared for the proposed project to ensure slope stability at the project site.
Furthermore, as shown in Figure 16 of the IS/MND, the proposed project locates the residences outside of the areas of the site with the steepest slopes. Although some slopes occur within the project site, the on-site slopes are limited in size and are not sufficient to facilitate rapid spread of wildfire, as compared to mountainous areas with slopes sufficiently large enough to accommodate rapid spread of wildfire. As a result, the proposed project would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope. The off-site improvement areas do not include significant slopes.
As discussed in Section IX, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of this IS/MND implementation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial 3 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Santa Clara County: State Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Effective April 1, 2024.
ITEM NO. 1.
Errata Sheet
Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
November 25, 2025
modifications to the existing roadway system and, thus, would not physically interfere with the Town’s EOP, particularly with any emergency evacuation routes.
Furthermore, the proposed project would not include land uses or operations that could impair implementation of the plan. While the long-term maintenance of the proposed roadways, water and wastewater infrastructure, and other utilities would not exacerbate fire risks, the activities associated with the initial construction and placement of the utilities and infrastructure could cause a temporary increase in fire risks due to the use of heavy equipment, which would contain combustible materials such as fuels, oils, and ignition sources. However, the project contractor would be required to comply with all applicable health and safety standards, including the California Health and Safety Codes and local Town ordinances regulating the handling, storage, and transportation of hazardous materials.
Compliance with such standards would help to minimize the potential for accidental conditions, including fire.
Additionally, the Santa Clara County Fire Department SCCFD has also adopted Genasys Protect (formerly known as Zonehaven) to provide specific, timely and accurate information regarding evacuations within the County. Genasys Protect divides geographic regions into smaller zones to help simplify evacuations. In the event of a wildfire or public safety emergency, fire department and law enforcement agencies will issue evacuation orders and other protective actions for impacted areas. Genasys Protect is a web-based platform that provides real-time evacuation updates. The project site is located within Zone LGA-008, which includes the area north of Kennedy Road, south of Blossom Hill Road, east of Los Gatos Boulevard, and west of Short Road and Brooke Acres Drive.4 Therefore, the proposed project would not be expected to be subject to or result in substantial adverse effects related to wildfires, and a less-than-significant impact would occur.
The above modifications are for clarification purposes only and do not change the analysis or conclusions of the IS/MND.
4 Protect Genasys. Genasys Protect. Available at: https://protect.genasys.com/zones/US-CA-XSC-LGA-008.
Accessed May 2025.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 15
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 16
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 17
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 18
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 19
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 20
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 21
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 22
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 23
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 24
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 25
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 26
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
EXHIBIT 27
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/17/2025
ITEM NO: 1
ADDENDUM
DATE: December 15, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval for the Subdivision of One Lot into Twelve Lots with a Vesting Tentative Map, Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Each Lot, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Vacant Property Zoned RC. Located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. APN 532-16-006. Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -033 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge. Project Planner: Erin Walters.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 28 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the December 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through E (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/178TwinOaksDr)
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059
4. Location Map
5. Project Description and Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report
7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Final Arborist Report
9. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review
ITEM NO. 1.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and ND-24-001
DATE: December 15, 2025
10. Visual Renderings
11. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
14. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Sheet
15. Development Plans – Subdivision
16. Development Plans – Lot 1
17. Development Plans – Lot 2
18. Development Plans – Lot 3
19. Development Plans – Lot 4
20. Development Plans – Lot 5
21. Development Plans – Lot 6
22. Development Plans – Lot 7
23. Development Plans – Lot 8
24. Development Plans – Lot 9
25. Development Plans – Lot 10
26. Development Plans – Lot 11
27. Development Plans – Lot 12
Received with this Addendum Report:
28. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025
ITEM NO. 1.
W I L L I A M L. M c C L U R E
J O H N L. F L EG E L
D A N K. S IE G E L
JE N N I F E R H. F R I E D M A N
M I N D IE S. R O M A N O W S K Y
G R E G O R Y K. K LI N G S P O R N
N I C O L A S A. F L E G E L
K R IS T I N A A . F E N T O N
K I M B E R L Y J . B R U M M E R
C A M A S J . S TE I N M ET Z
P H I L I P S . S O U S A
J E F F R E Y A . S N Y D E R
____________
B R I T T N E Y L. S T A N D L E Y
AM E L I A S . F O R S B E R G
L I L I A N R . W I N T E R S
M A T T H E W C . D U N L A P
JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1 1 0 0 A L M A ST R EE T, S U I T E 2 1 0
M E N L O P A R K, C A L I F O R N I A 9 4 0 2 5 - 3 3 9 2 ( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 - 9 3 0 0
F A C SI M I L E ( 6 5 0 ) 3 2 4 - 0 2 2 7
w w w . j s m f . c o m
O F C O U N S EL
K E N T M I T C H E L L
R O B E R T D . T H O M A S
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
R E T I R E D
M A R G A R E T A . S L O A N
D I A N E S. G R E E N B E R G
D A V I D L. A C H
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
D E C E A SE D
J O H N D. J O R G E N SO N
( 1925 - 2025)
M A R V I N S. S I EG E L
( 1 9 3 6 - 2 0 1 2 )
J O H N R. C O S G R O V E
( 1 9 3 2 - 2 0 1 7 )
December 15, 2025
Chair and Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission
Town of Los Gatos, Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030
Via Email to Erin Walters, Senior Planner [email protected] Re: 178 Twin Oaks, Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project (Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -032 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24- 013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001) Dear Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:
This law firm represents Jon Witkin, who owns and resides on the property immediately adjacent to the proposed 178 Twin Oaks, Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project (“Project”) in the Town of Los Gatos (“Town”) hills where he has lived for seventy (70) years since 1955. As shown on the Project’s proposed Vesting Tentative Map before you for approval (and excerpted in Exhibit A), five (5) of the proposed twelve (12) residential units would share a property line with my client’s property, and therefore Mr. Witkin would be the neighbor most impacted by this Project. Although Planning staff has encouraged the Project applicant to meet with my client and the other neighbors as is customary for proposed developments in the Town, the applicant has blatantly ignored staff’s direction.
After reviewing the Project and the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Project (“IS/MND”), as well as governing state law and applicable Town regulations, we respectfully request that you recommend that the Town Council deny the Project outright on the grounds that:
(1) the Project would result in a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5, Subdivision (d); and (2) the Project egregiously conflicts with nearly all applicable existing objective development regulations the Project is subject EXHIBIT 28
ITEM NO. 1.
2 pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5, Subdivision (f) despite its Builder’s Remedy status.
If you elect not to recommend that the Town Council deny the Project outright despite its adverse health and safety impacts and conflict with objective local standards, the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) mandates that any further consideration of the Project must be postponed until an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) is prepared and certified. See our IS/ MND comment letter on behalf of Jon Witkin dated October 9, 2025 (included as Letter 23 in the Responses to Comments Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project November 25, 2025 (“Responses to Comments Document”) and the IS/ MND comment letter dated October 17, 2025 from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter attached hereto as Exhibit B (which was not included in the Responses to Comments Document and therefore not addressed by the environmental consultant that prepared the IS/ MND).
Moreover, as explained in those letters and further documented in the third party peer review of the Biological Evaluation Report for 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California, Prepared By Live Oak Associates, INC (May 2025) this law firm commissioned from Patrick Kobernus, Principal Biologist of Coast Ridge Ecology, Inc. (Exhibit C), the IS/ MND is deficient for several reasons and inadequate under CEQA. Accordingly, it cannot be relied upon under CEQA to approve the Project.
I. THE PROJECT WOULD RESULT IN SPECIFIC, ADVERSE IMPACTS UPON THE
PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY
We recognize that the Town cannot reject the Project unless it can make certain denial findings, one of which is that the project “as proposed would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low- and moderateincome households.” (Cal. Gov. Code, Sec. 65589.5, Subdivision (d)(2)).
However, the Project meets this denial finding and therefore should be rejected on this basis.
Specifically, it would: (1) impede the surrounding neighborhood’s evacuation in the event of a wildfire or other emergency; (2) increase erosion and landslide risk on the Project site and its vicinity; and (3) dramatically increase stormwater runoff and peak flows exposing the surrounding area to risk of flooding and water quality degradation.
A. The Project Would Restrict Evacuations and Emergency Access.
While the IS/MND concludes that the Project will not physically interfere with the Town’s emergency evacuation routes because it would not result in any substantial modifications to the existing roadway system, the IS/ MND fails to acknowledge that the additional trips generated by this 12-unit project (which exceed VMT thresholds by generating 113 new daily trips not including construction generated trips) will impact the narrow, winding access roads to the Project site. these access roads already experience significant delay and gridlock from trips associated with the existing 70+ homes in the area together with school and beach traffic. (See Jill & Craig Fordyce Letter, pp 30-31 (“Fordyce Letter”), included as Letter 5 in the Responses to Comments
ITEM NO. 1.
3 Document and Responses to Comments Document p. 31.) If the proposed 12- unit project is built at the Project site, the traffic burden on the roads will significantly increase, thereby restricting emergency access and evacuation routes for residents within the vicinity of the Project site in the event of a wildfire or other emergency. (Exhibit E, Fordyce Letter, p. 17.) Wildfire is a very real risk as the site lies in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, which, as acknowledged in the Responses to Comments Document, the IS/MND incorrectly classifies as only a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Because these access roads are already congested, there is no feasible method to mitigate this adverse safety impact of the Project without denying or reducing the density of the Project.
B. The Project Would Increase Erosion and Landslide Risk.
The geological hazards of the Project site further pose a specific, adverse impact on public safety.
The Project site sits within a County Geologic Hazard Zone with landslide, liquefaction, compressible-soil, and fault-rupture hazards. (IS/MND, pp. 59, 61.) Instead of mitigating these public safety risks, the Project applicant seeks multiple waivers to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines which were designed to safeguard the public from these risks. Specifically, the applicant seeks waivers to exceed the maximum allowable grading, thereby undermining slope stability and increasing the likelihood of landslides and erosion in this landslide hazard zone. (See Fordyce Letter, pp. 21-23). Because the Project as proposed seeks these waivers, the health and safety impacts from this increased erosion and landslide risk cannot be feasibly mitigated without denying or reducing the density of the Project.
C. The Project Would Increase Flooding Risk.
The additional 62,224 square feet of impervious surface proposed by the Project also poses a specific adverse impact on public health and safety by dramatically increasing stormwater runoff and peak flows. (Fordyce Letter, p. 23-27; San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Letter included as Letter 1 in the Responses to Comments Document.) Despite this risk, a final erosion-and-sediment control plan has not been prepared, leaving the surrounding area exposed to flooding, topsoil removal, water quality degradation, and the potential failure of the proposed bioretention pond adjacent to Hillbrook School and nearby homes. (Ibid.) This adverse health and safety impact caused by adding 62,224 square feet of impervious surface, cannot be feasibly mitigated without denying or reducing the density of the Project.
II. THE PROJECT CONFLICTS WITH APPLICABLE OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS
While we recognize that Builder's Remedy projects are not required to obtain Zoning and General Plan amendments, Builder’s Remedy projects must nonetheless comply with objective development standards pursuant to California Government Code Section 65589.5, subdivision (f). The Project egregiously fails to comply with nearly all such standards, most of which were designed to protect public health and safety.
The Project as proposed exceeds the following applicable Resource Conservation standards:
(i) the permissible density of principal residential units per lot, (ii) the minimum 20-acre lot area;
ITEM NO. 1.
4 (iii) maximum permitted height; (iv); maximum floor area; (iv) the minimum front, side, and rear setbacks (See Town Municipal Code, Sec. 29.49.160, 29.40.170, and 29.40.170; Staff Technical Review dated October 27, 2025, p. 6.)
The Project also conflicts with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines that apply to the Project site which is in the Hillside Specific Plan Area. Specifically, the Project proposes to build outside the Least Restrictive Development Area and on slopes greater than 30%, in violation of the hillside siting and slope constraints intended to limit grading and avoid hazard areas. (See Staff Technical Review dated October 27, 2025, p. 6) The Project also conflicts with driveway and parking requirements of the Hillside Specific Plan, conflicts with the Below Market Price Housing Program because it does not meet the standards for the size and location of affordable units, and conflicts with the prohibition against swimming pools on lots with slopes greater than 30%. (Staff Technical Review dated October 27, 2025.)
Moreover, the Project does not comply with minimum roadway width for fire access, and removes 223 protected trees, replanting only 85 trees on site when 551 replacement trees are required. Finally, the Project does not provide the following benefits that are otherwise required by Town Code: (i) sidewalks, a walkway or a path as; (ii) trail easement dedication or the construction of trails; (iii) an open space easement.
The applicant is requesting deviations from these requirements as “concessions and incentives” under State Density Bonus law. However, the Town may decline to grant this request under California Government Code § 65915 (d) if: 1) the concession or incentive does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing; 2) the concession or incentive would result in a “specific adverse impact . . . upon public health and safety or the physical environment which cannot be feasibly mitigated without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households.
No where in the record is it demonstrated that these requested concessions and incentives would result tin identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing, and as discussed above and below, many of these requested concessions and incentives would result in a specific adverse impact upon health and safety and the physical environment which cannot be feasibly mitigated without rendering the development unaffordable.
III. CEQA REQUIRES PREPARATION OF AN EIR BEFORE THE PROJECT CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR APPROVAL; THE IS/MND IS INADEQUATE
If the Planning Commission elects to proceed with consideration of the Project despite the fact that it would result in an adverse health and safety impact and conflicts with objective standards, an EIR must first be prepared in accordance with CEQA because there is substantial evidence in the record that the Project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment, as explained in our IS/MND comment letter dated October 9, 2025 along with the letters submitted by Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the SF RWQCB.
ITEM NO. 1.
5 The Project’s Builder’s Remedy status does not exempt it from complying with CEQA. (Cal. Gov.
Code, Sec. 65589.5(e).) An environmental impact report (“EIR”) is required whenever there is a “fair argument” that a project may have a significant effect on the environment—even if there is also substantial evidence to the contrary. (See No Oil, Inc. v City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75.) As explained in the aforementioned letters, there is a fair argument supported by evidence in the record, that that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment and therefore an EIR must be prepared before the Project can be approved.
Moreover, as explained in the aforementioned letters, the IS/MND is deficient because it fails to adequately describe the Project, fails to adequately analyze the Project’s significant environmental impacts, and many of the mitigation measures proposed to reduce the impacts that are identified patently violate CEQA. As evidenced in the third-party peer review of the Biological Evaluation Report for 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California, Prepared By Live Oak Associates, INC (May 2025) this law firm commissioned from Patrick Kobernus, Principal Biologist of Coast Ridge Ecology, Inc. (Exhibit C), the IS/ MND is deficient under CEQA for the following reasons:
(1) It relies on an outdated floristic survey that is over 14 years old; (2) It fails to address sensitive plant communities potentially present on the project site in accordance with California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) protocols; (3) Mitigation Measure 3.3.5a for the Project’s impact on Burrowing Owls is inadequate because it does not specify methodology and timing of the pre-construction surveys; (4) It fails to identify potential impacts to special status amphibian and reptile species and mitigate for these impacts;
(5) It fails to include a habitat assessment of the project site for bats as part of the IS/ MND and the preconstruction surveys required by Mitigation Measure 3.3.6a to address the Project’s impact on bats is inadequate;
(6) It fails to include a detailed survey and mapping of active woodrat middens and a woodrat relocation plan;
(7) It fails to identify potential impacts on the western bumble bee, (Bombus occidentalis); and Crotch’s bumble bee, (Bombus crotchii) and mitigate for these impacts; and (8) Its conclusion that there would be no impact to wildlife corridors is unsupported by the record and it fails to mitigate for these potential impacts.
Accordingly, the IS/ MND is inadequate under CEQA. If the Planning Commission elects to proceed with further consideration of this Project, an EIR must first be prepared and certified for the Project to ensure that the significant impacts of this Project are fully disclosed, analyzed, and mitigated and a full range of alternatives to the Project are identified and analyzed.
ITEM NO. 1.
6 V. CONCLUSION
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission recommend that the Town Council deny the Project on the grounds that it would result in a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety by (a) impeding the surrounding neighborhood’s evacuation in the event of a wildfire or other emergency; (b) significantly increasing erosion and landslide risk on the Project site and its vicinity; and; (c) dramatically increasing stormwater runoff and peak flows, exposing the surrounding area to risk of flooding and water quality degradation.
If you elect not to recommend denial of the Project despite its adverse health and safety impacts, any further consideration of the Project must be postponed until an EIR is prepared is prepared and certified as required by CEQA. As explained in the Coast Ridge Ecology biological peer review set forth in Exhibit B (as well as our letter dated October 9, 2025 and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance IS/ MND comment letter dated October 17, 2025 set forth in Exhibit C), the IS/ MND is deficient and therefore cannot be relied upon under CEQA to approve the Project.
Sincerely,
Camas J. Steinmetz, Esq.
Cc: Gabrielle Whelen, Town Attorney
Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
Sean Mullin, Planning Manager
Client
Enclosures: Exhibit A: Vesting Tentative Map Excerpt Showing Proximity of Jon Witkin Property Exhibit B: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance IS/ MND comment letter dated October 17, 2025
Exhibit C: Coast Ridge Ecology Peer Review of the Biological Evaluation Report for 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project
ITEM NO. 1.
Exhibit A
Project Vesting Tentative Map Excerpt
ITEM NO. 1.
Erin Walters, Senior Planner
[email protected]
Planning Commission
[email protected]
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
October 17, 2025
Subject: Comments on Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for Surrey Farms Estates (SCH No. 2025090920)
Dear Ms. Walters and Members of the Planning Commission, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP) respectfully submit the following comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared for the proposed Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. SCVBA is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the protection of birds, other wildlife, and their habitats across Santa Clara County. The Sierra Club mission is to promote the responsible use of the earth's ecosystems and resources.
As conservation organizations with members who live, recreate, and observe wildlife in Los Gatos and the Ross Creek watershed, we have a direct and substantial interest in ensuring full compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Our long history of engagement in environmental review involving riparian corridors, oak woodlands, and hillside developments reflects our commitment to protecting regional biodiversity and ecological integrity. Given the project’s location adjacent to critical habitat and wildlife movement corridors, rigorous environmental review is essential.
ITEM NO. 1.
Based on our review of the IS/MND and the recent October 2025 comment letter from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), we find substantial evidence that the project may result in significant hydrological and biological impacts that are not adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated. As detailed below, the IS/MND fails to address the jurisdictional status of an on-site ephemeral drainage, potential dewatering of riparian habitat, habitat fragmentation for wildlife, impacts from lighting and collision hazards to birds, and procedural conflicts with CEQA’s fair argument standard.
For these reasons, the Town must withdraw the IS/MND and prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to ensure adequate environmental review in compliance with CEQA.
Project Overview and Summary of Environmental Concerns
The proposed Surrey Farms Estates project would subdivide approximately 17.5 acres within a hillside area at 178 Twin Oaks Drive, to construct multiple single-family residences, internal roadways, driveways, and associated infrastructure. The site includes oak woodland, sloped topography, and an ephemeral drainage feature that ultimately conveys runoff toward Ross Creek. Despite the project’s location within an ecologically sensitive transition zone between existing development and natural hillside habitat, the IS/MND concludes that all potential impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels without the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
However, substantial evidence in the record, including evidence provided in the October 2025 comment letter from the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), demonstrates that the project may cause significant environmental impacts that have not been fully evaluated or mitigated. These include, but are not limited to:
● Hydrologic impacts to a potentially jurisdictional ephemeral creek, including diversion of contributing stormwater flows that may result in dewatering of riparian vegetation, ● Loss and fragmentation of biological habitat, including oak woodland, wildlife corridors, and breeding/nesting habitat for birds, raptors, and pollinators such as Crotch’s Bumble Bee,
● Unaddressed light pollution and bird collision risks associated with hillside residential development and night lighting at the wildland–urban interface, and ● Procedural deficiencies under CEQA, including reliance on deferred mitigation, absence of required agency consultation, and disregard of substantial evidence submitted by a responsible agency.
ITEM NO. 1.
Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard (Guidelines §§15064, 15065), the existence of substantial evidence supporting a reasonable possibility of significant effects mandates preparation of an EIR. The presence of unresolved agency disagreement, particularly from the RWQCB, a responsible agency with jurisdiction over waters of the State, further compels elevation of environmental review. These omissions provide substantial evidence of a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, requiring preparation of an EIR under CEQA Guidelines §§15064 and 15065.
