Los Gatos City Council
August 11, 2026

ITEM NO. 1.
habitat assessment of all potential roosting habitat features, including trees within the proposed impact footprint within the project vicinity. The habitat assessment shall identify all potentially suitable roosting habitat and may be conducted up to one year prior to the start of construction. The results of the assessment shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

32. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-6, PALLID BAT AND TOWNSEND’S BIG-EARED BAT: If potential roosting habitat is identified (cavities in trees or potential roosts within structures) within the areas proposed for impact, the biologist shall survey the potential roosting habitat during the active season (generally April through October or from January through March on days with temperatures in excess of 50 degrees Fahrenheit) within seven days prior to the start of construction activities to determine the presence of roosting bats. The surveys are recommended to be conducted utilizing methods that are considered acceptable by CDFW and bat experts. Methods may include evening emergence surveys, acoustic surveys, inspecting potential roosting habitat with fiberoptic cameras, or a combination thereof. If a non-breeding bat colony is discovered, the individuals shall be humanely evicted via two-step removal under the direction of a qualified biologist to ensure that harm or take would not occur to any bats as a result of tree removal. Two-step removal can only occur during March 1 to April 15 and September 1 to October 15 to avoid harm to maternity and overwintering colonies. If a maternity colony is detected, then a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate size for a construction-free buffer to be established around the tree and remain in place until the qualified biologist has determined that the nursery is inactive. Tree removal shall preferably be done between March 1 and April 15 or August 15 and October 15 to avoid interfering with an active nursery. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

33. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-7, SAN FRANCISCO DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRAT: A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey for San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat nests between 30 and 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities. The survey shall encompass all construction zones within the woodland habitat and developed areas, and surrounding lands within 25 feet. Results of the assessment shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department. Identified nests shall be avoided, where possible, and buffered by a minimum of 20 feet. If avoidance is not possible, the nest(s) shall be manually deconstructed by a qualified biologist when helpless young are not present, typically during the non-breeding season (October through January). If is the qualified biologist has determined that young may be present during the nest deconstruction, a suitable buffer of a minimum of 20 feet shall be established around the nest until a qualified biologist determines that the young are independent enough to successfully move from the deconstructed nest. Approximate age of the juveniles shall be recorded when observed and appropriate time shall be extrapolated out to when they would be independent from their parents; then the deconstruction can continue after the biologist confirms that the young are not present in the nest at the time. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

34. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-8, AMERICAN BADGER: During the course of the preconstruction surveys for other species, a qualified biologist shall also determine the

ITEM NO. 1.
presence or absence of badgers prior to the start of construction. If badgers are found to be absent, other mitigations for the protection of badgers shall not be warranted. If an active badger den is identified during pre-construction surveys within or immediately adjacent to an area subject to construction, a construction-free buffer of up to 300 feet shall be established around the den. Once a qualified biologist has determined that badger has vacated the burrow, the burrow can be collapsed or excavated, and ground disturbance can proceed. Should the burrow be determined to be a natal or reproductive den, and because badgers are known to use multiple burrows in a breeding burrow complex, a biological monitor shall be present on-site during construction activities in the vicinity of the burrows to ensure the buffer is adequate to avoid direct impacts to individuals or natal/reproductive den abandonment. The monitor shall be present until is the qualified biologist has determined that young are of an independent age and construction activities would not harm individual badgers. Additionally, all workers shall attend a “tailgate” training that includes a description of the species, a brief summary of the species’ biology, and minimization measures and instructions on what to do if American badger is observed. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

35. * BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-9, BURROWING OWL: A qualified biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl following the 2012 CDFW Guidelines, or the 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. If a lapse in project-related work of 15 calendar days or longer occurs, an additional survey shall be required prior to reinitiation. A written summary of the survey results shall be submitted to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department before any construction permits are issued. If burrowing owls or active burrows/refugia are not found, then further mitigation measures are not necessary. Identified burrowing owls shall be avoided and active burrowing owl burrows shall be avoided with a 250-foot non-disturbance buffer until the burrow is abandoned. The project biologist shall conduct a weekly checkin to confirm the buffer is still intact and confirm the current activity of that burrow. Proof of compliance with this mitigation measure shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

36. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-10, WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD (SFRWQCB) AND CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE (CDFW): Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall submit to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Board (SFRWQCB) an application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements for Projects Involving Discharge of Dredged and/or Fill Material to Waters of the State. The project proponent shall be responsible for conducting all project activities in accordance with the permit provisions outlined in the applicable SFRWQCB permit, which may include but not necessarily be limited to the following minimization and compensation measures.
a. MINIMIZATION: Because full avoidance is not possible, actions shall be taken to minimize impacts to the ephemeral stream (e.g., potentially waters of the State and under jurisdiction of both RWQCB and CDFW). Measures taken during construction activities should include placing construction fencing around the ephemeral stream to

ITEM NO. 1.
be preserved to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact these areas.
b. COMPENSATION: The proposed project would impact some small areas of the ephemeral stream. Therefore, the project shall replace the lost habitat value resulting from this impact through the creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of habitat at one or more appropriate locations near the impacted areas at a minimum of a 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio as well as reseeding or replanting of vegetation in temporarily disturbed areas. The final mitigation amounts will be based on actual impacts to be determined during the design phase. If impacts are lessened, then the amount of mitigation should be appropriately reduced. It is anticipated that all compensation measures can be accommodated on-site within the existing ephemeral stream. An important consideration is to remove the existing culvert in the upper area of the stream. An on-site habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) would need to be developed with the goal of creating, restoring, and/or enhancing the ephemeral stream with habitat functions and values greater than or equal to those existing in the impact zone. At a minimum, the HMMP should include:
• The location of all enhancement and/or restoration activities; • Planting specifications;
• Site maintenance and management requirements;
• Monitoring requirements;
• Final success criteria; and
• Adaptive management procedures.

Written verification of the 401 Water Quality Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department, prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.

37. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-11: The CDFW maintains jurisdiction over the bed and bank of the bed, channel, and banks of any river, stream, or lake (Fish and Game Code Section 1602) and impacts to such areas may require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA). Prior to initiating construction activities, the project shall notify CDFW of the intentions of the project to determine if an LSAA is required. If required, mitigation may include restoration or enhancement of resources on-site as specified in Mitigation Measure IV-10. Written verification of Section 1600 LSAA or, if a LSSA is not required, written correspondence from CDFW to this effect, shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department, prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.

38. * BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV-1012: Prior to the start of construction activities, the applicant shall comply with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance, and a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the Town for the removal of any on-site trees that qualify as a protected tree. If the trees proposed for removal are found to be in good condition, and the tree removal permit is granted primarily for the convenience of the applicant, then the full cost and responsibility of such removal shall be borne by the applicant, including planting of replacement trees. According to the Tree Mitigation and Protection Plan prepared for the proposed project, the project would not meet the required on-site tree replacement requirement; thus, the project applicant shall pay the appropriate in-lieu fees, pursuant to the requirements of Division II of Chapter 29.10 of

ITEM NO. 1.
the Town’s Municipal Code. The above noted requirements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Planning Division.

39. *CULTURAL RESOURCES V-1: If historic, archaeological, or paleontological resources are encountered during subsurface excavation activities, all construction activities within a 100-foot radius of the resource shall cease until a qualified archaeologist determines whether the resource requires further study. The Town shall require that the applicant include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist. Potentially significant cultural resources consist of, but are not limited to, stone, bone, fossils, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. If the resource is determined to be significant under CEQA, the Town and a qualified archaeologist shall determine whether preservation in place is feasible. Such preservation in place is the preferred mitigation. If such preservation is infeasible, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan for the resource. The archaeologists shall also conduct appropriate technical analyses, prepare a comprehensive written report and file the report with the appropriate information center (California Historical Resources Information System), and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

40. *CULTURAL RESOURCES V-2: If human remains, or remains that are potentially human, are found during construction, all work shall be halted immediately within 100 feet, and a professional archeologist shall ensure reasonable protection measures are taken to protect the discovery from disturbance. The archaeologist shall notify the Santa Clara County Coroner (pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the State Health and Safety Code). The provisions of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.98 of the California Public Resources Code, and Assembly Bill (AB) 2641 will be implemented.

If the Coroner determines the remains are Native American and not the result of a crime scene, then the Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which then will designate a Native American Most Likely Descendant (MLD) for the project (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). The designated MLD will have 48 hours from the time access to the property is granted to make recommendations concerning treatment of the remains. If the applicant does not agree with the recommendations of the MLD, the NAHC can mediate (Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code). If an agreement is not reached, the qualified archaeologist or MLD must rebury the remains where they will not be further disturbed (Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code). This will also include either recording the site with the NAHC or the appropriate Information Center, using an open space or conservation zoning designation or easement, or recording a reinternment document with the county in which the property is located (AB 2641). Work cannot resume within the no-work radius until the lead agency, through consultation as appropriate, determines that the treatment measures have been completed to the Town’s satisfaction.