Accordingly, SCVBA and SCLP submit that adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration would be legally improper, and that a full Environmental Impact Report is required to analyze, disclose, and mitigate the project’s hydrologic, ecological, and cumulative impacts.
I. Hydrology and Waters of the State: Dewatering, Jurisdiction, and RWQCB Conflict The IS/MND fails to properly evaluate or mitigate significant hydrologic impacts to an on-site ephemeral drainage that is subject to potential jurisdiction by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The document relies exclusively on a determination by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding federal jurisdiction, while omitting State jurisdictional standards under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and Fish and Game Code §1602.
A. Unresolved Jurisdiction over Waters of the State
The IS/MND asserts that the on-site ephemeral drainage is “non-jurisdictional,” yet it provides no confirmation or concurrence from RWQCB or CDFW. This omission directly conflicts with the RWQCB’s October 2025 comment letter, which reiterates the agency’s ongoing concern:
“Ten years after our initial comment letter, we remain concerned that the extent of waters subject to the jurisdiction of the Water Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife… has not been confirmed… Until jurisdiction is determined, the Project should assume that the ephemeral creek is a water of the State.” Waters of the State are defined independently of federal jurisdiction and include seasonal and ephemeral drainages under the Porter-Cologne Act. Failure to acknowledge jurisdiction of a State-regulated waterway constitutes a procedural and substantive CEQA flaw, as the project may require Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) or Clean Water Act §401 certification from RWQCB, and a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW.
B. Diversion and Dewatering of Riparian Flow
Current site hydrology supports riparian vegetation and wildlife habitat along the ephemeral drainage. The IS/MND proposes bioretention basins and pervious pavements designed to divert
ITEM NO. 1.
stormwater runoff into storm drains, away from the natural drainage. As RWQCB emphasizes:
“Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation along the ephemeral creek would be diverted… This could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water to sustain the vegetation, a significant impact to the creek.” The MND does not contain any hydromodification management analysis, despite the Town’s obligations under the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP). No measures are provided to maintain base flows, protect channel stability, or preserve riparian hydrology.
C. Inconsistency with the Los Gatos General Plan
The Los Gatos General Plan calls for protection of riparian corridors, habitat connectivity, and natural hydrologic functions. An ephemeral creek that supports riparian growth is subject to these protections, and cannot be dismissed without agency consultation or hydrological analysis.
D. Lack of Enforceable Maintenance and Ownership Measures The IS/MND defers long-term maintenance to a future homeowners’ association (HOA), without identifying:
● Responsibility for inspection and repair of stormwater infrastructure, ● Funding mechanisms for hydrologic mitigation, or
● Standards for performance over time.
Deferred mitigation violates CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B), which prohibits mitigation dependent on undefined future actions.
Conclusion on Hydrology
Because substantial evidence demonstrates the potential for significant hydrologic impacts - including dewatering of a State-regulated waterway - CEQA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The IS/MND must be withdrawn or recirculated to address these deficiencies.
II. Bird Collisions with Glass
ITEM NO. 1.
Bird collisions with glass are one of the leading human-caused sources of bird mortality in North America. Scientists estimate that up to one billion birds die each year in the United States from collisions with buildings and transparent or reflective surfaces. This is not a marginal issue; it is a primary driver in the continent-wide decline of bird populations, including species already stressed by habitat loss, climate change, and drought.
Birds do not perceive glass as a barrier. They see reflected sky or vegetation and attempt to fly through it, or they see a direct line of habitat through a structure and follow a “line of flight”, often fatally. While some environmental documents briefly acknowledge reflective glass, a truly protective approach must also address clear glass and see-through conditions, such as parallel glass façades or corridors that create direct flight paths through structures, as well as stand-alone glass elements such as balcony railings.
These features can be especially hazardous in hillside or riparian-edge developments, where migrating and resident birds move through tree canopy or along drainages. Local oak woodland and creek corridors serve as flyways for warblers, thrushes, towhees, and raptors, species that cannot adapt to invisible barriers.
Los Gatos General Plan Recognizes Bird Collision Risk
Importantly, the Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan explicitly acknowledges bird collisions as a serious environmental concern and commits to requiring safer building design.
Under the Environment and Sustainability Element, the Town states:
“Require new development to increase bird safety by reducing hazardous building and architectural elements, and including bird safe and lighting design.” The General Plan further anticipates a dedicated Bird Safety Ordinance to reduce collisions with windows and regulate hazardous materials and lighting:
“Adopt a Bird Safety Ordinance to reduce bird collisions with windows… regulate building design and lighting implementation.”
Despite these commitments, the environmental document does not analyze bird collision hazards nor propose any bird-safe measures for glazing, transparency, or façade design.
This absence creates a direct inconsistency between the project and the Town’s adopted policy direction.
Architectural Collision Hazards That Must Be Addressed
Basic bird-safe design is especially critical in hillside and riparian-edge developments where migratory routes cross tree canopies and drainages. Hazardous features include:
ITEM NO. 1.
● Expansive reflective glass facing vegetation
● Parallel or transparent façades creating “line-of-flight” conditions, and ● Glass balcony railings, corner glazing, and atriums that create illusions of open passage
These features are known to cause high-speed bird strikes, a long-term operational impact that CEQA requires agencies to identify and mitigate.
CEQA Requires Addressing Operational Wildlife Mortality CEQA evaluates not only temporary construction effects but long-term biological impacts from the operation of the built environment. Because bird-glass collision mortality is foreseeable, preventable, and recognized in Town policy, it must be mitigated at the project level through enforceable measures such as patterned glazing, reduced reflectivity, and design alterations to eliminate see-through corridors.
Conclusion
Given the Town of Los Gatos’ explicit policy to “increase bird safety by reducing hazardous building elements,” it is essential that this project incorporate bird-safe architectural standards.
Absent such measures, the project would perpetuate a known and significant source of avoidable wildlife mortality, inconsistent with both CEQA and the Town’s own General Plan.
III. Artificial Lighting (ALAN) and Impacts on Wildlife and Ecological Health Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) poses significant and well-documented impacts on wildlife, ecological function, and human health. While the environmental document discusses lighting only from an aesthetic or glare perspective, the evaluation of lighting impacts on biological resources, including migratory birds, nocturnal wildlife, and ecosystems is warranted. Light is not merely a visual issue, it is a biological force that disrupts circadian systems, navigation, foraging, predator-prey behavior, and reproductive timing.
Los Gatos General Plan: Lighting is a Biological Resource Concern The Town of Los Gatos 2040 General Plan expressly recognizes lighting as an environmental impact affecting wildlife, not just visual character. Under the Environment and Sustainability Element, the Town directs:
“Require the design of building, street, landscape, and parking area lighting to improve safety, energy efficiency, protection of the night skies (dark sky
ITEM NO. 1.
protections), biological resources, and environmental soundness.” The General Plan also calls for a Dark Skies Ordinance to minimize ecological disruption:
“Adopt a Dark Skies Ordinance … to regulate exterior lighting, skyglow, and impacts to wildlife.”
Despite these adopted policy commitments, the MND does not analyze lighting impacts on wildlife movement, riparian corridors, or nocturnal species. It treats lighting solely in terms of visual compatibility with surrounding homes, overlooking its ecological consequences.
Scientific Basis: Why ALAN Is an Ecological Impact
Peer-reviewed research has shown that nighttime lighting causes the following:
● Disorients migrating birds, pulling them off-route into developed areas where collision risk increases,
● Disrupts circadian hormones in wildlife and humans by suppressing melatonin, ● Alters predator–prey dynamics, favoring some species (rats, crows) over others (owls, bats), and
● Reduces insect populations, which cascades upward to birds and bats reliant on them.
Blue-rich light (high CCT LEDs) is especially harmful. The spectral range of 4000–5000K commonly used in development has been linked to higher disorientation and physiological stress in wildlife. Warm-spectrum lighting at 2700 Kelvin or below significantly reduces ecological disruption.
Location Sensitivity: Hillsides and Riparian Zones
Lighting impacts are particularly severe at the urban–wildland interface, such as hillside developments bordering Ross Creek and oak woodland. These areas support nighttime movement of the following:
● Owls (Great Horned, Barn Owl),
● Bats and nocturnal pollinators, and
ITEM NO. 1.
● Migratory thrushes, warblers, and tanagers navigating by starlight.
General Plan implementation guidance even identifies riparian corridor lighting as an ecological concern requiring directional control:
“Require careful lighting design in and near natural riparian corridors to direct light away and maximize the distance between nighttime lighting and the corridor.” This heightened sensitivity is entirely absent in the MND.
Recommended Mitigation – Consistent with General Plan
To comply with CEQA and align with General Plan sustainability goals, outdoor lighting should incorporate the following:
● Full shielding and downward direction (no uplight, no spill into habitat), ● 2700K or lower color temperature to minimize harmful blue light, ● Automatic shut-off or curfews after 10:00 PM, except motion-activated security lighting, and
● No unshielded façade or landscape lighting near riparian or canopy edges.
Conclusion on Lighting
By omitting wildlife analysis and relying solely on human visual standards, the MND fails to address a documented environmental impact recognized in both science and Town policy.
Effective lighting mitigation must protect ecological function, not just visual ambiance. A full EIR is warranted to evaluate operational lighting impacts in this sensitive hillside and riparian environment.
IV. Biological and Wildlife Impacts: Habitat Loss, Fragmentation, and Special-Status Species The IS/MND fails to adequately assess significant and irreversible impacts to biological resources, including native woodland habitat, wildlife movement corridors, nesting birds, and special-status pollinators. The project lies within a transitional zone between developed hillside residences and the Ross Creek watershed, an area known to support raptors, migratory songbirds, and oak-associated wildlife. The document’s reliance on generic pre-construction surveys does not satisfy CEQA’s requirements for identification, analysis, and mitigation of long-term habitat impacts.
ITEM NO. 1.
A. Oak Woodland and Habitat Fragmentation
The project would remove a substantial number of mature coast live oaks and associated understory vegetation. Oak woodlands provide critical foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for species such as Acorn Woodpecker, American Kestrel, Red-Shouldered Hawk, and multiple migratory warblers. Despite the scale of proposed vegetation clearing, the IS/MND does not quantify total tree loss, assess habitat fragmentation, or evaluate impacts to wildlife corridor functionality across the Ross Creek drainage interface.
Fragmentation of woodland habitat at this location poses long-term ecological consequences, including reduced canopy continuity, loss of acorn mast availability, and disruption of species movement between hillside and riparian zones. CEQA requires disclosure and mitigation of such impacts (Guidelines §15380), which the MND does not provide.
B. Riparian Dependency and Loss of Hydrologic Support
The IS/MND acknowledges the presence of an ephemeral drainage but incorrectly concludes there will be no biological impact. As documented by the RWQCB, the project’s stormwater design would redirect runoff away from the drainage, depriving the riparian system of seasonal hydrology:
“Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation… would be diverted… This could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water to sustain the vegetation.”
The biological effects of hydrologic alteration, loss of vegetative cover, reduced insect prey availability, and increased temperature exposure, were not analyzed.
C. Nesting Birds and Raptors: Inadequate Mitigation
The site supports habitat suitable for breeding birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code §3503. However, the IS/MND proposes only seasonal nest surveys, deferring species protection to future conditions. CEQA prohibits reliance on deferred mitigation in place of substantive analysis. Permanent loss of nesting and roosting habitat is not mitigated by temporal surveying.
Raptor species such as Red-tailed Hawk, Cooper’s Hawk, and Great Horned Owl are known to utilize this region. The MND does not analyze displacement, loss of hunting perches, or effects on prey availability.
D. Special-Status Pollinators: Omission of Crotch’s Bumble Bee
ITEM NO. 1.
The IS/MND omits any analysis of special-status invertebrates, including Crotch’s Bumble Bee (Bombus crotchii), a California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate species. This omission violates CEQA Guidelines §15380, which requires treatment of candidate species as threatened or endangered. Oak-woodland and chaparral-edge habitats within Santa Clara County are within the known range of this species.
No botanical or pollinator surveys appear to have been conducted.
Conclusion on Biological Impacts
The MND fails to disclose the scale of habitat conversion, analyze biological connectivity, or mitigate for permanent ecological loss. Substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have significant biological impacts, requiring a full Environmental Impact Report.
V. CEQA Procedural Failures: Reliance on an MND is Legally Improper The IS/MND for Surrey Farms Estates does not comply with the procedural requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Multiple deficiencies in analysis, consultation, and mitigation demonstrate that reliance on a Mitigated Negative Declaration is legally improper.
Under CEQA’s “fair argument” standard, the presence of substantial evidence supporting a significant impact mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
A. Failure to Apply the Fair Argument Standard
CEQA Guidelines §15064(f)(1) requires an EIR where substantial evidence indicates a project may have a significant effect on the environment, even if the lead agency believes impacts can be mitigated. In this case, expert agency evidence from the RWQCB clearly disputes the MND’s conclusions on hydrology and biological impacts. Disagreement among experts requires an EIR, not an MND.
B. Deferral of Mitigation and Absence of Performance Standards The IS/MND repeatedly defers mitigation to future plans, HOA oversight, or permitting processes, without defining performance standards or enforceable obligations. This violates CEQA Guidelines §15126.4(a)(1)(B), which prohibits reliance on unspecified or future mitigation, particularly where long-term resource impacts are involved (e.g., habitat loss, hydrology modification).
Examples of impermissible deferral include the following:
● Stormwater operation and maintenance left to an undefined HOA,
ITEM NO. 1.
● Lack of binding commitments to preserve riparian flow or tree canopy, and ● Absence of defined mitigation ratios for habitat or tree removal.
C. Failure to Recirculate After New Substantial Evidence (RWQCB 2025 Letter) The October 2025 RWQCB comment letter introduces substantial new evidence that the project may significantly impact waters of the State. Under CEQA Guidelines §15088.5, a lead agency must recirculate an environmental document when new information shows the project will result in new or substantially more severe impacts than previously disclosed. The Town did not recirculate, thereby depriving decision-makers and the public of a full review.
D. Misapplication of Housing Laws Does Not Exempt CEQA
While the project appears to invoke the Builder’s Remedy provisions under Government Code §65589.5, CEQA remains fully applicable. Housing law does not waive or reduce CEQA review.
Courts have consistently held that compliance with CEQA is mandatory and independent of zoning or housing authorization. The IS/MND’s approach suggests environmental review is secondary to entitlement, which is legally incorrect.
Conclusion on Procedural Failures
The procedural shortcomings of the IS/MND, combined with substantive omissions in hydrology, biology, and lighting, render it legally indefensible under CEQA. A full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to ensure compliance with state environmental law and to provide accurate assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of the project’s impacts.
VI. Conclusion and Request for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report For the reasons outlined in the sections above, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance finds that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Surrey Farms Estates project is inadequate under CEQA. Substantial evidence in the record, including technical comment from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, demonstrates that the project may cause significant environmental impacts that have not been fully analyzed, disclosed, or mitigated. These include potential dewatering of Waters of the State, permanent loss of biological habitat, wildlife disturbance from lighting, and unmitigated operational effects.
Under CEQA Guidelines §§15064 and 15065, a Mitigated Negative Declaration cannot be adopted where substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant impact. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 requires recirculation when new information indicates the potential for new or more severe impacts, as is the case with RWQCB’s October 2025 letter.
ITEM NO. 1.
Accordingly, SCVBA and SCLP respectfully requests the following from the Town of Los Gatos:
1. Withdraw the Mitigated Negative Declaration,
2. Recirculate the environmental document to incorporate agency concerns and hydrologic and biological analysis, and
3. Prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that evaluates project alternatives, hydrologic modifications, biological resource impacts, lighting effects, and cumulative conditions within the Ross Creek watershed.
The EIR must also include a reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce impacts to hydrology, wildlife corridors, and hillside habitat, as required under CEQA.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and remain available to participate in future consultation, provide biological expertise, and ensure that environmental review for this site reflects the region’s ecological values and legal standards. Please include these comments in the administrative record for this project.
Respectfully,
Shani Kleinhaus, Ph.D.
Environmental Advocate
Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance
Katja Irvin, AICP
Guadalupe Group Conservation Chair
Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter
ITEM NO. 1.
December 8, 2025
Camas J. Steinmetz, Esq.
Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP
1100 Alma Street, Suite 210
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Subject: Results of Peer Review of Biological Evaluation Report and Related Documents for the 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California.
Dear Ms. Steinmetz:
This letter documents the results of a third party peer review of the Biological Evaluation Report for 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California, Prepared By Live Oak Associates, INC (May 2025). The biological report evaluated the biological resources of a 17.55-acre property (APN 532-16-006) in Los Gatos, California (Project Site). The Project Site is located in an undeveloped hillside area between Cerro Vista Drive on the east, and Twin Oaks Drive on the west, within a residential area of Los Gatos, California.
This peer review consisted of a site visit to view the property from surrounding roads/parcels, and a review of the Biological Resource Evaluation (biological report). Additional documents and natural resource information reviewed as part of this peer review included the following sources:
• Biological Evaluation Report for 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California, Prepared By Live Oak Associates, INC (May 23, 2025). • Certified Arborist Report, Tree Preservation Plan Project #4185.10, December 15, 2024. Revision 3, Surrey Farms, Los Gatos, CA 95032, APN: 532-16-006. Prepared by Michael Gladden, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-2205A, McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services. • Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, City of Los Gatos (September 2025).
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)
• California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory • National Wetlands Inventory
• California Natural Community List (updated Feb 27, 2025) • CDFW Special Animals List (updated October 2025)
Project Description
The Project Site is a 17.55-acre area that consists primarily of grasslands and oak woodlands with some riparian (streamside) habitats. Existing single-family residences are located in the vicinity of the project site, as well as an existing private school located to the north of the site. The Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project (proposed project) would subdivide the project site into 12 residential lots, ranging in size from approximately 0.1-acre to 5.48 acres. The eastern portion of the project site would remain undeveloped. The western slope would be developed with 11 residences, comprised of eight market-rate single family residences and three below market-rate detached row houses. An additional single family
ITEM NO. 1.
Results of Peer Review of Biological Evaluation Report and Related Documents for the 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California – December 8, 2025
residence would be developed on the hillside’s northeastern slope. Access to the project site would be provided through a new private driveway off of Twin Oaks Drive west of the project site, as well as a separate access route to Lot 10 from Cerro Vista Court. 1 1) Plant Communities and Rare Plants
Rare Plants
The biological report concluded that there are two rare plant species that have the potential to occur on site: Santa Clara red ribbons (Clarkia concinna ssp. automixa) and bent flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia lunaris). The report also determined that both of these species were absent based on a floristic survey of the property conducted in 2012 by Wood Biological. As of 2026, the floristic survey would be 14 years old, and an updated floristic survey of the property should be conducted. Most biological reports need to be updated approximately every 5 years, depending on the site, and for habitats dominated by long-lived perennial plants, such as forests, surveys that were not conducted within the previous five years may not adequately represent the current baseline conditions and should be re-conducted (CDFW 2018) 2 .
Plant Communities
The biological report lists Mixed Oak Woodland as present on site, which is not considered a Sensitive Plant Community by CDFW. However, there are multiple species of oak trees and sycamores on site that may be considered sensitive communities by CDFW.
There are 204 Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) trees on site. Valley Oak woodland is considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA due to its S3 rank3. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife maintains a list of Sensitive Natural Communities. Natural Communities with ranks of S1-S3 are considered Sensitive Natural Communities to be addressed in the environmental review processes of CEQA and its equivalents. For alliances with State ranks of S1-S3, all associations within them are also considered Sensitive.
Based on the tree species identified in the arborist report (McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services, 2024)
4 , the following sensitive plant communities are potentially present on the project site (shown below).
There are five plant community associations within two Valley oak Alliances, which are considered Sensitive by CDFW (shown below).
1 Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, September 2025. https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/Index/2227
2 Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. State Of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife March 20, 2018.
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=18959#:~:text=Use%20of%20Existing%20Surveys&text=H abitats%2C%20such%20as%20grasslands%20or,and%20should%20be%20re%2Dconducted. 3 State (S) and Global (G) rarity ranks are indicated for Alliances and some Associations; those with ranks of 1-3 are considered Sensitive. California Natural Community List https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/NaturalCommunities#sensitive 4 Certified Arborist Report, Tree Preservation Plan Project #4185.10, December 15, 2024. Revision 3, Surrey Farms, Los Gatos, CA 95032, APN: 532-16-006. Prepared by Michael Gladden, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-2205A, McClintock Landscape Horticultural Services.
ITEM NO. 1.
Results of Peer Review of Biological Evaluation Report and Related Documents for the 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California – December 8, 2025
71.035.00 Valley oak woodland and forest (Alliance) G3 S3
71.040.05 Quercus lobata / grass - Sensitive
71.040.06 Quercus lobata – Quercus agrifolia / grass - Sensitive
71.040.18 Quercus lobata – Quercus douglasii - Sensitive
71.040.23 Quercus lobata / Baccharis pilularis – Diplacus aurantiacus - Sensitive
71.045.00 Valley oak riparian forest and woodland (Alliance) G3 S3
71.045.01 Quercus lobata – Quercus agrifolia / Toxicodendron diversilobum – (Symphoricarpos ssp.) There are six California sycamore trees identified on site, and almost all of which are large diameter trees.
The California Sycamore – Coast Live Oak Woodland Alliance has six plant community associations that are considered Sensitive by CDFW (shown below).
61.310.00 California sycamore – coast live oak woodlands G3 S3
61.310.02 Platanus racemosa – Aesculus californica – Sensitive
61.311.02 Platanus racemosa – Bromus hordeaceus – Sensitive
61.311.03 Platanus racemosa – Annual grass – Sensitive
61.312.01 Platanus racemosa – Quercus agrifolia - Sensitive
61.313.02 Platanus racemosa – Toxicodendron diversilobum – Sensitive
61.313.08 Platanus racemosa – Quercus lobata - Sensitive Recommendation for Plant Communities and Rare Plants
An updated floristic survey of the project area should be conducted by a Qualified Botanist(s) that includes an evaluation for both rare plants and sensitive plant communities, following the CDFW 2018 protocols (CDFW 2018).
2) Burrowing Owls
Mitigation Measure 3.3.5a (Pre-construction Surveys) in the biological report states that “A qualified biologist would conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owls following the 2012 CDFW Guidelines or most recent guidelines, which includes two surveys, one within 14 days prior to the start of construction and the second within 24 hours prior to the start of construction.” The bio report does not provide any additional information on what the 2012 CDFW Guidelines5, actually require for the survey and this information should have been included in the mitigation measure. In the 2012 CDFW Guidelines, preconstruction surveys are described as “Take Avoidance Surveys”. Take Avoidance Surveys are to be conducted using the same methods described for detection surveys in the 2012 CDFW Guidelines, and have very specific methods, and should not be confused with general preconstruction surveys.
Recommendation for Burrowing Owls
Surveys for Burrowing Owls should be conducted according to the CDFW 2012 Guidelines. The method and timing for these surveys from the 2012 Guidelines is provided below:
Survey method. Rosenberg et al. (2007) confirmed walking line transects were most effective in smaller habitat patches. Conduct surveys in all portions of the project site that were identified in the Habitat Assessment and fit the description of habitat in Appendix A. Conduct surveys by walking straight-line 5 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation State of California Natural Resources Agency Department of Fish and Game March 7, 2012. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline
ITEM NO. 1.
Results of Peer Review of Biological Evaluation Report and Related Documents for the 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California – December 8, 2025
transects spaced 7 m to 20 m apart, adjusting for vegetation height and density (Rosenberg et al. 2007).
At the start of each transect and, at least, every 100 m, scan the entire visible project area for burrowing owls using binoculars. During walking surveys, record all potential burrows used by burrowing owls as determined by the presence of one or more burrowing owls, pellets, prey remains, whitewash, or decoration. Some burrowing owls may be detected by their calls, so observers should also listen for burrowing owls while conducting the survey. Care should be taken to minimize disturbance near occupied burrows during all seasons and not to “flush” burrowing owls especially if predators are present to reduce any potential for needless energy expenditure or burrowing owl mortality. Burrowing owls may flush if approached by pedestrians within 50 m (Conway et al. 2003). If raptors or other predators are present that may suppress burrowing owl activity, return at another time or later date for a follow-up survey.
Weather conditions. Poor weather may affect the surveyor’s ability to detect burrowing owls, therefore, avoid conducting surveys when wind speed is >20 km/hr, and there is precipitation or dense fog. Surveys have greater detection probability if conducted when ambient temperatures are >20º C, <12 km/hr winds, and cloud cover is <75% (Conway et al. 2008).
Time of day. Daily timing of surveys varies according to the literature, latitude, and survey method.
However, surveys between morning civil twilight and 10:00 AM and two hours before sunset until evening civil twilight provide the highest detection probabilities (Barclay pers. comm. 2012, Conway et al. 2008). 3) Special Status Amphibians and Reptiles
The biological report provides determinations (in Table 2B: Special Status Species that Could Occur In the Project Vicinity) that the following special status amphibian and reptile species are absent from the site: Santa Cruz black salamander (Aneides niger), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii), California giant salamander (Dicamptodon ensatus), and northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), based on lack of suitable (primarily aquatic) habitat. However many of these species use uplands during part of their life cycle, including habitats such as oak woodlands and grasslands that are found on the project site. Also several of these species have been shown to move long distances through upland habitats (in some cases several hundred feet or more), and residing within upland habitats for several months at a time.
In addition, while the report states that the federally listed California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) may use Ross Creek as a movement corridor, the included mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 3.3.4a), requires preconstruction surveys for this species limited to within 50 feet of Ross Creek. This species has been documented to move up to 2 miles from aquatic habitats during dispersal/movement events, and they are known to move through all types of upland terrain and slopes, including the types of habitat present on the project site (Bulger, 1999).
6 Recommendation for Special Status Amphibian and Reptiles To determine that a species is absent on a given site, when there is some potential habitat to support the species, requires field surveys by Qualified Biologist(s) to determine presence or absence. While there may be a low likelihood that each of these special status species occurs on the project site, the size of the site (17.55 acres) is substantial, and is partially connected to open space habitats to the south and east of the site. In addition, populations of common amphibians such as California newt (Taricha torosa), which could be present on the site, are protected under CEQA. For these reasons, general amphibian and 6 Bulger, J. B. 1999. Terrestrial activity and conservation of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii) in forested habitats of Santa Cruz County, California. Prepared for Land Trust of Santa Cruz County.
ITEM NO. 1.
Results of Peer Review of Biological Evaluation Report and Related Documents for the 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California – December 8, 2025
reptile preconstruction surveys of the entire site should be conducted by a Qualified Biologist(s) prior to any construction/ground disturbance on the site.
4) Bats
Mitigation Measure 3.3.6a in the biological report states that “A habitat assessment should be conducted to identify trees which support potentially suitable roosting habitat for bats. This can be conducted at any time of year and we recommend it is completed well in advance of the construction start date.” This mitigation measure is vague, and should specify how far in advance the bat habitat assessment survey should be completed. Furthermore, the project site has over 670 trees, including a high number of oak and sycamore trees on the property which are preferred trees for roosting bats due to the high frequency of suitable cavities for bats. In addition, the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) a California species of special concern, among others, is thought to be associated with oak woodlands (Pierson and Rainey, 2007) 7, and has been documented to occur approximately 2.5 miles east of the site (CNDDB, 2025).
Recommendation for Bats
The habitat assessment of the project site for bats should be conducted as part of the CEQA review of the project, rather than included as a preconstruction survey prior to development, due to the high potential for roosting bats on site. The habitat assessment survey should be conducted by a Qualified Biologist(s), and based on these findings, follow up emergence (nighttime) surveys during the bat maternity season (March 1 to October 15) may be necessary. If it is determined that a bat roost is present, CDFW should be consulted and a bat exclusion and mitigation plan should be prepared that is reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation.
5) San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
The San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens) is a California species of special concern. Middens (nests) of this species were documented within the oak woodlands of the project site, and the property provides suitable habitat for this species. Mitigation Measure 3.3.7b in the biological report provides measures to minimize impacts to San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats, however the location of the middens was not provided in the biological report, and the site may provide habitat for several middens. Development of the site could impact the woodrat population in the area, and therefore more detailed information on the number of middens and their location is warranted.
Recommendation for San Francisco Dusky-Footed Woodrat
Due to the presence (and potential abundance of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats on the project site) it is recommended that a more detailed survey and mapping of active woodrat middens should be conducted and a woodrat relocation plan should be prepared by a Qualified Biologist(s) and reviewed and approved by CDFW prior to implementation.
7 Bat Distribution in the Forested Region Of Northwestern California. Prepared By Elizabeth D. Pierson, California Department of Fish and Game and William E. Rainey, Ph.D. Wildlife Management Division Contract #FG-5123-WM November 2007. https://www.nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=3835
ITEM NO. 1.
Results of Peer Review of Biological Evaluation Report and Related Documents for the 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California – December 8, 2025
6) Bumblebees/ Invertebrates)
Two special status bumble bee species are evaluated in the biological report: western bumble bee, (Bombus occidentalis); and Crotch’s bumble bee, (Bombus crotchii). They are shown in Table 2B: Special Status Species that Could Occur In the Project Vicinity and were determined to be absent from the project site. However habitat types present on the project site (grassland) are utilized by both of these species.
Additional special status invertebrates that were not included in Table 2B, that have some potential for presence include obscure bumblebee (Bombus caliginosus), and large marble butterfly (Euchloe ausonides).
The USFWS is currently reviewing a petition from the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, requesting that the large marble butterfly (Euchloe ausonides) be listed as a Threatened species and the large marble type subspecies (Euchloe ausonides ausonides) be listed as an Endangered species under the Act.8 Habitat for the large marble butterfly includes grasslands and open meadows along with streamsides, berms, beaches, canyons, montane slopes, and weedy flats. Feeds on plants of the mustard family.
The obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus) is known to inhabit the grasslands and has been reported to nest underground in rodent burrows, in structures, or in decaying wood. This species is also difficult to distinguish from the more common yellow-faced bumblebee (Bombus vosnesenskii) and may be undocumented where present9.
Recommendation for Bumble bees / Invertebrates
Prior to any construction/ground disturbance on the site, a bumble bee survey and large marble habitat assessment should be conducted by a Qualified Biologist(s). Background information research should include citizen scientist data iNaturalist and Bumble Bee Watch as well as the CNDDB. If these species are detected on site, appropriate mitigation measures should be determined based on consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service.
7) Wildlife Movement Corridors
The biological report concludes that there would be no impact to wildlife corridors, however it does not include information on whether fencing (a potential wildlife movement barrier) will be installed or will be restricted from use on the site. In section 3.3.9 Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors, the report concludes that “Local urban species currently traversing the site for regular and dispersal movements would still be expected to cross the site post-build-out’.. and...”post build-out impacts to movement corridors for local wildlife are less-than significant.” 8 Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service ,50 CFR Part 17 [FXES1111090FEDR–256–FF09E21000] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; 90-Day Findings for Eight Species. January 21, 2025. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/fr/90/7038
9 A Petition to the State of California Fish and Game Commission to List Four Bumble Bees as Endangered under the California Endangered Species Act, Xerces Society, October 16, 2018. https://www.xerces.org/publications/policy-position-statements/petition-to-state-of-california-fish-and-gamecommission-tohttps://www.xerces.org/publications/policy-position-statements/petition-to-state-of-california-fishand-game-commission-to
ITEM NO. 1.
Results of Peer Review of Biological Evaluation Report and Related Documents for the 178 Twin Oaks Drive Project, Los Gatos, Santa Clara County, California – December 8, 2025
Recommendation for Wildlife Movement Corridors
The biological report should be amended, or a stand-alone document provided, that describes the measures that would be implemented to prevent impacts to movement of local urban wildlife species currently traversing the site.
-----------
If you have any questions or require further information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Patrick Kobernus
Principal Biologist
CRE LLC
ITEM NO. 1.
From: William Meleyco
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 10:44 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Cc: 'William Meleyco' <
Subject: Planning Letter Meleyco 12 15 2025
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Erin – please include this letter with regards to comments for the Twin Oaks Proposed Development.
Thank You
Bill Meleyco
Date: December 14, 2025
To:
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
Los Gatos Town Council
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Opposition to Proposed Twin Oaks Development – Builder’s Remedy Application Dear Planning Commissioners,
I am writing as a concerned resident and immediate neighbor regarding the proposed 12-home development on approximately 18 acres directly behind my property. I urge you to deny this project on the grounds of significant environmental, health and safety, and legal compliance concerns. My family has lived at Longmeadow for 42 years. We have been very surprised that all throughout this process and the previous proposals for this property we have NEVER been approached by the Applicant or any of their experts.
Zoning, Land Use, and Legislative Context
The property is zoned Resource Conservation (RC) and designated for agricultural use. It is mapped within the Hillside Overlay Area, the high Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fire hazard zone, and a known landslide zone. The Town’s RC zoning and General Plan, as well as applicable hillside
ITEM NO. 1.
standards, exist precisely to protect the public and the land from inappropriate, high-impact development.
While California’s Builder’s Remedy provision (as amended by SB 330 and AB 1893) allows developers to proceed when a certified housing element is absent, it DOES NOT allow projects to bypass objective local standards that safeguard public health and safety or to ignore clear local affordable housing requirements.
Health and Safety: Fire, Landslide, and Emergency Access This parcel is in a high-risk fire zone with one-way-in, one-way-out access. The proposal appears not to provide adequate emergency vehicle access or turnarounds as required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and Town objective safety standards. The project also falls within a mapped landslide risk zone, raising urgent life-safety concerns in the event of slope disturbance due to grading, construction, or post-development drainage changes. The drainage plan for this development CREATES 62,000 square feet of impervious surface which will directly add additional water into the existing catch basin located on the rear corner of our property. This basin during heavy rains is already at 80% capacity and will certainly overflow with the increased demand. We will be flooded. Additionally the developers proposal of a water retention pond behind our property will make the situation worse it will allow additional water to seep into the ground where it will reemerge in our back yard. Our yard is approximately 6 feet lower than the bottom of the proposed pond. We already have standing water during wet weather and have had to install a drainage system which keeps our back yard dry but still soft during the SUMMER months. We will surely be flooded. These are not hypothetical: they are measurable, documented threats, meriting the fullest environmental review—not the shortcut of a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) reliant on incomplete, outdated and a NON CERTIFIED EIR.
Environmental Impact: Wildlife, Open Space, and Water Resources The land is a vital ecological corridor and supports diverse wildlife, mature trees, and sensitive habitats.
The arborist report indicates that there are 630 on-site trees that qualify for protection under the Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to remove 223 of those protected trees in violation of that ordinance, destroying habitat for protected species, creating potential additional risks of landslide, mudslide, and drainage issues. Under the ordinance, the applicant would be required to plant 551 replacement trees. Applicant proposes to plant only 85 replacement trees and pay in-lieu fees for the remainder. As an example, Located directly behind our home within lot 6 of the Development are 7 of these protected trees. They also provide sound, privacy and light screening from the Cerro Vista homes above us. The Applicants reasoning for removing these trees is : “The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by owners of similarly situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the director or deciding body that there are no reasonable
ITEM NO. 1.
alternatives to preserve the tree.” I can’t disagree with this reasoning more. These trees are located along the side of the property lines and do not interfere with any proposed construction.
I would also draw your attention to the applicants plans page "Birdseye Aerial Rendering, page GO.3, of the labeled Architectural Set - Tentative Map/ Master plan where they represent that betweens Lots 5 & 6 and my home and the Fordyce home ( 189 & 191 Longmeadow) there will be approximately 35 trees and according to the specific plans of these lots ONLY 8 Trees are actually planed.
Additionally, development in this hillside and riparian area threatens water quality, increases downstream flood/pollution risk, and directly impacts the broader open-space character and environmental integrity of the town. The property’s removal from the Williamson Act for conservation should not open the door to luxury speculation at the expense of community and environment. Ross Creek, which runs thru Hillbrook School is immediately downstream from The Proposed Project and will be greatly affected by the increased water flow.
Inadequacy of Environmental Review (IS/MND Tiering)
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) relies on a previous, uncertified EIR and fails to fully assess the current cumulative impacts and site-specific hazards. Objective review and “tiering” from a non-certified EIR cannot credibly ensure public safety or mitigate new/appreciably different project impacts. We ask, for the record, for detailed disclosure of all environmental documents, baseline assumptions, and reliance points, and for a NEW full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be conducted by the Town’s independent consultants.
Legal and Procedural Deficiencies
• The grouping and reduced size of affordable homes violate Los Gatos BMP program guidelines and California’s fair housing intent.
• The project’s claimed economic “infeasibility” to meet Town standards must be independently substantiated. Moving units or requiring compliance with BMP and objective safety/health requirements does NOT in itself make a project infeasible under state law. • The sudden 13% increase in development size relative to previous applications further highlights concerns about speculative, piecemeal review and “gaming” of procedural rules as flagged by Council and neighbors.
Public Interest and Community Good
Approving a project of large, luxury homes with minimal, isolated “affordable” units neither achieves the spirit of Builder’s Remedy nor addresses the region’s actual housing need for teachers, first responders, and working families. It is deeply concerning that community control and environmental protection would be set aside to advance a proposal that is so misaligned with Los Gatos’s General Plan and the long-established values of this community.
ITEM NO. 1.
The project sites all affordable units together in one corner of the development. The Town’s own Below Market Price (BMP) guidelines, require affordable homes to be spread throughout the project and be of similar size and quality to the market-rate units. Exempting the project from BMP standards would undermine the intended public good of affordable housing.
Request for Action
• Deny the project pending completion of a full EIR and objective demonstration that all health, safety, and environmental standards are met. Do not approve this based on Reports and Findings that are "to come" later after the projects approval. • Enforce Los Gatos’s BMP requirements regarding the distribution and comparability of affordable units.
• Require the applicant to provide comprehensive traffic, fire, evacuation, and wildlife corridor studies conducted by Town-retained, independent experts. • Grant NO exceptions.
Thank you for your careful consideration and for your ongoing stewardship of Los Gatos’s safety, environment, and integrity.
Respectfully,
William and Kathy Meleyco
Los Gatos, CA 95032
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
ITEM NO. 1.
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/17/2025
ITEM NO: 1
ADDENDUM 2
DATE: December 16, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval for the Subdivision of One Lot into Twelve Lots with a Vesting Tentative Map, Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Each Lot, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Vacant Property Zoned RC. Located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. APN 532-16-006. Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -033 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge. Project Planner: Erin Walters.
REMARKS:
A Responses to Comments document was prepared in response to comment letters received during the public review period of the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) (Exhibit 13). After the close of the public review period, the Town received one comment letter authored by the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP). Exhibit 29 provides responses to the SCVBA and SCLP letter dated October 17, 2025.
Exhibit 30 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the December 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through E (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/178TwinOaksDr)
2. Required Findings and Considerations
ATTACHMENT 4 Page 1351
ITEM NO. 1.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and ND-24-001
DATE: December 16, 2025
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059
4. Location Map
5. Project Description and Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report
7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Final Arborist Report
9. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review
10. Visual Renderings
11. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
14. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Sheet
15. Development Plans – Subdivision
16. Development Plans – Lot 1
17. Development Plans – Lot 2
18. Development Plans – Lot 3
19. Development Plans – Lot 4
20. Development Plans – Lot 5
21. Development Plans – Lot 6
22. Development Plans – Lot 7
23. Development Plans – Lot 8
24. Development Plans – Lot 9
25. Development Plans – Lot 10
26. Development Plans – Lot 11
27. Development Plans – Lot 12
Received with the December 15, 2025, Addendum Report:
28. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025
Received with this Addendum Report:
29. Responses to the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter
30. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2025
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
INTRODUCTION
A Responses to Comments document was prepared in response to comment letters received during the public review period of the Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The Town of Los Gatos received one comment letter after the close of the public review period. The late letter was authored by the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (SCVBA) and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter (SCLP).
According to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15073 and 15074, the lead agency must consider the comments received during consultation and review periods together with the IS/MND. However, unlike with an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), comments received on an IS/MND are not required to be attached to the negative declaration, nor must the lead agency make specific written responses to public agencies. Therefore, pursuant to CEQA and additionally because the letter was not received during the public comment period for the IS/MND, written responses to the SCVBA and SCLP letter are not required. Nonetheless, at the Town’s request, Raney has prepared the following written responses to the late SCVBA and SCLP letter for the record.
The comment letter has been bracketed to indicate how the letter has been divided into individual comments. Each comment is given a number. The response to each comment will reference the comment number.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 states the following regarding recirculation requirements for negative declarations:
(c) Recirculation is not required under the following circumstances:
(1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1.
(2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project's effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects.
(3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect.
(4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.
Based on the above, and the substantial evidence provided in the below responses to comments, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/MND is not warranted.
RESPONSES TO VALLEY BIRD ALLIANCE AND
SIERRA CLUB LOMA PRIETA CHAPTER LETTER
EXHIBIT 29
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
1
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
1 cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
1 cont.
2 3
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
3 cont.