41. *GEOLOGY AND SOILS VII-1: Prior to approval of any grading or improvement plans for the project, a licensed engineer shall review the plans to ensure the engineering

ITEM NO. 1.
recommendations set forth in the site-specific Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation prepared for the proposed project by Cornerstone Earth Group are adequately incorporated, including all relevant CBSC standards, to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineer. All grading and improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department and the Town’s Engineer.

42. *HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY X-1: Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the project applicant shall prepare and submit a final erosion and sediment control plan for review and approval by the Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Prior to any ground disturbance, the on-site aquatic features (i.e. the ephemeral drainage/drainage swale and Ross Creek) shall be flagged by a qualified biologist with highly visible flagging tape, or similar, to clearly demarcate the limits of the aquatic features, and interim erosion control measures shall be installed around the aquatic features, at a minimum. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc.

The project contractor shall provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plan and SWPPP shall be prepared in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended provisions C.3 and C.14 of most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP).

Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effluent Levels. A Rain Event Action Plan (REAP) shall be developed 48 hours prior to any likely precipitation event, defined by a 50 percent or greater probability as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and/or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area from (https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/) which shall accompany monitoring reports and sampling test data. A rain gauge is required on-site. The Town of Los Gatos Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department shall conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations.

43. *NOISE XIII-1: For any construction proposed within 25 feet of a noise-sensitive receptor, the proposed project shall implement construction equipment staging areas to create distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors; use electric tools; use mobile construction equipment with smart back-up alarms; and implement additional noise attenuation techniques during the clearing, earth moving, grading, and foundation/conditioning phases of construction, such as

ITEM NO. 1.
temporary sound barriers between the construction site and the sensitive receptors.

The foregoing requirements shall be included in the grading plan to the satisfaction of the Town’s Engineer and shall be submitted for review and approval to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

44. *NOISE XIII-2: Any compaction required within 26 feet of existing structures adjacent to the off-site improvement areas shall be accomplished by using static drum rollers, rather than vibratory compactors/rollers, which use weight instead of vibrations to achieve soil compaction. As an alternative, preconstruction crack documentation and construction vibration monitoring could be conducted to ensure that construction vibrations do not cause damage to any adjacent structures. The above requirements shall be included by way of notation on any future improvement plans approved for the off-site improvements to the satisfaction of the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department.

45. *TRANSPORTATION XVII-1: Concurrent with submittal of final project improvement plans, the project applicant shall also submit to the Town of Los Gatos, Parks and Public Works Departement for review and approval off-site improvement plans showing the construction of new sidewalks at the following intersections:
• Along the north side of Blossom Hill Road between Regent Drive and Union Avenue; and
• Along the north side of Fisher Avenue between Mitchell Avenue and Roberts Road.

The improvement plans shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer, that the off-site sidewalk improvements would comply with all applicable design parameters and requirements set forth by the Town of Los Gatos. The off-site improvements shall be constructed prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the project.

APPLICABLE TO LOT 3

46. TREE PROTECTION: Prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, the grading and retaining wall plans shall be revised to ensure no work occurs within the dripline of Trees #569 and #566. The revised plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town’s Consulting Arborist, at the applicant’s expense, prior to permit issuance.

APPLICABLE TO LOTS 7 AND 8

47. SWIMMING POOL: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the proposed pool location shall be modified to ensure that the pool is located on a slope less than 30 percent, consistent with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.

Building Division

APPLICABLE TO ALL LOTS

48. PERMITS REQUIRED:
a. A Building Permit is required for the construction of each new single-family residence and attached garage.

ITEM NO. 1.
b. Additional Building Permits will be required for retaining walls supporting a surcharge that are not part of a building foundation.
c. A separate Building Permit will be required for each swimming pool. d. A separate Building Permit will be required for the PV System and must be finalized prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.

49. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2023, are the 2022 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12. Building Permit applications received after December 19, 2025, will be subject to the 2025 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12.

50. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be included on plan sheets within the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.

51. BUILDING AND SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building Division before submitting the building permit application.

52. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.

53. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics.

54. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate, prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor, shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at the time of the foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations specified in the Soils Report and confirm that the building pad elevations and on-site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared in accordance with the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations

55. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be directly printed onto a plan sheet.

56. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61:
a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future.
b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inch-wide doors on the accessible floor level.
c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36-inch-wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch clearance at interior strike edge.

ITEM NO. 1.
d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.

57. BACKWATER VALVE: As required by Town Ordinance 6.40.020, provide details for any required sanitary sewer backwater valve on the plans and provide its location. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.

58. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies.

59. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is in a Wildland-Urban Interface High Fire Area and must comply with the relevant Wildland-Urban fire protection regulations in effect at the time of permit submittal.

60. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit.

The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.

61. CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Town standard West Valley Clean Water Authority Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal. The specification sheet is available online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.

62. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies' approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874 b. Engineering/Parks a Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance.

TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:

Engineering Division

APPLICABLE TO ALL LOTS

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE ADDRESSED OR NOTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION PLANS

SUBMITTED FOR ANY BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT, OR IF ANOTHER DEADLINE IS SPECIFIED IN A CONDITION, AT THAT TIME.

63. PAYMENT OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS (“PPW”) ENGINEERING PLAN CHECK FEE AND INSPECTION FEE: At the time of the first construction submittal, the Applicant shall submit to the Town Engineer for approval a detailed construction project cost estimate prepared and stamped by the Applicant’s civil engineer. The cost estimate shall break out on-site and off-site improvements separately. This cost estimate will be used to determine the Engineering Plan Check Fee. A final construction cost estimate shall be

ITEM NO. 1.
provided once the project plans are approved. This cost estimate will be used to determine the Engineering Inspection Fee. The Engineering Inspection Fee must be paid prior to the issuance of any construction related permit.

64. THIRD-PARTY PLAN CHECK FEE AND INSPECTION FEE (Special projects only): The Town will procure a third-party engineering firm to perform Plan Review and Inspection Services. Applicant shall provide an initial deposit of for consultant plan review and inspection services, plus a 20 percent deposit for staff time to process the project. This deposit and fee are required at the time of the project building permit submittal. Once this deposit is received, the Town will select the consultant and initiate the plan review process. The Applicant’s deposit will be charged on a time and materials basis. A supplemental deposit will be required if the remaining deposit is expected to be exhausted prior to completion of the work. Permitted work will not be allowed to continue without available funds to complete the required inspection services. Thirdparty engineering services will be required for the duration of the construction and project closeout phases.

65. STORM DRAINAGE FEE: The Applicant shall pay Storm Drainage Fees in accordance with the Town’s Adopted Schedule of Fees and Charges in effect at the date of Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB330) application for the future construction of drainage facilities serving new buildings, improvements, or structures to be constructed which substantially impair the perviousness of the surface of land. The estimated fee based on the fiscal year 2023- 2024 fee schedule and various lot acreages are as follows:
a. Lot 1 – 0.5 acres - $2,435.50.
b. Lot 2 – 0.79 acres - $3,848.09.
c. Lot 3 – 0.55 acres - $2,679.05.
d. Lot 4 – 0.59 acres - $2,873.89.
e. Lot 5 – 0.85 acres - $4,140.35.
f. Lot 6 – 0.78 acres - $3,799.38.
g. Lot 7 – 1.18 acres - $4,871.00.
h. Lot 8 – 4.9 acres - $4,871.00.
i. Lot 9 – 1.7 acres - $4,871.00.
j. Lot 10 – 5.48 acres - $4,871.00.
k. Lot 11 – 0.11 acres - $535.81.
l. Lot 12 – 0.11 acres -$535.81.

66. TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES: The Owner shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the fee schedule in place at the time of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB 330) application, in accordance with the law.

The fiscal year 2023-2024 Comprehensive Fee Schedule amount for new average daily trip generated is $1,104.00. The new average daily trips generated shall be obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers most current trip generation data released at the time the fee is paid. The fee shall be paid before issuance of any certificate of occupancy, including any temporary certificates that may be issued.

67. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES MITIGATION FEE (ORDINANCE 2189): Per the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, the project is subject to the Town’s Construction Activities Mitigation Fee based on the square footage of new buildings. The fee is $1.43

ITEM NO. 1.
per square foot of new residential and non-residential building area. The fee shall be calculated based on the square footage total for all units shown on the construction plans to the approval of the Town Engineer. Payment of this fee shall pe paid prior to issuance of the first building permit.