4 5
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
5 cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
5 cont.
6
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
6 cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
6 cont.
7
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
8 9
10 11
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
11 cont.
12 13
14
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
14 cont.
15 16
17
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
17 cont.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
RESPONSES TO SCVBA AND SCLP LETTER
Response to Comment 1
The comment is introductory and summarizes the commenter’s concerns that are presented in further detail subsequently in the letter. Detailed responses to the more specific comments presented in the letter are provided below.
Response to Comment 2
This comment has already been addressed in the Town’s responses to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) letter referenced by the commenter. Please see Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, which contains the responses to public comments received during the public review period for the IS/MND. Specifically, please refer to Response to Comment 1-1 therein.
Response to Comment 3
This comment has already been addressed in the Town’s responses to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) letter. Please see Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, which contains the responses to public comments received during the public review period for the IS/MND. Specifically, please refer to Responses to Comments 1-4 and 1-5 therein.
Response to Comment 4
This comment has already been addressed in the Town’s responses to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) letter. Please see Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, which contains the responses to public comments received during the public review period for the IS/MND. Specifically, please refer to Response to Comment 1-4 therein.
Response to Comment 5
The comment does not present substantial evidence of a direct significant impact to any specialstatus species. Urban-adapted and common birds are the most likely to collide with windows due to their higher frequency of occurrence and likelihood of interaction along the built environment interface. Moreover, as reported in the San Francisco Standards for Bird Safe Buildings1 and other documents, the typical bird strike zone is from grade to 60 feet, the primary concern is with any uninterrupted glazing 24 square feet or larger in size, and the likelihood of strike depends on various factors, including the glazing used, the angle of the glass, the orientation of the building, and landscaping. Although the proposed residences would include windows, the features listed within the comment (expansive glass, transparent facades, glass balcony railings, corner glazing, and atriums) are not anticipated to be included within the proposed residences. In addition, based on the architectural design sheets for the proposed project, the proposed building facades would include many materials other than glass that are visible to birds. Such materials would include wood siding and stone veneer. Further, the elevations also feature forms of architectural relief (overhangs, spatially-offset adjacent faces), as well as varied (opaque) materials and colors. All of the aforementioned architectural design features would serve to minimize operation impacts related to the risk of bird strikes.
1 San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
Response to Comment 6
Impacts related to lighting are discussed under question I-d within Section I, Aesthetics, of the IS/MND. As stated on Page 29 therein:
According to the project applicant, all exterior lighting (i.e., both building-mounted and landscape lighting) would be designed consistent with the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines outdoor lighting standards, which require the minimum lighting required for pedestrian safety and require compliance with the Town’s Municipal Code. To reduce the potential for disturbance due to nighttime lighting, the project would comply with Town Code Section 29.10.09015, which requires all permanent exterior light fixtures to use shields so that bulbs are not visible and to ensure that light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill onto neighboring parcels or produce glare when seen from nearby homes. As such, the proposed project would comply with both the Town’s Municipal Code and policies within the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines.
The standards referenced above would ensure that project lighting would be shielded and directed downward, among other requirements, consistent with the commenter’s recommendation.
In addition, as stated on page 28 of the IS/MND, existing sources of light and glare including, but not limited to, headlights on cars and trucks travelling along nearby roadways and private driveways, exterior light fixtures, and interior light spilling through windows, are present within the project vicinity. Therefore, while the development of the project site with 12 single-family residences would add new sources of light and glare to the site, such sources would be similar in nature to the existing surrounding conditions. Based on such, wildlife species in the vicinity would be expected to be somewhat urban-adapted, particularly to existing lighting in the vicinity.
The comment specifically mentions riparian corridor lighting. As discussed in the IS/MND and Response to Comment 24-2 (see Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report), the only identified riparian woodland is in the vicinity of Ross Creek in the site’s southwest corner; development within the riparian woodland area is not proposed, and Ross Creek would not be directly impacted by the proposed project. Also see Response to Comment 1-5 of Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, which states that the trees within the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale is mixed oak woodland habitat, not riparian habitat.
The comment does not provide any substantial evidence that additional lighting at the site that is designed consistent with the Town’s Municipal Code and policies within the Hillside Design Standards and Guidelines would affect the breeding behavior of any special-status species to a degree that would preclude them from productive breeding. Therefore, substantial evidence that a direct significant impact would occur to any special-status species as a result of project lighting has not been provided.
Response to Comment 7
The comment summarizes the commenter’s concerns regarding habitat loss, fragmentation, and special-status species, which are expanded upon within Comments 8 through 11. Please see the detailed responses to the more specific comments below.
In addition, although the mitigation measures set forth in the IS/MND require pre-construction surveys, such surveys are not the full extent of the mitigation measure requirements related to special-status wildlife species. Pre-construction surveys are required as the first step to
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
conclusively identify the presence or absence of specific species, the mitigation measures included within the IS/MND (including Mitigation Measures IV-2, IV-4, and IV-6 through IV-9) specify what actions shall be taken if the surveys result in positive identification, as well as the appropriate overseeing authority.
Response to Comment 8
This comment has already been addressed in the Town’s responses to public comments received during the public review period for the IS/MND. Please see Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report. Specifically, please refer to Responses to Comments 2-3 and 24-2 therein. In addition, contrary to the comment, total tree loss is specifically quantified and addressed in the IS/MND (e.g., see page 50 of IS/MND) and a project-specific Arborist Report was prepared.
Response to Comment 9
Please see Response to Comment 3 above.
Response to Comment 10
Please see Response to Comment 7 above. The commenter incorrectly states that the IS/MND defers species protection to future conditions. Mitigation Measure IV-4 includes standards and actions to implement if active nests are found as a result of the required pre-construction survey.
As noted on page 46, such standards include the following:
If one or more active nests are found, a construction-free buffer of suitable dimensions shall be established around any active raptor or migratory bird nest for the duration of the project, or until the qualified biologist has determined that the chicks have fledged and are foraging independently from their parents. The buffer shall be identified on the ground with flagging or fencing. The buffer distance shall be determined by the on-site qualified biologist based on the species, level of disturbance activity, location of the nest, and the topography between the nest and the construction activity; the construction-free buffer shall consist of a minimum starting distance of 250 feet for raptors and 25 feet for other birds.
Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.
As stated in Response to Comment 5-25 of the Town’s responses to public comments received during the public review period for the IS/MND (see Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report), the mitigation measures included within the IS/MND would provide protection to the species listed in the comment. Although the species listed within the comment were not specifically identified as having a high potential to occur on-site by the Biological Evaluation, the required measures within Mitigation Measures IV-3 and IV-4 through IV-6 would also reduce potential impacts to any unlikely occurrences of the species.
Response to Comment 11
As noted on page 42 of the IS/MND, “…Crotch’s bumble bee was eliminated due to a lack of suitable habitat and nectar plants within the project site, as well as the nearest recorded CNDDB observation occurring more than three miles from the site.” Therefore, the species is not anticipated to occur on-site and was not considered further within the IS/MND.
Response to Comment 12
Please see Responses to Comments 7 through 11 above.
ITEM NO. 1.
Responses to Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter Surrey Farms Estates Subdivision Project
December 2025
Response to Comment 13
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 also includes the following:
(4) The existence of public controversy over the environment effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. (5) Argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, or evidence that is clearly inaccurate or erroneous, or evidence that is not credible, shall not constitute substantial evidence. Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.
Please see Responses to Comments 1-1 through 1-6 of the Town’s responses to public comments received during the public review period for the IS/MND (see Exhibit 13 of the December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report), which comprise the responses to the RWQCB comments. As shown therein, the RWQCB comments do not provide substantial evidence as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 that would require preparation of an EIR.
Response to Comment 14
Please see Responses to Comments 3, 4, 7, and 8 above.
Response to Comment 1-15
Please see Responses to Comments 2 and 13 above. In addition, as presented in the Responses to Comments document and Errata Sheet prepared for the proposed project (see Exhibits 13 and 14 of the Town’s December 17, 2025 Planning Commission Staff Report, respectively), and based on the responses included herein, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the IS/MND is not warranted.
Response to Comment 1-16
CEQA review of the proposed project has not been waived, as evidenced by preparation of the IS/MND. The project, as proposed, has been adequately analyzed pursuant to CEQA.
Response to Comment 1-17
The comment is a summary of all preceding comments and a conclusion. Please see the detailed responses above. The comment has been forwarded to the decision-makers for their consideration.
ITEM NO. 1.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 1.
-----Original Message-----
From: karri greenfield < >
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2025 6:52 PM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: Dodge Housing Project
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hello Erin,
Unfortunately, I won’t be able to attend the planning meeting on Wednesday, December 17th but I wanted to express my opinion.
My first concern with the development of the Dodge property is safety especially if there is a fire. I feel very strongly that there should be two ways to evacuate the properties. One entrance/exit off of Twin Oaks and another entrance/exit off of Brooke Acres.
Secondly, I am concerned about traffic. Another reason to have two entrances.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karri Greenfield
Longmeadow Dr.
Los Gatos
Sent from my iPhone
EXIHIBIT 30 Page 1371
ITEM NO. 1.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 1.
PREPARED BY: Erin M. Walters
Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager, Community Development Director, Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872 www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 12/17/2025
ITEM NO: 1
DESK ITEM
DATE: December 17, 2025
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Consider a Request for Approval for the Subdivision of One Lot into Twelve Lots with a Vesting Tentative Map, Construction of a New Single-Family Residence on Each Lot, Site Work Requiring a Grading Permit, and Removal of Large Protected Trees Under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on Vacant Property Zoned RC. Located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. APN 532-16-006. Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -033 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge. Project Planner: Erin Walters.
REMARKS:
Exhibit 28 includes public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2025.
EXHIBITS:
Previously Received with the December 12, 2025, Staff Report:
1. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through E (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/178TwinOaksDr)
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059
4. Location Map
5. Project Description and Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report
7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report
8. Final Arborist Report
9. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review
ITEM NO. 1.
PAGE 2 OF 2
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and ND-24-001
DATE: December 17, 2025
10. Visual Renderings
11. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025
12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
13. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration
14. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Errata Sheet
15. Development Plans – Subdivision
16. Development Plans – Lot 1
17. Development Plans – Lot 2
18. Development Plans – Lot 3
19. Development Plans – Lot 4
20. Development Plans – Lot 5
21. Development Plans – Lot 6
22. Development Plans – Lot 7
23. Development Plans – Lot 8
24. Development Plans – Lot 9
25. Development Plans – Lot 10
26. Development Plans – Lot 11
27. Development Plans – Lot 12
Received with the December 15, 2025, Addendum Report:
28. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Friday, December 12, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025
Received with the December 16, 2025, Addendum Report:
29. Responses to the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Letter
30. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Monday, December 15, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2025
Received with this Desk Item Report:
31. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Tuesday, December 16, 2025, and 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2025
ITEM NO. 1.
From: Jill Fordyce <
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 10:11 AM
To: Planning <[email protected]>; Erin Walters <[email protected]> Cc: Craig Fordyce ; Bill Meleyco < ;
Jon Witkin <
Subject: 178 Twin Oaks Drive
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Dear Chair and Members of the Los Gatos Planning Commission, We are supplementing our previous letter dated October 8, 2025, to provide updated information with regard to three specific arguments in opposition to the proposed development: (1) The IS/MND is inadequate and an EIR is required; (2) The proposed project creates a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety of our community; (3) The proposed project does not abide by the Los Gatos Below Market Price regulations.
An EIR is Required
The fate of an undeveloped rural Los Gatos hillside—home to protected trees, species, and a riparian corridor—requires, at a minimum, a detailed understanding of the environmental impact of the proposed development. In this case, we have not been given the information necessary to have such an understanding. Housing law does not waive or reduce CEQA review. Compliance with CEQA is mandatory and independent of zoning or housing authorization. “The IS/MND’s approach suggests environmental review is secondary to entitlement, which is legally incorrect.” (Letter dated October 17, 2025 from the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance (“SCVBA”) and the Sierra Club at p. 11).
First, instead of conducting new studies commensurate with both the current project and the current state of the environment, the IS/MND relies on an outdated, uncertified EIR from 2017. Natural environments change over the course of years; species appear and disappear and are not fixed in time. Furthermore, the proposal for development before the Planning Commission is not the same proposal as the one considered in 2018. One key difference is the scope of the development. The current application asks to develop approximately 62,000 square feet. The previous proposal was for 55,000 square feet (a 13% increase). The lots are different; the number of homes is different; the homesites are different; the ingress and egress are different.
ITEM NO. 1.
Under CEQA, a Mitigated Negative Declaration can only be adopted if the lead agency determines that all potential significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a lessthan-significant level through mitigation measures. If there is a “fair argument,” supported by substantial evidence, that the project may have a significant environmental impact, then the agency is required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) instead.
The Sierra Club, the SCVBA, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (“RQWCB”) have submitted letters in opposition to this project. The SCVBA and the Sierra Club note that, because the project is located within an ecologically sensitive transition zone between existing development and natural hillside habitat, a preparation of an EIR is essential. The Sierra Club and SCVBA found “substantial evidence that the project may result in significant hydrological and biological impacts that are not adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated.” The RWQCB notes that the IS/MND fails to address the jurisdictional status of an on-site ephemeral drainage, potential dewatering of riparian habitat, habitat fragmentation for wildlife, impacts from lighting and collision hazards to birds, and procedural conflicts with CEQA’s fair argument standard. (Letter dated October 17, 2025, from the SCVBA and the Sierra Club; Letter dated October 6, 2025, from the RWQCB). The SCVBA and the Sierra Club also note that long-term maintenance is deferred to a future HOA without identifying responsibility for inspection and repair of stormwater infrastructure, funding mechanisms for hydrologic mitigation, or standards for performance over time. Deferred mitigation violates CEQA guidelines, which prohibits mitigation dependent on undefined future actions.
The Sierra Club/SCVBA have supplied a “fair argument” that the project may have a significant environmental impact, including the following issues:
-The IS/MND fails to adequately assess significant and irreversible impacts to biological resources, including native woodland habitat, wildlife movement corridors, nesting birds, and special-status pollinators, and the Ross Creek watershed, an area known to support raptors, migratory songbirds, and oak-associated wildlife. -The IS/MND removes a substantial number of mature coast live oaks and associated understory vegetation. It does not quantify total tree loss, assess habitat fragmentation, or evaluate impacts to wildlife corridor functionality across the Ross Creek drainage interface.
Fragmentation of woodland habitat at this location “poses long-term ecological consequences.” (SCVBA/Sierra Club at p. 8).
-The IS/MND incorrectly concludes that there will be no biological impact on the ephemeral drainage. “As documented by the RWQCB, the project’s stormwater design would redirect runoff away from the drainage, depriving the riparian system of seasonal hydrology:
ITEM NO. 1.
‘Stormwater runoff that currently supports riparian vegetation…would be diverted…. This could deprive riparian vegetation of sufficient water to sustain the vegetation. The biological effects of hydrologic alteration, loss of vegetative cover, reduced insect prey availability, and increased temperature exposed were not analyzed.” (Id.) -The IS/MND “repeatedly defers mitigation to future plans, HOA oversight, or permitting processes, without defined performance standards or enforceable obligations. This violates CEQA, which prohibits reliance on unspecified or future mitigation, particularly where long-term resource impacts are involved, (e.g., habitat loss, hydrology modification.)” (Id. at p. 9). Examples of impermissible deferral include the following:
stormwater operation and maintenance left to an undefined HOA; lack of binding commitments to preserve riparian flow or tree canopy; and absence of defined mitigation ratios for habitat or tree removal.
The SCVBA/Sierra Club letter concludes that compliance with CEQA requires withdrawal of the IS/MND, recirculation of the environmental document to incorporate agency concerns and hydrologic and biological analysis, and preparation of a full EIR that evaluates project alternatives, hydrologic modifications, biological resource impacts, lighting effects, and cumulative conditions within the Ross Creek watershed. The EIR must also include a reasonable range of alternatives that would reduce impacts to hydrology, wildlife corridors, and hillside habitat.
The RQWCB raises a number of concerns, including:
-The topographic map of the Project site indicates that the ephemeral creek channel appears to extend upstream from the uppermost cluster of vegetation. Based on the map, the footprint of the access road may fill the upper portion of the ephemeral creek. (RQWCB letter at p. 2).
-The proposed stormwater treatment infrastructure appears to divert the runoff that currently sustains the ephemeral creek into the bioretention areas and pervious pavement, depriving the ephemeral creek of the hydrology necessary to sustain the preserved vegetation along the creek. (Id.)
-The proposed use of pervious pavement may not be appropriate at the Project site due to steep topography portions of the site.
-The IS/MND does not identify responsible party for the operation and maintenance of the stormwater treatment infrastructure of the treatment proposed to mitigate the impact of hydrography modification.
-The bioretention areas should be visible from public roadways.
ITEM NO. 1.
-The proposed stormwater treatment measures will dewater the preserved ephemeral creek channel, causing significant impact to the creek. (Id. at p. 12). -The IS/MND does not acknowledge the potential need to obtain approvals from the Water Board and the CDFW.
-As there is no documentation that State has assessed the jurisdictional status of the ephemeral creek, the Project should assume that the ephemeral creek is a water of the State.
The RQWCB disagrees with the conclusion of the IS/MND that the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on the riparian habitat and other sensitive natural community. (Id.)
Patrick Kobernus, Principal Biologist of Coast Ridge Ecology, Inc., concluded that the IS/MND is deficient under CEQA for a variety of reasons, including reliance on an outdated floristic survey (over 14 years old); failure to address sensitive plant communities in accordance with CDFW protocols; inadequate mitigation to protect Burrowing Owls; failure to identify potential impacts to special status amphibian and reptile species and mitigate for those impacts; failure to include habitat assessment to address impact on bats; failure to include a detailed survey and mapping of active woodrat middens and a woodrat relocation plan; failure to identify impacts on the western bumble bee and Crotch’s bumble bee and mitigate for those impacts; and concluding without factual support that there would be no impact to wildlife corridors. (See Exhibit C to Letter dated December 15, 2025, from Camus J. Steinmetz.)
In addition to the deficiencies noted above, the environmental conclusions in the IS/MND are expressly or implicitly derived from an earlier EIR that was never certified and therefore has no legal force. (“…although the EIR was never certified by the Town, the setting of the site has remained the same, and thus, a number of the technical reports associated with the former project and 2017 EIR remain applicable to the proposed project.”) (IS/MND at p. 6). Under CEQA, an uncertified EIR is legally equivalent to no EIR at all and may not be relied upon to negate the possibility of significant environmental impacts or to support adoption of an MND. (CEQA Guidelines §§ 15070, 15090; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92–94.) Here, the record reflects that potentially significant impacts were previously identified and analyzed in the 2017 EIR. The applicant may not now bootstrap that uncertified analysis to conclude that impacts are less than significant or mitigable through an MND. Where substantial evidence in the record—including prior environmental analysis prepared for the project site—supports a fair argument that the project may have significant environmental
ITEM NO. 1.
effects, CEQA mandates preparation of an EIR. (Pub. Res. Code § 21151; Sundstrom v.
County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306–307.) The decision to proceed with an IS/MND violates CEQA as a matter of law. Additionally, the land, the project, and housing laws (e.g., allowance of split lots and ADUs) have all changed since this uncertified EIR.
Finally, in order for an MND to be sufficient, it must contain specific mitigation to anticipated environmental harms. The IS/MND for this project contains vague, unspecified, and deferred mitigation. This is discussed below in conjunction with the health and safety risks inherent in this project.
The Health & Safety of Our Community is at Risk
In addition to the grave effects on the land and natural resources, the development of this hillside presents a risk to the health and safety of the community, and particularly, the adjacent neighbors, which include long-established residential neighborhoods and a school. Specifically, we have noted the risks to health and safety caused by impeding the surrounding neighborhood’s evacuation in the event of a wildfire or other emergency; the possibility for erosion, mudslide, and landslide on the project site; and exposing the surrounding area to risk of flooding, water quality degradation, water pollution, harms associated with the proposed bioretention pond. (Fordyce letter dated October 8, 2025, at pp. 21-33).
Despite the existence of all these risks, the proposed mitigation measures are uncertain, vague, deferred, and potentially unenforceable. For example, while the project is in a Hydrologic Hazard Zone, an erosion and sediment control plan has not even been prepared. The risk is identified, but the mitigation is deferred. The IS/MND states: “Because a final erosion and sediment control plan has not yet been prepared for the proposed project, proper compliance with the aforementioned regulations cannot be ensured at the time and the proposed project could discharge sediment or urban pollutants through soil erosion violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality during construction.” (IS/MND p. 72).
The IS/MND concludes that the proposed project “could result in the violation of water quality standards or degradation of water during construction, and a potentially significant impact would occur.” (IS/MND p. 73) The mitigation measure is to prepare the final erosion and sediment control plan. This is a future, vague, uncertain mitigation measure.
Based on the scope of the construction, grading, fill, and watering, it is conceivable that all of us who reside below the hillside will end up with homes and yards significantly impacted. According to the IS/MND, “Without incorporating the recommendations
ITEM NO. 1.
included within the GGHI, new fill placed for the planned structures and streets on existing slopes could cause a significant impact related to slope instability.” (IS/MND, p. 61). The proposed project could result in potential hazards or risks related to landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, and/or soil expansion, and a potentially significant impact could occur. The mitigation measure is: “prior to approval of any grading or improvement plans, a licensed engineer shall review the plans to ensure the engineering recommendations are adequately incorporated to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.” (IS/MND p. 63). This is a deferred, potentially unenforceable mitigation that does nothing to assure that the risk will be diminished.
We anticipate that yards will be unusable due to the dirt, dust, pollution, and water; that the dirt and dust will seep into our homes; the noise will be constant. It is not difficult to imagine the bioretention pond flooding our yards and creating other health hazards. There is also a risk of more harmful impacts, such as mudslides and landslides. Importantly, we do not know who is responsible if and when any of these impacts occur. It appears that will be a future, as yet undetermined HOA, which is insufficient to protect the health and safety of the neighborhood.
The HDS&G, CEQA, the Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance all exist to protect and promote the health and safety of our community and the objective standards provided therein must be followed.
State law and fire hazard mapping require that new subdivisions in High Fire Zones have multiple evacuation routes, adequate water infrastructure, fuel breaks, defensible space. It is unclear whether the SCCFD has approved site access or water supply and the mitigation relies upon both exceptions, and “roadway and other improvements, for fire safety that will be required as a result of this coordination with SCCFD.)” (Staff report at p. 27). According to the staff report, PRC 4290 requires modifications to the “width of existing roads, existing road surfaces, fire truck turnarounds, and the lengths of dead-end roads. An Alternative Materials, Methods of Construction, or Modification of Code was approved by the SCCFD for Lot 10 to meet the PRC 4290 requirements to mitigate deficiencies of the 20-foot roadway width on a 10-foot in length segment of roadway on Cerro Vista Drive. In order to mitigate the noncompliant roadway width, the approved AMMR requires an upgraded sprinkler system for the proposed residence at Lot 10. The recommended Conditions of Approval (Exhibit 3) include roadway and other improvements for fire safety that will be required as a result of this coordination with SCCFD.” (Staff Report at p. 27). What is the mitigation for the other lots? What specific plan is there for evacuation, turnaround, water supply, ingress and egress in the event of an emergency? This is deferred mitigation of a
ITEM NO. 1.
critical health and safety issue—the potential for wildfire in a high fire hazard zone—and it will impact us all.
The Project Belies the Legislative Intent of the Below Market Housing Law Finally, it must be noted that much of the leeway given legislatively to the developer comes from the notion that it is providing affordable housing. This proposed development does not comply with the Los Gatos BMP regulations, which require the BMPs to be similar in size and spread throughout the development.
Pursuant to the Los Gatos Below Market Price (BMP) Housing Program Guidelines: “BMP dwelling units should… be consistent with the market rate units in the project” and “should be provided proportionately in the same unit type mix (number of bedrooms) as the market rate units” with the goal being “seamless integration.” The “BMP units shall be dispersed throughout the development, to the extent feasible, in all buildings, on each floor, and in each project phase,” and that concentrating them “will generally not be allowed.” The applicant’s justification letter for 178 Twin Oaks admits a deviation from the BMP Guidelines “section III A regarding unit size,” and states the market-rate homes are 5,775– 6,170 square feet while the BMP “townhomes” are 1,630 square feet. The three proposed BMP units are all three-bedroom homes, whereas the market-rate units range from four to six bedrooms — so they are not proportionate in mix or size under the BMP Guidelines. All three BMP units are shown on the site plan as being grouped together (on Lots 1, 11, and 12) with a shared private driveway and turnaround, rather than distributed among the other market-rate lots.
This provision of BMP housing is being utilized to obtain exceptions to regulations and laws in existence to protect the land, biological resources, and neighborhoods. The facts are that this is a large luxury home development. The provision of three small units placed at the bottom of the development with a shared driveway, is not what was intended by the BMP law.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission deny this project based on an insufficient environmental review, noncompliance with applicable regulations, and the risk to the health and safety of our community.
Very truly yours,
Jill & Craig Fordyce
Longmeadow Drive
December 17, 2025
ITEM NO. 1.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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:
Emily Thomas, Chair
Kendra Burch, Vice Chair
Susan Burnett
Steve Raspe
Joseph Sordi
Community Development
Director:
Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 6
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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:
CHAIR THOMAS: We will now move on to our public
hearing, starting with Item 1. Consider a request for
approval for the subdivision of one lot into 12 lots with a Vesting Tentative Map; construction of a new single-family residence on each lot; site work requiring a Grading
Permit; and removal of large, protected trees under Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) on vacant property zoned RC. Located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. APN 532-16-006. Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 through -032, and S-24-059. Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been prepared. Property Owner/Applicant is Larry Dodge.
Before the Staff Report can I ask for a show of
hands of Commissioners that visited the site? Are there any disclosures from anyone?
I would like to make a disclosure that I am
familiar with the area and know some people that live in this neighborhood, because I grew up here and still live in town, but it will not prevent me from being able to make a decision tonight; I will still be able to make an impartial decision.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
That being said, Ms. Walters will be presenting
the Staff Report this evening.
ERIN WALTERS: Thank you, Chair, and good
evening. Erin Walters, Senior Planner.
Before you this evening is a request to subdivide
the 17.5-acre vacant lot located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive into 12 lots through a Vesting Tentative Map. The Applicant is requesting approval of multiple architecture and site applications to construct 12 two-story, single-family homes and associated site work requiring a Grading Permit.
Of the 12 single-family homes, three are
designated to be affordable, representing 25% of the total units. These units would be for sale, BMP units restricted to low-income households.
The project also includes a request to remove 223
protected trees. Twelve trees are large, protected trees per Town Code.
This project is being processed under SB 330. The
project qualifies for five incentives and unlimited waivers under the Density-Bonus Law, and the Applicant has also invoked Builder's Remedy.
The project’s underlying zoning is RC, which
would not support the proposed density. The Applicant is utilizing Builder's Remedy for the General Plan land use
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
designation zoning and density. The Town is applying R-1:10 zoning standards to this project.
Primary access to the subdivision would be
provided by a 20’ wide private street with a cul de sac connecting to Twin Oaks Drive. A 20’ wide emergency vehicle access would extend south to the site, 2 Brooke Acres
Drive, providing secondary emergency access consistent with the Fire Department’s standards. A private driveway will be accessed off of Cerro Vista Court, which will provide
access to Lot 10.
The Town requested the Applicant meet all the
Town’s Objective Standards; however, the Applicant has
requested incentives and waivers allowed through State
laws.
The Applicant has requested four incentives
through State Density Bonus Law, which include not
installing story poles and netting, not providing
sidewalks, not providing trails, and not providing open space easements. The Applicant has also requested 58
different waivers, as summarized on page 13 of the Staff Report. The Applicant has provided written justification, which can be found in Exhibit 5.
An Initial Study was prepared for the project and
it included a number of project-level technical studies.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
All technical reports were peer reviewed by the Town and prepared by the Town’s consultants. The Initial Study
concluded that the project will not have a significant
impact on the environment with the adoption of the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to mitigate potential impacts to less than a significant level. An EIR was therefore not required.
Eighteen mitigation measures are included in the
MMRP and Conditions of Approval, which are in Exhibit 3.
The MND did not have to be recirculated as there
were no major modifications that were identified after the public review. Minor changes are described in the errata sheet, which is found in Exhibit 14.
There are two addendums this evening, as well as
a Desk Item, that were distributed for this item.
This concludes Staff’s report. Staff, as well as
the Town’s environmental consultants from Raney, the Town’s traffic consultants, and outside legal counsel are
available to support your discussion.
Now, I’m going to turn it over to the Town
Attorney, who will provide background on the regulatory framework.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: Thank you. I’m Gabrielle
Whelen, Town Attorney. There are a number of different
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
State housing laws that apply to this project, and so I have prepared a brief PowerPoint to go over the applicable laws so that everybody has the framework. Also available on Zoom is Nazanin Salehi with the law firm of Goldfarb &
Lipman. The law firm of Goldfarb & Lipman has been
assisting the Town with its review of the various Senate Bill 330 planning applications that have come in.
There are four major laws that are implicated by
the project, and I’ll discuss them in turn. The first is Senate Bill 330, the second is the State Housing
Accountability Act, the third is State Density Bonus Law, and the fourth is the California Environmental Quality Act.
Senate Bill 330 authorizes applicants to submit
what’s called a preliminary application, and once that
preliminary application has been submitted the Applicant vests to whatever development standards were in place at the time the application was submitted. There are 17 things that are required for the preliminary application to be deemed submitted, and applicants who meet those 17 criteria will vest.
This Applicant vested at a time prior to
certification of the Town’s Housing Element, so as a result this Applicant is eligible to use what is called the
Builder's Remedy, which I’ll get into later.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
Pursuant to SB 330, the Town is limited to five
public hearings on any SB 330 project, and tonight’s
hearing will constitute the first of those five.
This project vested to developments standards in
place when it submitted its preliminary application, and in addition to SB 330 the project is using State Density Bonus Law and the Builder's Remedy.
The State Housing Accountability Act is the
statute that contains what is colloquially called the
“Builder's Remedy.” It’s codified at Government Code
Section 65589.5, and it provides that local agencies cannot apply objective standards that would render qualified
housing projects infeasible, and interpretations of the term “infeasible” mean both physically impossible and
economically infeasible. A project qualifies if it has a sufficient amount of low-income housing as a component of it. The requirement is that it be 20% affordable to lowincome households. This particular Applicant is proposing a project that has 25% of the units affordable to low-income households.
Also, there are three ways that a project can be
deemed an eligible housing development project. The first of those is that it’s a project for residential units only, which this project is, so it therefore qualifies.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
Then, we discussed the fact that more than 20% of
the units will be low-income, so it qualifies on that basis to use the Housing Accountability Act.
The Town does have the ability to apply its
Objective Development Standards, so long as those standards will not render the project infeasible, and so the question often comes up: What is an Objective Development Standard? It needs to be a standard that is consistent with the Town meetings its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), and it has to be applied to facilitate development at the
density that is proposed. It can’t be a subject
determination, it needs to be something that’s based on a written, uniformly applied standard.
The Housing Accountability Act also goes into
what it means for a local agency to disapprove a housing development project, and the definition is broader than simply voting no on a housing proposal. It can also be not meeting the Town’s statutory deadlines for making a
decision, and it can also mean imposing a Condition of
Approval that would render a project infeasible.
Pursuant to the statute, the Town does bear the
burden to show that the Condition of Approval will not
render the project infeasible, and the Town makes this
determination based on the preponderance of evidence
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
standard, meaning that the evidence in favor of it not
rendering a project infeasible outweighs evidence on the other side.
The Housing Accountability Act does have a number
of grounds upon which a local agency can deny a Builder's Remedy project or impose a condition that renders it
infeasible.
The first would be that the Town had an adopted
Housing Element and has met its share of the Regional
Housing Needs Allocation in all income categories proposed in the project. The Town at this point has not met its
Regional Housing Needs Allocation, so that first reason is inapplicable.
The second reason would be that the project will
have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety, and that determination needs to be based on an objective written standard.
The third basis for denying or rendering a
project infeasible would be that it’s required in order to comply with a specific State or Federal law.
The fourth reason would be that the project is on
agricultural land without adequate water or wastewater
treatment facilities.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
Then the fifth reason would be that the
development is inconsistent with both the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan land use designation. However, this reason is only available to public agencies that had a certified Housing Element at the time that the project vested.
The sixth and final reason for denying would be
if the project did not qualify as a Builder's Remedy
project. Based on the 2025 version of the statute, projects that are much denser than are allowed in the new version of the statute will no longer qualify as a Builder's Remedy project. However, this project does not meet that density, and so it does qualify.
Are there any questions on the Housing
Accountability Act before I move to State Density Bonus Law? Okay.
State Density Bonus Law provides that applicants
who are providing specified levels of affordability can get Density Bonuses, meaning they can build a denser project than they could otherwise, a specified number of incentives or concessions, and unlimited waivers. Pursuant to the law, applicants do not need to utilize the Density Bonus portion of the statute, meaning they don’t have to build denser in order to take advantage of the ability to use incentives, concessions, and waivers, and so that is what this
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
Applicant has chosen to do. They are not seeking to
increase the density, but they are seeking incentives,
concessions, and waivers.
An incentive or concession can be any reduction
in standards that results in identifiable and actual cost reductions to the project. It can also be approval of
Mixed-Use zoning, which is not applicable here, or any
other thing that will result in a cost reduction. An
example of that would be the request not to comply with the story pole policy.
The public agencies have several grounds upon
which to deny a request for an incentive or concession, and the first would be if the request does not result in
identifiable or actual cost reductions to provide for
affordable housing. The second reason would be if the
proposal would have a specific adverse impact on public health or safety and that impact cannot be mitigated
without rendering the project unaffordable. The third
grounds for denial would be if the requested incentive or concession were contrary to State or Federal law.
The State Density Bonus Statute also provides for
waiver, and a waiver is defined as not applying any
development standard that would have the effect of
“physically precluding the project.” It’s important to note
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
that there is case law holding that that means physically precluding the project as proposed, meaning that public agencies don’t have the ability to redesign the project.
The final law that applies is the California
Environmental Quality Act, and as Ms. Walters mentioned, the Town’s consultant did prepare an Initial Study, and based on the results of that Initial Study the Town
determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
appropriate, and what that means is there may be
significant environmental impacts, but all of those impacts can be mitigated to less than significance.
That concludes my presentation, and both I and
Ms. Salehi are available to answer any follow-up questions.
CHAIR THOMAS: Before we get to questions to
Staff, because at tonight’s meeting there is a lot to
cover, I just wanted to request that Commissioners limit our questions to Staff at this time to clarifying
questions, something specific to the Staff Report,
procedural questions, or something that might take a few minutes to answer that they can seek information on, but hold most of our bigger questions, or some things that
might open up some greater discussion, until after we’ve heard from the Applicant team. Vice Chair Burch had a
question, and then Commissioner Burnett.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
VICE CHAIR BURCH: It’s just a clarifying
question. It has come up in one of the letters that we have about adhering to the Objective Standards, and I would just like for you to confirm that because of the Density Law the waivers that they have requested, while they may be against our Objective Standards, they should be granted to them.
ATTORNEY WHELAN: What’s interesting about this
project is there are so many different laws that apply, and so there is going to be a slightly different analysis based on each law. Under the Housing Accountability Act the Town can apply its Objective Standards so long as it doesn’t render the project infeasible, so that’s like one level of inquiry.
Then under Density Bonus Law the Town has those
three reasons for denying a requested incentive or
concession, and the one that seems most apropos is the one that says it has to result in a cost reduction and it has to be demonstrated that it would.
Then, for waivers the question will be would
application of the Town’s Objective Standard physically preclude the project as proposed?
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett and then
Commissioner Sordi.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you, Chair. To
follow-up on the Mitigated Negative Declaration approach preferred over an EIR, did this come up by the Applicant and was there a comment by Staff, or was there
recommendation by the Staff, given the complexity of this project?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: The determination is made by
the Town’s environmental consultant on behalf of the Town, and representatives from Raney Planning & Management are here if you have more questions about that determination.
Many applicants do choose to do an Environmental Impact Report. They will ask the Town, they will say, “Even though I qualify for a Mitigated Negative Declaration, I would like to do an Environmental Impact Report,” and under those circumstances the Town will prepare an Environmental Impact Report.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a follow-up on that. I
know there was an EIR referenced in the materials in a few places. I think there’s an EIR dating back to about 2017, and then there is some old correspondence that seemed to have been related to prior engagement of agencies going back around that time. I guess my question is—I think I know the answer, but just for clarity—the EIR is not part
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
of this consideration at all, and does the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration stand completely on its own?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: In order to make its
recommendation to the Town Council, as you know, the
Planning Commission will have to make a determination on the CEQA, and so the Commission is being asked to make a determination on a CEQA that will be presented tonight, which is the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Then just for clarity, since
affordable housing is so relevant to so many parts of this Builder's Remedy application, I think I saw in the file what the Applicant’s opinion is and what the minimum
required affordable percentage is on this project. Maybe it was in the Staff Report and I missed it. So, what is the minimum affordable housing percentage required?
ERIN WALTERS: It would be 20%. In this case the
Applicant is providing 25%.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Any more questions for Staff at
this time? No. We will now open the public portion of the public hearing on Item 1 and give the Applicant an
opportunity to address the Commission for up to five
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
minutes. I believe that Mr. Foley will be speaking on
behalf of the Applicant first. Thank you.
JIM FOLEY: That’s correct. Good evening,
Planning Commission. It’s nice to see you. It’s been a
little bit since I had the pleasure of being up here. Jim Foley from Pennant Properties. I’m representing the Dodge family as the Applicant and the property owners. Thank you for taking the time to have this special meeting for us this close to the holidays and the end of the year.
First, I wanted to thank the Town Staff, Town
Attorney Gabrielle Whelan, Town Manager Chris Constantin, Joel Paulson, Sean Mullin, Erin Walters, the Planning team, and the Engineering team as well, who all played a big role in getting this application to where it is. It’s been a long time. I think we submitted the preliminary application two years ago in December 2023.
Just to give a little background on the project,
the Dodge family have been stakeholders in Los Gatos for generations. Bob Dodge began this Surrey Farms development in the early 1950s. This final phase, the Surrey Farms
Estates is the culmination of a lifetime of Los Gatosserving developments, neighborhood developments, by the Dodge family.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
A similar project was brought forward in 2018 and
went all the way to Town Council for approval, but was not approved because at that time the property was in the
Williamson Act. The Williamson Act for this particular
property expired early this year in January 2025. The
Dodges were disappointed at that time that the project did not get approved and they would have to wait a little bit longer, and that’s what brings us here today.
A couple of other notes just to remember and keep
in mind while you guys are making your deliberations, Staff has worked tirelessly on this project, provided a very
detailed framework for you to hopefully provide a positive recommendation to the Town Council, which we are
requesting.
This project is going to bring some of the first
new affordable units for sale in town since I think
Bellaterra @ North Forty. We have a couple of other
projects coming forward from SummerHill and City Ventures that are going to deliver some units. Then there are a
number of other SB 330 applications pending, and we don’t know what’s going to happen with those. At this time every unit counts towards Los Gatos’ Housing Element, so we think that this is a good use of the property to try to further that effort.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
We could have proposed an enormously denser
project and abused the Builder’s Remedy, but that is not the intent of the Dodge family or anything that we would consider doing as their decades long vision for the
development of the property. This proposal is an elegant extension of the neighborhood as originally envisioned by the family.
We attempted to comply with as many of the
various potentially applicable development standards that could have been in place for the zoning for the project, as many as we could in order to deliver a first-class project.
We have our project team here tonight that can elaborate a little bit more about that during the meeting.
We also took into consideration a lot of public
comments that happened in the 2018 project, including road alignment, home orientation, headlight pollution, etc. Many of the objectors are expected with every project site, the inadequacy of the EIR and CEQA, however, believe me, there was tremendous additional study and updating of the
technical reports and studies; it added a lot of time to what we anticipated for getting the application prepared for you.
So yes, there was an EIR done in 2018. There is
some background. The CEQA, the IS/MND was prepared and
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
there was a lot of effort put into that to make sure we got it right.
For other members of the public that plan on
speaking, just remember that this is a long-time family and community stakeholders, and I think if a lot of us and you all were in their position, you’d want the same legacy for your children and your grandchildren.
We’re excited to move through this process,
hopefully deliver a first-class project, and have a
fruitful conversation about this tonight. We’re all here, our team is here, to answer any questions you guys may have regarding the project.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you very much. Are
there any questions for the Applicant team at this time? Okay, thank you. We will now be moving on to public
comment. If you have not already filled out a speaker card, please do that and return it to Staff, and if you are on Zoom you can raise your hand now. When you are called to speak, please state your name and address for the record and know that you will have three minutes to make your
comments. Then after that, Commissioners will have an
opportunity to ask any questions. The first speaker card I have is for Cindy Clark.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
CINDY CLARK: My name is Cindy Clark. I live at
16326 West La Chiquita Avenue in Los Gatos. I’m not in the neighborhood; I’m about a mile-and-a-half away.
First off, I want to thank all the Commissioners
for the hard work you’ve done, and all you do for our town.
We really appreciate it.
I’m going to make two points tonight in
opposition to the development plans. We had a really great presentation on the Builder’s Remedy and SB 330, and all that is about building more housing, and yet the developer is asking to use 17 acres of rare, wooded land to build three, I’m going to say “token,” below market homes, and nine giant homes. These are homes for the very rich. We see this all the time, and I’m really afraid they’re going to be like so many other houses that are that big in Los
Gatos. They’re used for second or third houses; they are investment opportunities. These really aren’t houses as SB 330 is thinking about. I believe that building this type of housing in this type of area is very wasteful and
shortsighted.
My second point is if this development does
proceed—and I hope it doesn’t—the Town should deny permits to remove the 223 protected trees. These are mostly oaks, they are large trees, they’re old, and they’re not
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
replaceable at all. They are vital to healthy ecosystems.
I’m an outdoor education docent at Mid-Peninsula Open
Space. I teach third, fourth, and fifth graders all about our ecosystems, all about these oaks and their roles. They are considered keystone species, and they support thousands of organisms, organism that live in the ground, that live in the tree, and also live in Los Gatos, live in Cupertino, live in Sunnyvale, owls and such that return at night to roost, but they have to have those trees.
These trees should also be preserved and the
developers should set aside this land underneath them,
including community walkways. All these trees are located on the southwest portion, so it’s not like they’re
everywhere, and it would be really easy to do community paths. You can see an example of that at Kennedy Court
where they’ve got that open space. I think our town
deserves more compensation for the loss of this rare,
heritage space, than three token under-market homes. That’s it.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Thank you for speaking tonight. Next
speaker card I have is for Gus Who.
GUS WHO: Hi, again. Just listening in on just
what was happening.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
I think that the public in general would want a
road connected to, because it’s up in between two things and there is a lot of traffic going, so it would be better to have a loop in the two roads instead of the one at the Cerro, I don't know, the lower court: there’s just one
house.
Another thing is when I built, I bought it off
Cupertino. It’s Seven Springs and it was a 400-acre lot that our neighbor sold. They kept 40 acres, and they gave the City three lots, and I bought one of the lots. It was a park, but I bought one of the lots off of them, and it
would be better to do that remedy for the builders instead of trying a lower market, because this is things.
And another thing was when I built I designed a
3,500 square-foot house. It was too small for the
neighborhood, and I had to double it, because it was a big, giant house. I didn’t want a big, giant house, but I had to build a big, giant house, so it was one of those things.
You can probably limit the size of the house. It’s 14
acres, so you can probably up it a couple houses.
If there was a loop around there, it’s for safety
reasons. I think that would be the most important thing.
Even if nobody builds there, you should have a road
connecting that high up, to try to work a deal with the
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
builders. I mean, he just said they are family-oriented and they look for these long projects, and they’re probably going to build something up there, so a road between the two for safety issues is my biggest concern for the public.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. The next
speaker card I have is for John Witkin.
JOHN WITKIN: Thank you, Commissioners. I’m John
Witkin, 188 Twin Oaks Drive, right next door to the
development. I’ve lived on Twin Oaks Drive on and off for 70 years now, and there’s a reason that that hillside has never been developed. It’s a hillside with an oak forest and a Ross Creek feeder stream at the base; that’s not
feasible for a subdivision for multiple home tracts.
All these similar developments have had issues in
California. When we cut down 250 trees, move 200 loads of dirt, and pave over a riparian corridor, what can we
anticipate? Last year the hillside was recategorized as a high fire danger zone, and eventually in California for all of us that have lived here we know we will have a flood or an earthquake or a fire, and these altered landscapes, they just ultimately fail.
We will experience as before landslides, massive
property damage, and just a major safety hazard. It is just not safe to build these structures for 12 $6 million homes,
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
and I don’t think that’s going to reduce any of the housing crisis in California.
Let’s keep Los Gatos safe and beautiful. We need
the existing open space to remain. Thank you for your
consideration.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Are there any
questions for the speaker? Commissioner Burnett has a
question for you.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. So, the creek
runs in the back of your property, and your property
actually has the most exposure to the ramifications of the creek and the water and that drainage. I know they’ve put in drainage areas there, but can you comment on that? Is that one of your concerns, flooding (inaudible)?
JOHN WITKIN: We’ve had flooding twice in the
last 30 years, and it brings dirt and silt down from the hillside, and it’s also overflowed at the Dodge property where it goes into a culvert, so we’ve had multiple
experiences where we’ve had to take dirt out of the pool and similar issues. Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you for that.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. The next
speaker card I have is for Bill Meleyco.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
BILL MELEYCO: Hello, my name is Bill Meleyco; I
live at 189 Longmeadow Drive, where we’ve lived there for 45 years. We’re adjacent to the proposed project at the border with Hillbrook, where this property drains its
hillside onto our property, which is an open culvert. Our major concern is privacy, trees, noise, and the drainage.
From a privacy standpoint, I’ve prepared a visual
simulation showing how it would look with these houses, but I now understand that we can’t show them visually, so I’ll distribute these somehow.
But the elevation of our back yards is 407 feet,
while the base elevation of the houses that are going to be built are 430 feet, and that’s the base of those
elevations. So, these new homes are going to look down into our backyard and into our windows; it’s going to be a major privacy concern.
From a tree standpoint, the Applicant’s rendering
on the architectural submittal shows 35 trees that are
supposed to be installed. These are between Lots 5 and 6, and my house and the Fordyce house, which is next door.
When reviewing the plans, if you look at it, they are only going to install seven, so there is a discrepancy between what the rendering is and what they are actually planning to do.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
Also from a tree standpoint, they are removing
six protected trees on these two lots. Their reasoning for removing these trees is, “The retention of the tree
restricts the economic enjoyment of the property and
creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by
severely limiting the use of the property.” These trees are along the properly line with Hillbrook; they don’t
interfere with anything and don’t interfere with the
construction. If you do approve this, we ask that you—from a privacy standpoint for us—require the developer to add these 35 trees.
The other problem we have is noise. When
Hillbrook was preparing their studies to get their
Conditional Use Permit the report stated that the current sound level at our home was at the threshold of
unacceptable. Surely, with the cumulation effect of
Hillbrook and the proposed houses, it would put the sound above the unacceptable level.
The third problem is drainage. This hillside
drains entirely towards our property. Currently there is a catch basin at the corner, which is about 80% capacity.
That will surely overflow with the drainage that’s going to be created.
The other problem is the retention basin.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any
questions? Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. You did
mention, just to follow-up on the catch basin, which is in your back yard now, it runs at an 80% capacity, you’re
saying? Is that most of the time?
BILL MELEYCO: That’s during heavy rains, yes.
If you look at the concrete on it, you can see where the water staining is about 80%.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Right. Then they want to
add an additional water retention pond behind your
property, which is 6’ below your residence.
BILL MELEYCO: Well, the retention pond. The
bottom of that retention pond I think is like 4-5’ above our yard.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay.
BILL MELEYCO: During the summer months our back
yard is soggy. We’ve had to add drainage in there to drain it. During the winter, we’ve got standing water in our back yard.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I just wanted that
clarification. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Then I had a question too for you,
Mr. Meleyco. You mentioned the removal of the protected
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
trees and the seven versus the 35 trees on the plans. You made a request about them. Can you just clarify what you would like?
BILL MELEYCO: On their rendering they show 35
trees between their houses and our property.
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.
BILL MELEYCO: That’s going to create a lot of…
It will solve some of the noise problem that is created from these houses, and it will keep the visibility of them from viewing into our back yard and into our windows.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Did you have any preferences
on the types of tree species?
BILL MELEYCO: No, not off the top of my head.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. The next speaker
card is from Monica Herzi.
MONICA HERZI: Hello, my name is Monica Herzi; I
live at 185 Longmeadow Drive. A house separates me and the Meleycos, and two houses to the Fordyces, so we’re about three houses from the proposed development. I actually face Twin Oaks. I don’t have a lot of data in front of me to present to you, it’s more of a heart comment that I want to say.
I moved here in 2011. We’ve launched three kids
from Los Gatos. Our final one we just launched in October
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
to Seattle, and we’ve trying to find every reason to stay in California, and unfortunately a proposal like this tends to keep people like us from retiring here.
I want to paint a picture that at any given day,
if it’s night or day, if you’re in my house or in my yard there are owls, coyotes, deer, rabbits, and foxes. I have all this on film, because we have a security camera. There are now turkeys, I’ve seen a wildcat once, hawks, and
quails, and yes, the occasional snake, and I think about that all the time whenever Ms. Fordyce brings us up to date on this proposal, because unfortunately that’s all going to go away. The hawks aren’t going to be in the sky anymore, because the trees are going to be gone, and I’m not going to hear the coyotes yipping in the middle of the night, because their habitat is going to be destroyed, and it
worries me.
I understand that the State needs housing, and
I’m a teacher, so I understand that we need affordable
housing, but I tend to agree with the former speaker that is it second home housing? Are these houses going to
produce ADUs on each of them? Are they then going to be subdivided and sold as individual lots, which I’ve seen happen in this town? It frightens me. I mean, my husband is a little bit more cynical than I am, and he often says to
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
me, “Well, we have no control over this.” And I like to think that we do have control over this, being property owners. I love living in this town, and I hope that you do take into consideration me and my neighbors’ comments
today.
I also worry about safety and access to the site.
We have a young man who is autistic on Longmeadow Drive, and I’ve watched him grow up, and he often stands in the middle of the street. When we have all this housing going on, all this building, and I worry about the children in our neighborhood and wonder what’s going to happen to them, because access is so limited to their proposal.
That’s about it, and thank you, again, for
allowing me to comment this evening.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Any questions for the
speaker? Thank you very much for your comments. Next I have Jill Fordyce.
JILL FORDYCE: Hi, I’m Jill Fordyce. We live at
191 Longmeadow Drive. I’ve lived there since 1999 and we’ve raised our five children there. We’ve enjoyed both the
peacefulness of the natural hill and the wildlife behind us, all that Monica Herzi just spoke of, as well as the lovely, vibrant, thriving Surrey Farms neighborhood. Kids playing in the street. It’s an old-fashioned neighborhood;
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
it’s one of the main reasons we moved there: the backdrop of the beautiful hill and the beautiful construction that was done by the Dodge family.
When we were deciding to move to Surrey Farms in
1999 we went to the Town to inquire about the likelihood of the hill being developed. We’re in the court next to the Meleycos and the Witkins, so we abut the project
specifically. The clerk pointed to the property on the map and said, “It is resource conservation space and it won’t likely be developed in your lifetime.”
In 2018 the Applicant here filed the nonrenewal
for the Williamson Act and we are now facing a new reality:
it is no long resource conservation space, we have all
these Builder’s Remedy laws, and we understand that the times have changed, not only because of the loss of the Williamson Act protection, but because of this environment that we’re living in.
The laws that the Applicant relies on for
affordable housing, it should be clear that it’s a 12-unit development, nine of which are large, luxury homes directly behind the Surrey Farms neighborhood, and there are three small affordable housing units; they share one driveway at the bottom of the development.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
There still exists an obligation to the community
to ensure that the proposed development is environmentally vetted appropriately for the scope of the project and it does not put our health and safety at risk.
We request the project is denied, because it
would result in specific adverse impact to us. We spoke in our letters, and then also in videos and photos that we have sent, that we are worried about the risk of wildfire and appropriate evacuation from the one-way-in/one-way-out from Twin Oaks to Longmeadow to Kennedy, or even if you go out Brooke Acres we’re on two-lane roads.
There is a possibility to erosion, mudslides, and
landslides on the project site, which is in a geologic
hazard zone. I am right below that. It exposes the
surrounding area to the risk of flooding, water quality degradation, water pollution, and harms associated with the proposed bioretention plan, that again, will be right
behind my home. Each of these risks are acknowledged in the Negative Declaration, but the mitigation of each is vague, uncertain, deferred, and potentially unenforceable.
I wish I had more time, but I would encourage you
to look at the letters that we submitted. They are very detailed, and what is required and what is lacking under
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
mitigation for fire for the geologic hazard zone and for the potential to pollute and flood our property.
I’m happy to answer any questions. Thank you for
listening.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you for speaking tonight.
Are there any questions for the speaker. Thank you very much. Next, I have Craig Fordyce.
CRAIG FORDYCE: Hello, Craig Fordyce. I’m at 191
Longmeadow Drive. An EIR is required, in our opinion. The fate of an undeveloped rural Los Gatos hillside, home to protected trees, species, and a riparian corridor requires at a minimum a detailed understanding of the environmental impact of the proposed development. In this case, we have not been given the necessary information to have such an understanding.
Housing law does not waive or reduce CEQA review.
Compliance with CEQA is mandatory and independent of zoning or housing authorization. The Mitigated Negative
Declaration approach suggests environmental review is
secondary to entitlement, which is legally incorrect. The MND relies on an outdated, uncertified EIR from 2017.
Natural environments change over the course of
the years. Species appear and disappear and are not fixed in time. The proposal is not the same as the one considered
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
in 2018. One key difference is the scope of the development 13% increase. The lots are different, the number of homes is different, the home sites are different, the ingress and egress are different.
An uncertified EIR cannot legally be relied upon
for the adoption of an MND. See letters submitted by the Sierra Club, the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, and the San Francisco Regional Bay Regional Water Control Board.
Each site has multiple issues that were not adequately
addressed by the MND.
The Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club note that
because the project is located within an ecologically
sensitive transition zone between existing development and the natural hillside habitat, preparation of an EIR is
essential.
The Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance found
substantial evidence that the project may result in
significant hydrological and biological impacts that are not adequately disclosed, analyzed, or mitigated.
The Sierra Club and the Bird Alliance have
supplied a fair argument that the project may have a
significant environmental impact, including the following issues: the MND fails to adequately assess significant and irreversible impacts to biological resources, including
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
native woodland habitat, wildlife movement corridors,
nesting birds and special status, pollinators in the Ross Creek watershed, and are known to support raptors,
migratory songbirds, and oak-associated wildlife. The MND removes a substantial number of mature coast live oaks and associated understory vegetation. It does not quantify
total tree loss, assess habitat fragmentation, or evaluate impacts to wildlife corridor functionality across the Ross Creek drainage interface.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Okay, thank you very much. Next I have Chris Bayoric.
CHRIS BAYORIC: Good evening. Chris Bayoric, 120
Clover Way in the community nearby that proposed
development.
My main concern is centered on the fact that the
property as proposed, the development as proposed, clearly exceeds the drainage capability of that land. The
mitigating requests are to build at least three, possibly more, wetlands, ponds, to catch the effluence from drainage of that property, and ponds are a health concern with the presence of West Nile Virus in our community, and the fact that ponds breed mosquitos and mosquitos transfer that
virus.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
I think it would be extremely challenging to
maintain adequate health safety factors via these various ponds proposed on the property. I don't know if you’ve read the report—it’s 1,242 pages long—but I call to your
attention page 27 that lists in a very long paragraph at least three, possibly four, proposed wetlands.
They call them bioretention basins, but they’re
basically proposing wetlands to capture the effluence, and those wetlands will breed mosquitos and you’ll cause the danger of having those mosquitos spread the West Nile
Virus. It’s adjoining to a school, and it’s adjoining to several residential areas that surround that property. I don’t think the Town would like to be responsible for
allowing the formation of said wetlands.
The second concern I have to compound the problem
is that the proposal is very fuzzy about who is going to be responsible for maintenance of those wetlands. The Town is not going to want to maintain them. They talk about the Applicant being responsible, the owner will be responsible.
Who is the owner of the wetland? Have they carved out
specific parcels that contain the wetlands so that somebody is responsible for a well-defined (inaudible) for those wetlands? No. Various homeowners will be stuck with having to deal with this, and the consequence of that will be that
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
this will end up right on the Town’s lap, because not only will those homeowners be concerned about dealing with those maintenance issues, but the entire surrounding community will be responsible.
I think the scope of the development needs to be
downsized to avoid the dependence on these wetlands.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Okay, thank you very much for your comments. Next speaker I have is Lee Quintana.
LEE QUINTANA: Good evening, Lee Quintana. I am
here not to speak on the project, but to speak on the
environmental review. Currently I serve on the Historic Preservation Committee, but I am not representing the
Historic Preservation Committee here. I am relying on 15 years of experience working for the City of San Jose doing environmental review.
There were two things that were paramount in the
review of projects.
One is the purpose of environmental review is to
provide decision makers with adequate information to make informed decisions. That’s adequate information as to the potential significant impacts and the mitigation to
mitigate those impacts that is necessary for them to make informed decisions.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
The second thing that is always paramount is to
make our documents bulletproof, which means that we achieve the first purpose and provide all the information, the
studies, and the mitigation that flows from the studies before a document is released.
In this case, as you have lots of letters from
professionals, there appears to be a certain incompleteness in those studies and deferred mitigation, and lack of
consultation with agencies that have jurisdiction over
lands in Los Gatos.
Once you approve a project and then you go back
and do your studies and consultations, you are limited in many cases in what you can do, and you may not be able to achieve full mitigation, so it’s really important to have those studies up front. For that reason, I would not
support approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Next I have
Jan Schwartz.
JAN SCHWARTZ: Hi, I’m Jan Schwartz and I live at
15966 Cerro Vista Drive. I’m on the other side of the hill, and I have concerns for my neighbors. We will have one or two houses on our side, more will be on the other side, and
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
I am concerned for my neighbors. I’ve heard flooding,
landslides, mosquitos; I think those are significant risks.
My concern—as the speaker talked about before—is
the wildlife that we have here, and we’ve got a riparian corridor next to the library that the Town has put a lot of effort into building. We have a natural one already up
there. We have a den of coyotes; I also sit out at night and listen to them. Western screech owls, bobcats, red
foxes, I saw 18 turkeys when I came home last night,
Cooper’s hawks, lots of deer. We have a lot of wildlife that’s going to disappear.
I’m in Los Gatos; I love Los Gatos. I’ve been
here since 1975, and I know progress moves on. I’ve seen the North Forty. We’ve seen certainly a lot of development, but I do hope we can maintain the wildlife and riparian corridor that we have right now. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much. Are there any
questions? No. Thank you very much. Next speaker card I have is Anne Griffin.
ANNE GRIFFIN: Anne Griffin, 158 Twin Oaks Drive.
I’ve lived in my home for over (inaudible) years. I have had a flooded back yard due to the Ross Creek flooding
twice, and I live up the road from the property.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
I’m not here to talk about regulations and
(inaudible) housing. I see in my home, I am a caretaker of oak trees that have been passed on to me so I can give them (inaudible) follow me, and the thought of if I had to tear one down, you would probably penalize me. I am the
caretaker (inaudible) other generations.
My concern is safety. The street of Longmeadow is
Twin Oaks Drive, Clover Way, and Blueberry Hill Drive
travel onto Longmeadow to exit, the one big exit for all of these homes. We are adding probably two cars to every home, most of which will go through Longmeadow. I counted four cars parked on Longmeadow at 7:00 o’clock tonight. It is a narrow street. Well, an adequate street. No streetlights, no sidewalk.
During the day, if you were to travel on
Longmeadow you would probably see four or five landscaping trucks, cars parked, service people, children riding bikes, and people walking dogs. I am concerned about safety. I live at the end of Twin Oaks, and I would like an emergency vehicle to be able to come to my home if I needed it, and if you travel it at any given time, you have to stop and let a car pass as you (inaudible) exit your property.
So, I’m not here to talk about anything, but we
have a lot of people enjoying our community, and safety is
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
an issue that we have to continue. If we increase the cars, you remove people from walking, children from riding bikes, and the integrity of our community would be limited. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Thank you very much for your
comment. Are there any questions for the speaker? Are there any hands raised on Zoom?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: There are no hands raised
currently on Zoom.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. I do not have any speaker
cards, and since there are no hands raised on Zoom, we will return to the Applicant so that the Applicant team can
provide closing remarks. You’ll have three minutes,
followed by questions.
JIM FOLEY: Thank you, and thanks to all the
people that took their time to come and speak and provide letters; we reviewed a lot of the letters. A lot of these topics aren’t new. They are some of the things that
informed what we tried to create for the project and what was provided, just to tick off a couple of things that we just heard. Then you guys may have some similar questions, and we’ve got our team here to delve into those further if they require it.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
The trees by Hillbrook School and the screening,
I think we have our consulting arborist hopefully on Zoom if that comes up; that’s certainly something to look at.
Safety and access. There is extensive language in
the conditions of approval about best management practices, safety, access during construction, everything else, so I don’t think there is any intention of the project with the limited number of houses to create any unsafe environment in this extension of the neighborhood.
The bioretention areas and those concerns, they
are engineered, they’re widely accepted, it’s all gone
through the process. I don’t think this is anything
different from what is typical, and we can elaborate on drainage, the stormwater, and what those bioretention areas may look like.
There is a lot of language in the Conditions of
Approval: the requirements for CC&Rs, who is going to
manage them, ongoing access review, proactive submitting of reporting to the Town of Los Gatos, so the idea of how we created that and the drainage for the neighborhood was well thought out.
As far as the wildlife and those concerns, we
still have this ephemeral swale through the site. It is kind of the main feature, I think, where you’re going to
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
find wildlife and protected areas. We stayed away from
that. That photo doesn’t really do it justice, but there is still a lot of that being preserved with this project, if we want to get into the details.
Then on the matter of CEQA, we talked about it
before. We’re not here to debate the merits of EIRs, I just want to reiterate that a lot of effort went in. Raney
Planning Management spent a lot of time taking prior
information, new information, updating, making sure all the technical studies were adequate for what we were trying to do, and I think they did a good job, and I just don’t think everything needs an EIR. We’re going to start doing EIRs for ADUs, I don't know.
CEQA seems to be changing daily in California,
but I think the information that’s provided, whatever you want to call it, is really good and thorough information that should help you make an informed decision on what
we’re proposing, and if there are more questions, we’ll be here, we have the team ready.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you. One question.
It seems you didn’t meet with any of the neighbors. I know that that isn’t needed, but that would have been a good gesture, I would think.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
JIM FOLEY: I’ve had a lot of meetings with a lot
of neighbors for a lot of projects over time. Specifically, we had a lot of information from 2018; I think it was very clear what a lot of the concerns were, and this is a
different kind of project. We have different laws and tools that we’re using and just chose to take the information that we had, rely on that, and move on. We’ve had project signs for over a year up there with contact information, my cell phone number, and I never heard from one neighbor
either.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: May I follow-up? Although
this project is 60,000 square feet, the one you were
talking about was 5,500, so surely there were more
questions around this project, so I would think that there would be even more reason to want to touch out with them, not that you needed to.
JIM FOLEY: It was sort of just a decision for
how we were going to bring the project forward.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Another question I have.
The size of the basins on average, because every home has one, I was just wondering what’s the average size there, and is it a graded basin? Because my concern is the water, the drainage. I hear from the neighbors there is a lot of concern over that issue.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
JIM FOLEY: Right. I’ll probably ask our civil
engineer to weigh in on that a little bit, but we’ve seen some of these comments provided prior and in current
letters. I’m not a civil engineer, so I’ll let them answer it a little bit more, but the general notion is that we think that we now have engineered solutions that are going to treat and direct drainage, like project wide. The
retention basins are just a portion of it, so it’s possible that we’ll even improve the situation and be able to catch and divert runoff drainage from winding up in swimming
pools or whatever else you’ve got. We’ve got HMH here.
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: Zeffy Jimenez with HMH, civil
engineer on the project.
Your question regarding the sizing of the
bioretention cells, it is based off how much water is
actually going to it, so its tributary area; it’s roughly about 3%, so it does vary based off of what is tributary to it.
If there is concern about water standing in it,
that is not the intent. We are following the local County and State guidelines to be able to treat the water. The intent is for the water to be able to be treated before it flows out into the waterways and eventually out to the bay.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And the homeowners
association or the homeowner, are they going to be
responsible for the removal of debris and any issues?
JIM FOLEY: Yes, there is maintenance
requirements and reporting and inspection requirements that have been provided as part of the Conditions of Approval.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Another question. The
concern over why you wouldn’t want to put in trails, would that be too costly for your project? Would it impact your ability to have your low-income housing? That’s usually what it’s tied to.
JIM FOLEY: Yes, the question of cost is always
kind of on top of mind, and everything is so costly to do now that I’m sure you hear time and time again, especially where we live, and getting the pieces of the puzzle with land values, construction costs, costs of financing,
carrying costs, and everything else to align, it’s very thin.
And having land dedicated is a cost, having the
ongoing management of it is a cost. We created the project in a way where there are CC&Rs and there are maintenance obligations, but there is no homeowners association, which is also a cost to manage and something that you can have challenges going forward.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
So, again, just based on the vision for the
project, the kind of project that we wanted to bring
forward at this time, it just wasn’t a consideration
generally for those reasons cost-wise.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Can I follow-up? I have a followup question directly to that. The trails, you did not consider that cost then is what you’re saying?
JIM FOLEY: We considered it a cost that would
create the project… It would be too challenging to fund the project by adding public trails through the project, and the way we proposed the project, it wasn’t required, so we did not design it that way.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Back to you,
Commissioner Burnett.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And a quick follow-up.
With Larry Canon’s report, our Town Architect, I know you didn’t want to have to follow his sort of recommendations, but there were a few I know you would respond to, maybe a color, some kind of color suggestion on the homes. That was in the report, and that was one thing that you sort of
agreed to, that you would be open maybe to color
suggestions.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
JIM FOLEY: Yes, we have our architect team here
too. He worked directly with Larry on some of those
comments, if you’ve got specific questions regarding
architecture or color or recommendations.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: That was one, but the slim
windows. I noticed all the homes have very slim windows, so that was one comment by Larry Canon.
The second one, which I sort of agreed with,
there was no window trim, so the homes are very… Just from an architectural standpoint, I know you don’t have to
follow any of those guidelines.
JIM FOLEY: Right. I don't know if Chris wants to
get up and talk. Chris Hall is our architect for platform architecture, and we chose him for many reasons, including his vision for the custom home neighborhood and whether some of those design elements are things that are in his vision, our vision, the public’s vision, a marketable
vision; we certainly relied on him. Do you have a specific question you want to know, if we want to change a color or window trim?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Well, I know in the report
that your answer was that you would be open to color
suggestions, because I think his comment was it was all
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
like one color, the homes need a little bit more diversity, but colors that would work in a hillside (inaudible).
JIM FOLEY: Sure. I mean, if there’s a proposal
I’d look to Chris to help me determine whether or not it’s something that’s going to fit in with the overall look and feel of the neighborhood that we’re proposing.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Thank you. I did want to
follow-up on some of the questions about drainage, and
maybe the civil engineer can pop up here again.
Specifically, just some kind of general set the table
question. So, we have a creek going through the site, but we also have ephemeral drainage, which are two different features I understand. Is there any function to the storm drain system that has anything to do with Ross Creek, or is it just passing through the site separately?
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: Essentially, yes, it’s
separate, and so what we have done too is work with the environmental consultant, identify the riparian age so that we are staying out of it so that it can be separate. I know there was a concern about removing some water from the
creek itself, so we have implemented a swale to be able to have that water be reintroduced, and so it’s not being
diverted because of it.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
And also understanding that there were past
issues with drainage to the neighboring properties. What we are doing with our subdivision is helping to alleviate that by taking that water away into the storm drain system. Yes, goes into the Biocell per local regulations for treatment of water to take out the contaminants before it goes
through the storm drain system, but yes, all that was taken into (inaudible).
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just really quick, a recap
there. So, we’ve got the creek, and then we’ve got the
ephemeral drainage, which is a separate swale, and you’re saying that—and correct me if I missed it—there is the
drainage coming off the swale, which I know is intermittent and probably driven by storm events. That doesn’t go to the creek then, right? That goes into the storm retention
system.
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay. In terms of overall
picture with respect to storms, what is the pre and post condition? Can you characterize whether post-project we’re dealing with net increase, net decrease?
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: I don’t have those numbers
with me, but we can look at that and get right back to you.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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 SORDI: Okay. I do have some other
questions about the ephemeral drainage, but they’re going to be more for the environmental consultant, so I can hold on to those for now, or I can jump into them.
CHAIR THOMAS: I would say that you should ask if
there is anything relevant that you want to hear back from the Applicant team, because once that’s closed.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Got it. I consider the
riparian areas and the ephemeral drainage to be an area of pretty big concern. Part of the reason why is we’ve got a letter in the file from Brian Wines with the Regional
Board, which was a specific request to characterize that area under the possibility that it could be a wetland, and from what I’m seeing in the record it doesn’t look like anybody actually went to the trouble of truly defining that I’ve had some experience of doing this as a developer in the past and I’ve had to go through some of this painful process associated with working with the Army Corps and regional board.
What I’m curious about is if there had been any
analysis of that ephemeral drainage with respect to
hydrophytic soils or plant species that are wetland
characteristic plant species? That’s my first question.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
JIM FOLEY: I think you were right the first
time; that’s a question for Raney. They did go through
their process in their responses to Brian Wines’ letter.
They talked about their efforts and what they thought.
We had some follow-up conversations with Brian on
Zoom and looked at the site. I think post-his-letter he may have been oriented a little bit differently as far as up and downhill, and we kind of got all on the same page with him with what he was looking at, and he further asked us for clarifications about where that ephemeral swale meets the roadway and what the condition is.
We’re set back 10’; that’s what is required.
There’s a retaining wall towards the end of it. We put
together some exhibits for him to explain that to him. I don’t think he was necessarily satisfied, so we’re having an ongoing dialogue, but our position is that whatever
we’ve gotten back from Raney, we’re in agreement with that, and we’ve completely avoided the area.
The entire subdivision has been moved downhill
and there are a couple of lots on either side of it, and where the natural, visible, and then, I guess, even
calculated, delineation of the swale meets the road in
between those two homes, it just goes up the hill and back
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
into the hillside and the back yards of the homes. That’s all I can speak to.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay. Is there anyone from
Raney available to speak to the issue? Are they on Zoom or are they here?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: No, they’re here.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Oh, got you. They’re over
there.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: But I don't know if we want to
get into a back-and-forth with the dialogue with the
Applicant and dialogue with consultants.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, so hold off on that
for now.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Got you, okay. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Just as a follow-up to that, I
understand the cost of the story pole situation. Did your team at all contemplate possibly doing something
alternative so that when we went out and did a site visit we would be able to determine exactly where these lot lines are and where this is, because we all did and we all have different levels of experience with environmental surveying and development.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
Just to be honest, it was difficult for us to
know. I don’t feel like I necessarily have enough
information to confirm that where I saw this what I
consider a wetland as an environmental scientist is
avoided. So, was there any alternative considered, and if we are continuing this item or in the future, would you be willing to put up some sort of—obviously not story poles— indicators of delineation between lots and structures or anything road-wise?
JIM FOLEY: Challenging question. Story poles are
expensive, staking is expensive, visual simulations are very expensive. I wish I could go out there and meet with you guys and tour the project and have study sessions out there. That’s also something that may or may not be
allowed, which I’ve for a time said isn’t always that
helpful. I think the plans are pretty clear. We’re happy to try to do something more. I think a week before we had
determined or heard that there was going to be Planning Commission site visits, can you get the site staked? Kind of last minutes and challenging to try to do that, and also very costly. And it is a tricky site—it’s a hillside site— to get out there, as you know, because you visited it.
But we spent a lot of money with our architect
trying to create a very good visual representation; this is
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
part of it here. We also, I think, spent $18,000; the Town required visual simulations, for, I think, four photos that they gave us. It’s just really hard to get all that done, and it’s very costly.
As far as the part of your question asking did we
consider it? From a project perspective, yes, we considered everything and we thought we did a lot; there’s just been a lot that’s gone into this. As far as last minute doing site visits and the staking and things, I guess it just didn’t come together. I wish we could have created something more helpful.
CHAIR THOMAS: Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: As a follow-up to that, and
then I have some questions for the civil engineer.
Really, I think it would honestly be the corner
of Lot 8 that needs to be staked, and clearly your civil engineer has gone out and done a layout. That would not be very expensive, and I think if they could just lay out the corner so that we could stand against those. I don’t think the entire property needs to be staked, but I think that’s the one that would help.
JIM FOLEY: Okay.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Then I have some questions
about stormwater and drainage.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
My first question is on Sheet 5.0. It’s this one,
and it maps out the stormwater drains and the path. You said that it doesn’t go into Ross Creek, but when you look at the path, basically that goes past Lot 1 and it actually looks like it goes into a storm drain at Ross Creek.
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: I don't know if that sheet is
up.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: 5.0. Okay, so we can wait a
second on that. My other question comes to the way the
other lots, basically Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8, feed into the existing large storm drain at the corner of the property.
Was an assessment done on that storm drain, taking into account that now there is going to be basically less open space, less open soil, to absorb all that water that comes down, and that most of that water now is going to probably get diverted into that line. Has there been a study done on that?
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: Yes, and my colleague actually
just reminded me to your question prior, Commissioner
Sordi, of what is the delta between pre- and post-runoff, and I believe that is maybe getting to your question right now.
Because the site is in a hydromodification zone,
we have looked at that pre- and post-condition to make sure
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
that what is pre-construction and post-construction still is mitigated. We are providing that, so yes, that was taken into account with that calculation.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: And so, what you’re saying by
that is that existing 36” pipe is adequate to pick up not only what comes straight down from the ephemeral stream, but the additional water not being absorbed in the ground, that study has been done. You’re saying that pipe is
adequate.
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: Yes, what we have looked at is
the site itself, how much water is tributary to the site.
Hydromodification: we are installing an orifice to allow for the water to not exceed what is currently being
discharged, and we’ve reviewed that with the Town Engineer.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: On this, I don't know how easy
it would be to point this out, but on the bottom left
corner, essentially if you look along the yellow path, the street, and you go past Lot 1, there is a note that says, “Valley Water 110’ Flood Plane Easement.” There is a catch basin or storm drain right down there; it is by DMAA to the left. However, I have no understanding of where that water actually then goes to, and it appears to be by the creek, so where does the water from the bioswales at Lots 4, 9, 1, 11, 12, and 3 go to?
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
JIM FOLEY: Mike, can you jump in?
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: (Inaudible), Mike. If you
could repeat it for me one more time.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: If you take a look at the, I
don't know, bioswales, bioretention ponds, whatever you want to call them, that are for Lots 4, 9, 1, 11, 12, 3, and 2, those all feed into some storm drains that are in the street there, and then that line goes over towards the note of DMAA, and then it just ends. It doesn’t really
indicate where that water then goes to. Go down a bit.
Right there, that’s where it seems to end. There is no
further line from that. And if you look at the topography, obviously it’s going down. There is no way it’s going to the corner.
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: The water that is tributary to
here, this roadway, this hatch here, is pervious pavement for water quality purposes. The water and subdrain go to this catch basin and out to this existing storm drain
system. Are we understanding the question?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Into what existing storm drain
system?
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: This line right here.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Yes, so it’s Ross Creek. So,
it is going into Ross Creek.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: Yes.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. All right, I have
another question then about the bioretention ponds. There’s a note in there that they’re lined with an impervious
liner. Why would you do that?
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: The impervious liner, they are
located to be able to allow the water to go through the media filter. We worked with a geotechnical engineer to determine whether or not the soils are adequate enough to allow for water to be able to permeate through the existing soil type, so that’s based off recommendations that we work with the geotechnical engineer based off of the current standards.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: And were all of those studies
then presented to the Town Engineer? My experience with those has been that they accumulate silt pretty quickly, and then those fill up and spill over.
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: There is an overflow that is
built into it per the current standards that allow for the water… So, it is intended to be able to treat the water in a subdrain, and in a high-flow situation there is an
overflow, and through the operation and maintenance plan there is regularly scheduled maintenance of it.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. I’m going to switch
gears. If you look at the back of Lots 4 and 5, those
properties, the backs of them are built up pretty high.
Those retaining walls, they do step, but they go up about 12’. The existing properties on the other side are
significantly lower than that, and I don’t see any type of water catch system or anything on the back sides of Lots 4 and 5 that would catch any overflow water and divert it to the existing storm drain.
MIKE: All of this area along back sides of both
of the lots here are pervious. The water will infiltrate into the ground. This is not hardscape by any means. There is a treatment system here that ultimately will treat both of these lots, but back here, it will be landscape, etc., that allows any of the surface drainage to basically
infiltrate the ground.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Did you do any type of study?
Like you know how we have the hundred-year rain out here that seems to happen more often than a hundred years? That wind and excessive rain, since that elevation is so high, to prove that we’re not going to wind up now flooding
neighbors’ properties, that that is enough pervious square footage for that amount of water.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: We did do the calculations,
but specific to that area that just focused on that. We do have a calculation just for that strip. The way that we were looking to mitigate that and reduce the amount of
water that is currently going to neighbors is by grading these lots away from the neighboring property to help
alleviate any of the overflow that was an existing
condition going in that direction. What we could do is look at having an earth swale in that location to be able to address your concern.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay. I’ll give somebody else
a chance.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. Pivoting
quickly from water—I think you guys can probably sit down— to trees. I’m sure you heard many of the members of the public are concerned about trees, the removal of trees, relocation of trees, and I wanted to address two
specifically.
I think one neighbor indicated that there were
trees on the Hillbrook School side that you indicated
needed to be removed. They seemed to indicate they were on the property edge and did not need to be removed. I wanted to get your thoughts on that.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
Then, secondly, another neighbor indicated that
there were trees that either disappeared from the plans or changed the plans, and mentioned 35 trees that should have been used for privacy but no longer appeared the plan. If you can address those two issues.
JIM FOLEY: I think that’s the same thing. I
think those are the 35 trees that were down by Hillbrook that the gentleman was talking about screening his
property. We have our consulting arborist on Zoom.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Your consulting arborist? Your
landscape architect?
JIM FOLEY: Our arborist through HMH Engineers
that worked with your consulting arborist on the trees.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Is that Michael?
JIM FOLEY: Hold on. We’re checking.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: It must be, because he’s
raising his hand.
JIM FOLEY: Yes. Is he on audio?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Not yet.
MICHAEL GLADDEN: Can everyone hear me?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. First of all,
this is Steve Raspe. Did you hear my question for the
Applicant?
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
MICHAEL GLADDEN: If you could repeat it, I’d
appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Of course, and for our
record, if you could also state your name. But the question essentially was we had commentators indicate concern about the trees, specifically the movement or removal of trees on the Hillbrook side, that would have created privacy for the neighboring lots. There seems to be some concern that
either those trees were removed when they didn’t need to be, or some other issue. If you could address that.
MICHAEL GLADDEN: My name is Michael Gladden, and
my firm is McClintock Landscape. All the trees that I
assessed were in the report, and I believe that the trees that were slated for removal were ones that were in poor condition, and it is on the report. The replacement of 35 trees, I think that’s part of the landscape team,
architecture team.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Chair, may I follow-up?
CHAIR THOMAS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: It would be easier if we had
a visual rendering. If the Applicant can point us to
something we can look at, drawings.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: Additionally, through the
Chair, Shawn Taylor, the landscape architect, also is able to speak.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Oh, very good. Maybe while
we’re looking for that visual, if the landscape architect would want to speak.
SHAWN TAYLOR: Checking to see if you guys can
hear me okay.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Yes, please continue.
SHAWN TAYLOR: I am Shawn Taylor with HMH
Landscape Architecture. Good evening, Planning Commission and attendees. Decisions were made for tree removal based on a few things.
First, I want to point out that the majority of
trees on this site are being kept, protected, and remain.
For that corner of the site, and much of the site where we’re developing, we did follow Hillside Wildland Urban Interface for defensible spaces per CAL FIRE requirements, so in keeping with that, through Zone 3 there was some
thinning that’s done through the site as well per those requirements so that we can control wildfire spread. We definitely looked at the value of each tree, the health of it, and tried to selectively remove, and then keep larger trees to help with some of the screening and view blocking.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
COMMISSIONER RASPE: I will reserve further
questions. I think the Chair has questions. Well, let me ask you this, then. What specific efforts are being made to provide privacy plantings for (inaudible)?
SHAWN TAYLOR: We maximized the number of
proposed trees within our fire zones, as well as located shrubs and retaining walls, to control those views as best we can with our limitation on planting density within these zones.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Let me redirect the question
(inaudible). Would you, assuming the project proceeds, be willing to work with the neighbors to directly address any privacy concerns that they might have, and tailor your
planting needs to the extent you could, to address their needs?
JIM FOLEY: Yes, absolutely. The corner in
question, obviously we’ve got a lot happening there. That’s where there is grade; it’s where there are multiple
property owners, including Hillbrook; and just the general direction has been sensitive to that with planting, home orientation, and everything else, but if something was
missed or there is a better solution proposed by a neighbor that would be better, then of course.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
The same with just the notion of which trees are
being removed. We’re not by any means suggesting remove everything possible. Everything that we’ve relied on based on the feedback from the consultants is preserve what we can and be sensitive to creating the neighborhood through there, so that still applies, whatever we need to do.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you. I appreciate
that.
CHAIR THOMAS: I have a follow-up question.
Michael, I have a question for you. You said that you
surveyed and recorded all the trees, and then you said that most trees are being kept. Can you elaborate on what you mean by that? Because according to the stuff I have in
front of me, that is not what I see.
MICHAEL GLADDEN: I was referring to the area
next to Hillbrook School, and the retention numbers are in the report and I believe on the plans.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. I was confused, because 35%
of the trees are being removed, and I guess there’s not a definition for most, but… Okay, so you were referring to the trees specifically in that spot near Hillbrook that we just discussed. Okay, thank you. I have a couple other tree questions.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
The tree in lieu fees versus plantings, can
someone on the Applicant team walk me through how we
decided to only be planting 15% of the required replacement trees, where we chose to do this, and the species? Thank you.
JIM FOLEY: That’s going to be for Shawn, our
landscape architect; he’s on as well.
SHAWN TAYLOR: Again, we maximized the number of
proposed trees that we could, and that’s based on the areas that we are developing, and the maximum number is being held by following our CAL FIRE Hillside Wildlife Urban
Interface zones, so I can’t really add trees within that developed area and maintain that defensible space area.
Those species of trees that we’re using are in
the plans. A lot of them are native. We’ve got Blue Oak, Coast Live Oak, Arbutus, Western Redbud, and then we’re supplementing some of the decorative trees with Pineapple Guava, Crepe Myrtles, and the Columbia London Plain Trees.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. We’ve had quite a
few projects recently where we have had a lot of trees, and obviously this is a very different site, but a lot of our recent applicants have been very amenable to planting
native species, actually. So, is that something that your
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
team would be open to, planting native species, unless it’s a fruit tree, something that provides a food service?
SHAWN TAYLOR: Yes, absolutely. Most of our plant
palette is native, and we can review that and utilize even more natives; that would not be a problem.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. My last question
about trees is that as of now the project is requesting to remove 12 large, protected trees. Were there any efforts in the development plans with the lot splitting, the home
locations, and structures and roads to try to avoid any of those trees that are being removed in order to incorporate them into the development?
JIM FOLEY: Yes, and to the extent we worked with
Shawn and the team to be the least impactful, there are a lot of levers that have to get pulled to figure out how we’re going to navigate the hillside and everything else.
That was a just generally broad direction.
I don’t think we did a deep dive analysis on a
particular one or amount. I think I know what you mean, like to the extent you drive down Santa Rosa and maybe
there’s something and there’s a road. I think that as I know the topography, I don’t know there’s a circumstance like that, but if there is, or again, something has been missed, we’re certainly open to taking a look at that.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
That goes along with the whole character and the
design of the neighborhood is to be compatible with the hillside and what’s there, and certainly not stick out like a sore thumb to any neighbor or any public view. That was all analyzed in our visual analysis and everything else, so absolutely.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I’m done with
trees, but I do have another question, but do you want to go?
VICE CHAIR BURCH: One question for the landscape
architect, please. I’m going to go back to Lots 4 and 5. It looks like behind those lots is where the retaining walls are, and I can see the line of grading. I’d like to know what plantings you’re suggesting on the very back side of those that will anchor down the soils. That was a pretty lengthy sprawl of trees of various sizes, which obviously those roots were holding down the soils so that as water came down the hill it was avoiding erosion into the yards, so I’d like to know what kind of plantings you’re going to put along that fenceline to maintain that.
SHAWN TAYLOR: Along those two lots that are
being regraded there are retaining walls going in, and we know that slope needs to be stabilized, so as part of this plan set, not going into too much detail, what we’ve
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
proposed is a slope stabilizing native hydroseed mix that we would be defining, or it would be defined later in your construction documentation, so that is recognized as
needing slope stabilization and the proper planting.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: My next question is about the
pervious concrete, and I think the engineers. Thank you.
Could you just tell me about what that material is, what your experience with it is, and how durable it is.
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: It is going to be durable
enough for an emergency vehicle to be able to drive on top of it; that is per requirements, so we’ll have to take that loading. It follows the standards that are made for us to be able to adhere to per local regulations.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay. Vice Chair Burch.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I had a couple of questions
about that too, so she’s reading my mind. My limited
experience with pervious pavement is that it is a lot less durable and not as strong as pavement, and so with frequent trips, especially with heavier vehicles, it actually breaks down faster, they can clog with silt, and it has some
issues with seeping into the groundwater.
One, I guess I’d be curious to know what does the
maintenance of that road look like in the CC&Rs and have
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
you really fully analyzed it? You’ve got it on the main inand-out spot right there, so it’s going to get the weight.
If you have done that analysis, is it a report that Staff has?
ZEFERINO JIMENEZ: It would be included as part
of the Operation and Maintenance Agreement and the
frequency of that. We don’t have that report or frequency yet, but it will be provided at the time that construction documents are provided and prepared for the project.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Thank you, Chair. I wanted
to pivot back to discussion of the concessions and the
actual unidentifiable costs, which Commissioner Burnett touched on a little bit earlier, and what I wanted to focus on a little bit more was the rationale behind no trails and no open space easements.
I know that the bar is relatively low with
respect to Builder's Remedy, and you can just say it’s
expensive, I guess. I don’t see any analysis related to actual unidentifiable costs in the justification letter.
It’s fairly brief, it’s like five pages, not that it needs to be super wordy and long, but I just don’t see any
analysis at all with respect to finance, and I’m curious to know if you can add a little bit more detail about what you
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
anticipate would potentially be an unacceptable cost or an excessive cost associated with the simple addition of a trail. I’ll stick to that question first, I guess.
JIM FOLEY: It’s a hard one to quantify. We’re
very nervous in general of how long the project is taking to move through the process, what the market is going to be like. It’s razor thin all the time now, and trying to
deliver a residential subdivision like this is a long
project and takes a long time to deliver it as well.
I can’t quantify in a dollar sense, like okay, we
hit a threshold of a hundred or two hundred or $2 million and decided not to do anything like that. I think the
overall proposal was to keep this project very simple. You can see the lotting plan; it’s pretty simple. Based on some of the feedback in 2018, we shifted some of the homes down the hill, we didn’t have an elaborate cul de sac coming off of Cerro Vista as they did before, there were different options that were proposed with open space and trails and whatnot, and we basically just tried to simplify everything in an overarching attempt to make it a feasible project cost-wise. If we had proposed to put in a trail connection through the upper lots, I don’t have how that would look or what the cost would be.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
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
There’s a little bit of a marketability issue as
well with… I know it’s nice for the neighborhood and
everybody else, but also for the home, to have public
walking through their back yard or how we design around that, or how it fits into part of the topography, that
isn’t impactful. We didn’t spend time or dollars
reanalyzing that.
I wish I could give you a clearer, definitive
answer like it was going to be this and it just took the project budget too high, but I don’t think I have that for you.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Then, just to follow-up on
that, I’m thinking about just the notion of a conservation easement or an open space easement; it seems like a line on a map to me in its simplest form. I know sometimes
conservation easements can come with some maintenance that would not necessarily be a cost now to the developer, it would be a maintenance cost to an HOA, or if it’s not an HOA, to a private homeowner. I don't know if you can
elaborate any more on what would be actual and identifiable costs to a conservation easement.
JIM FOLEY: That one is also challenging. We just
ran into this issue on another project nearby that Town Staff helped us navigate, something that was done for
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
74 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
different reasons and then something changed, and it was something that we had to navigate, and it was an impact.
Fortunately, that situation worked out okay.
I think we’re a little unclear on what needs to
be done there or what’s being requested. There are some identified lots to say that there might be some features that should be protected or whatever it might be. I think we’re open to working with Staff or at your direction on hey, these are the things that we want to see there, and I think that we might be able to get to a point where some of that doesn’t have as great of an impact, but it’s still… Going back to that high level, it’s drafting
legal, putting easements in place, engineering it, maps, civil, ratcheting up so it was a decision of how we were going to present the project, or to set that to the side if it wasn’t going be something that was necessary. If it
becomes a really critical issue, like any of these, we’re open to listening and seeing if we can take care of it.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Understood. A lot of the
concern and maybe the anxiety associated with something is the unknown, and my mind keeps returning to this, because I see a potential community benefit that just kind of leaps off the page at me.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
75 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I’ll disclose that I’m a cyclist, and so I’m a
little bit biased in that direction, but Kennedy Road is a particularly dangerous road, and right now we’ve got trails that are in the adjacent subdivision that almost connect— don’t quite make the connection—to Brooke Acres Drive. It doesn’t seem to me that it would be too terribly expensive to align a pedestrian bike trail immediately adjacent to the EVA that comes off Brooke Acres and then connects to the roadway system and makes its way out to Longmeadow.
Then you have the ability to have a cyclist hop
off a really dangerous road and spend a considerable amount of time weaving through a beautiful path through
neighborhoods and making their way back out to Kennedy, so that’s just something I’ll throw out there; I don't know if that’s something that you would consider. That takes away some of the ambiguity, maybe, to it, and may align well with some of the improvements that are already being done and keep the cost down, I don't know.
JIM FOLEY: I see what you’re saying logistically
through there. Again, we have a number of things that we’re going to look at. We’ll have to see at the end of the
meeting what are the things that we’re going to need to look at for the Council, or for you again, or whatever, and definitely open to doing that.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
76 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
All these decisions were predicated on the
simplicity—which is what you’re looking at—and some of the other things that have come up, and why we made the
decisions that we did, and along with our architect trying to keep the design very rural. It is a luxury home
subdivision, but to that end I think it is on the
minimalistic side, downplayed architecture and really
beautiful stuff.
Just the way that the driveway is and how the
private road is going to look and all that, and I think it would be a wonderful place to cycle and connect in through Brooke Acres to the trail, whatever it might be, so if
there is some kind of a design element or safety or feature that we need to put in place to allow for that, of course.
If it’s something more than that, if it’s taking
property out of some of the back yards of the upper lots, again, we can look at that; I don’t know the logistics and what the cost implications are going to be right now.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, just something to
think about. Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: As a follow-up to that, I
understand the maintenance in the long-term is something that the cost is difficult to capture, but would you be open to looking at some of these options and looking into
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
77 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
either having some sort of open space conservation easement or trail easement? I don't know, I know that there are land trusts out there, there are resources. This is a very large project. I’m not an expert in this, but would it be
possible to set up some sort of land trust that you can collect money from now that can maintain that at least for the foreseeable future? Has any of that financial aspect been considered?
JIM FOLEY: We have not looked into anything like
that. I’m thinking of different conditions around town and how they are, and whether they are owned by the Town,
they’re public, or they’re easement over somebody else’s property. I haven’t personally done anything like that on a project to understand what all the options are, but just like everything else, if there is a logical way that we can accommodate people or the needs, and it isn’t something that is going to prevent the project from going forward financially, we’re very open to cooperating.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I did have one
more question for, I think, the engineers again. Mr.
Mullin, can you pull up 5.0, I guess probably. The very corner between Lots 5 and 6, can you just explain and talk through the engineering and the water situation with that large swale down there? Just that whole corner area—because
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
78 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
on some of the plans it even says that it’s an existing wetland—and the swale that’s there and how it’s going to function.
And then in the very corner, on some of the
documents it says there’s an existing wetland to remain, so does that change? Is it seasonal that it changes? Is it existing all year? Is that the maximum?
MIKE: This stormwater bioretention here is
collecting and treating through hard pipes that are coming in this way. They are conveying water off of this hardscape as well, as well as all the hardscape from Lot 6 and Lot 5.
All of it is being conveyed into this bioretention. Bio retention will treat it, bioretention will contain it, and then it will, through hydromodification with an orifice, release it out in this direction to this hard pipe storm drain system, ultimately connecting to the existing system that you have coming out here.
CHAIR THOMAS: So, that will be all underground,
the connection?
MIKE: Yes, all of the storm drain system is
completely underground.
CHAIR THOMAS: So, then that wetland, it
shouldn’t impact or connect to the wetland area that’s
directly adjacent to it?
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
79 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
MIKE: This storm drain system here, which is
actually tied into this one here, which picks up Lot 10, all of it hydrologically ties into the existing system and exits the site.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you very much. Are
there any other questions for the Applicant at this time before we close the public portion? We will now close the public portion of the public hearing on Item 1. Thank you for everyone from the Applicant team, also on Zoom, that was here to answer all of our questions.
I think that we will be taking a break, but
before we do that, I wanted to make a recommendation about how we start our discussion when we come back. If we have some specific questions or big major questions for Staff, that’s fine, but because there is a lot here I think that we should go through and first talk about the zoning, which I think will be our quickest conversation; and then talk about CEQA, so the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and then talk about the State Density Bonus Law aspects, including the incentives, concessions,
waivers, just making sure that we’re all on the same page with that and get questions answered about that; then the specific site plans; then lastly the Conditions of
Approval.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
80 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
I can repeat that for you guys, but while we take
a 10-minute break, if we can just make sure we get our
thoughts in order for that, that would be great, and then we’ll be back at 9:15.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR THOMAS: We are going to continue with our
hearing on Item 1, and we will open it up to comments and questions from Commissioners and for Staff, and we will first start with any zoning questions or comments.
Commissioner Raspe.
COMMISSIONER RASPE: Thank you, Chair. I don't
know if I have any questions for Staff. I thought the Staff Report on this issue was exceedingly clear, that is it is currently a resource conservation zone, and because it’s (inaudible) a Builder's Remedy project the Town is required to rezone it to allow the development to happen (inaudible) be rezoned to Low-Density Residential, which again, I think makes (inaudible) this particular topic, zoning compliance (inaudible).
CHAIR THOMAS: Anyone else have anything to say?
No? Okay. Great, then let’s move on to our second topic, which is CEQA, so Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration questions. Who would like to kick that off? Commissioner Burnett.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
81 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: Thank you. A question for
Staff. I have some real issues with the definition of
deferred mitigation, mainly that specific of a mitigation measure are not finalized until after project approval. Is there a way we could make it coincide that… I don’t
understand how you can have an approval before the project is completed.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’ll start, and then probably
defer to our representatives from Raney, the environmental consultants.
I don’t recall when that or those letters were
written, but the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program goes through each mitigation, who is the
responsible department, and many of them do have timing associated with them. As I recall, we don’t believe there is any deferred mitigation that’s being put off, but I just want to get confirmation from Raney, from Angela DaRosa.
ANGELA DaROSA: Good evening, Chair and
Commissioners. Angela DaRosa with Raney Planning and
Management. We are the third-party consultants that the Town hired to prepare the CEQA document for this project.
As far as deferred mitigation, you are allowed
under CEQA to rely on a future study or standards so long as there is specific performance measures listed in the
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
82 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
mitigation measure, and as long as it identifies the
actions to make sure that those performance measures are carried out, and we have included those performance
measures in all of the mitigation measures.
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’d just add, one common one
that we see in a lot of documents, even for projects that are exempt when they go through Initial Study, there is protected birds, protected bats, depending on what time of the year you’re doing it, you have to do them within
specific timelines of when construction is going to start, otherwise you have to get your biologist back out there to do another survey if you miss that gap. So, a number of those things do need to be handled after the fact.
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Commissioner Sordi.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Thank you. I’m wondering if
Staff could put up page 157 of the packet.
SEAN MULLIN: Was this the architecture report?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: It actually is. It does a
really good job in color of showing the proximity of the ephemeral drainage to the Lot 8 residence, and it’s just helpful for the sake of discussion. There we go.
I had a question for the environmental
consultant, and this goes back to—and I mentioned it
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
83 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
earlier—the letter that came from Ryan Wines with the
Regional Water Quality Board. I think the nature of his letter was he disagreed with the analysis. I think that the specific ask was that the riparian drainage—whether we want to call it, ephemeral or riparian, maybe you guys can
elaborate on it—be better defined, and that it be defined through the normal process that the Regional Board goes through with respect to identifying whether something is a water of the State or not, something in their jurisdiction that they control.
When I looked at the response to comments, and
I’ll just read from here, this is written by the
consultant. It says, “A site visit was conducted on May 14, 2025 by LOA, a professional biological consulting firm
under contract with the Town’s environmental consultant, to confirm the characteristics of the onsite ephemeral
drainage as part of the biological evaluation.”
What I’m trying to get a sense of is that area
that’s kind of a blob there that is dark grey and then has some white around it, I think the dark grey is basically the tree canopy and the white is supposed to be the limit of riparian vegetation, if I’m not mistaken, and we’ve got a house encroaching pretty closely into it, but who
established the boundary of that to begin with? Based on my
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
84 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
review of the report, it looks like it’s possible that it was established by a survey or an engineer simply looking at topography and looking at vegetation, and then you guys might have gone out to just validate that.
ANGELA DaROSA: Yes, that’s exactly correct. It
was shown on the site plan, and the biologist that was
hired for this project, Live Oak Associates, went out and did site surveys to check the conditions of the site and confirm those areas and the limits of the vegetation
associated with that ephemeral drainage.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: And when you went out to
confirm that, was there anything on the site that indicated the limit of development in terms of staking or the limit of the house itself in terms of you guys being able to
envision or overlay the development against a riparian
area?
ANGELA DaROSA: Yes, I believe the biologist had
CAD files, so they were able to georeferenced those and essentially overlay the site plan on the site to confirm those areas.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Then my more pressing
question is was any analysis done by a biologist? Was any analysis done to establish whether there are hydrophytic soils present? Did you dig into the ground? Did you look at
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
85 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 soils and evaluate them? And did they do an analysis of the plant species out there to determine whether or not they’re consistent with a wetland or riparian species?
ANGELA DaROSA: Yes, there were two surveys of
the site conducted exactly for those reasons, to see the conditions of the site and to map out any aquatic features; and there was no wetland type of plants identified for that ephemeral drainage, which is why they had classified it as an ephemeral drainage.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, so it’s considered
ephemeral drainage, it’s got riparian species, but it’s not a seasonal wetland by definition.
ANGELA DaROSA: Correct. It’s also not considered
riparian vegetation either.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, it’s not.
ANGELA DaROSA: It’s just oak woodland vegetation
that’s around it.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: It sounds like what the
Regional Board person was asking for was some kind of
delineation, but I suppose if you could confirm there are no wetlands out there, then you can draw the conclusion that there is no need for a wetland delineation.
ANGELA DaROSA: There was one small area of
wetland identified on the project site and it is in the
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
86 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
southwestern most corner associated with Ross Creek, and the project is completely avoiding that. Sorry, I’m mixing it up. Northwestern corner of the site is the small wetland area. The southwestern area of the site is where there is riparian vegetation located, and that’s associated with Ross Creek. Sorry for the confusion.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: I guess then in your opinion
there then there wouldn’t need to be a formal wetland
delineation done for the site?
ANGELA DaROSA: Exactly, and the biologist did
look at the old reports that were conducted as part of the 2017 EIR, and as part of that the US Army Corps did write a letter confirming that the only wetland area under their jurisdiction is that small area in the northwestern corner.
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: I have a couple follow-up
questions to that. You said the biologist went out to
confirm. Can you tell me when that was?
ANGELA DaROSA: Yes, I have that noted here. Give
me one second. They did two site visits. One was in
December of 2024, and they went back out to the site in May 2025.
CHAIR THOMAS: So, they went in December 2024 and
May 2025. Vice Chair Burch.
ITEM NO. 1.
LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 12/17/2025
Item 1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
87 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
VICE CHAIR BURCH: I did have one quick question.
As you can see, there’s a 10’ buffer you guys have called for. I would like to understand why it’s not consistent all the way down. Why does the 10’ buffer kind of come and go? I don’t see any value in that. Why would we just not
continue with the 10’ buffer for the entire?
ANGELA DaROSA: The 10’ buffer was not a
requirement for the CEQA process, it was what was on the site plan, so we were just analyzing that. The site plans included a 10’ buffer around the vegetated area.
VICE CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you.
CHAIR THOMAS: Just as a follow-up to that,
because there isn’t a 10’ buffer everywhere, was that
analyzed, or did you assume that there would be a 10’
buffer everywhere in your analysis?
ANGELA DaROSA: It was our understand that there
would be at least a 10’ buffer around the entire ephemeral drainage area. I will say that upslope farther of the
ephemeral drainage there is no development proposed, so the buffer is much larger.
CHAIR THOMAS: Okay, thank you. Then I have a
follow-up question Town Staff. Isn’t a 10’ buffer on these proposed plans, but it sounds like that is what was