68. PERMITS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES: The Applicant shall obtain all applicable permits from federal, state, and local agencies as required to construct the proposed improvements. The Applicant is hereby informed that permits may be required by one (1) or more of the following: Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and Wildlife (1603), The Bay Area Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA), Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Clara County Roads and Airports, Valley Water, or Habitat Permit.

If the project is within jurisdiction of any of these agencies, verification of permit or waiver of permit must be given to PPW prior to issuance of any required Town permits.

If the Town is required to be a party to the permit application and a fee is required, the Applicant shall reimburse the Town for its cost. A copy of these permits shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

69. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work that is outside the perimeter of a building, retaining wall footing, or other structure authorized by a valid building permit. The Applicant must submit a grading permit application after the appeal period of the entitlement approval process has passed. The grading permit application shall include detailed grading plans and associated required materials. Plan check fees are based on the scope of onsite work. Prior to approval of the grading permit, the Applicant shall pay all fees due and provide faithful performance and payment securities for the performance of the work described and delineated on the approved grading plan, final erosion and sedimentation control plan, and interim erosion and sedimentation control plan (if required), in an amount to be set by the Town Engineer (but not to exceed one hundred (100) percent) of the approved estimated cost of the grading and erosion and sedimentation control measures. The form of security shall be one or a combination of the following to be determined by the Town Engineer and subject to the approval of the Town Attorney: (1) Bond or bonds issued by one or more duly authorized corporate sureties on a form approved by the Town; (2) Deposit with the Town, money, or negotiable bonds of the kind approved for securing deposits of public monies; or (3) other instrument of credit from one or more financial institutions subject to regulation by the State or Federal Government wherein such financial institution pledges funds are on deposit and guaranteed for payment. The grading permit shall be issued prior to the issuance of the building permit unless otherwise allowed by the Town Engineer. The permit shall be limited to work shown on the grading plans approved by the Town Engineer. In granting a permit, the Town Engineer may impose any condition deemed necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the public, to prevent the creation of a nuisance or hazard to public or private property, and to assure proper completion of the grading including but not limited to:
(1) Mitigation of adverse environmental impacts; (2) Improvement of any existing grading or correction of any existing grading violation to comply with Town Code; (3) Requirements for fencing or other protection of grading which would otherwise be hazardous; (4) Requirements for dust, erosion, sediment, and noise control, hours of

ITEM NO. 1.
operation and season of work, weather conditions, sequence of work, access roads, and haul routes; (5) Requirements for safeguarding watercourses from excessive deposition of sediment or debris in quantities exceeding natural levels; (6) Assurance that the land area in which grading is proposed and for which habitable structures are proposed is not subject to hazards of land slippage or significant settlement or erosion and that the hazards of seismic activity or flooding can be eliminated or adequately reduced; (7) Temporary and permanent landscape plans.

70. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: Prior to the approval of any permits or final map, whichever comes first, the Applicant/Owner must complete construction of public improvements listed in these conditions. Prior to any work being done in the Town's right-of-way, the Applicant must submit Public Improvement Plans for review and approval. All public improvements shall be made in accordance to the Town’s latest adopted Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards and constructed prior to final map approval unless otherwise noted below. The Applicant is required to confirm the location of existing utility lines by potholing. Prior to any potholing, Applicant shall submit an Encroachment Permit application with a pothole plan for Town review and approval. The Applicant shall provide the pothole results to the Town Engineer prior to final design. All existing public utilities shall be protected in place and, if necessary, relocated as approved by the Town Engineer. No private facilities are permitted within the Town right-of-way or within any easement unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. The Applicant shall have Public Improvement Plans prepared, stamped, and signed by a California licensed civil engineer.

Once the Public Improvement Plans have been approved, the Applicant shall submit an application for an Encroachment Permit. The Encroachment Permit requires the Applicant to post the required bonds and insurance and provide a one (1) year warranty for all work to be done in the Town's right-of-way or Town easement. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any new concrete installed that is damaged shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense. Prior to issuance of the encroachment permit, the Applicant shall submit a temporary traffic control plan (“TTCP”) inclusive of all modes of travel for any lane or sidewalk closures.

Special provisions such as limitations on working hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. The TTCP shall comply with the State of California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (“MUTCD”) and standard construction practices. The project engineer shall notify the Town Engineer in writing of any proposed changes. Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town. The Applicant shall not commence any work deviating from the approved plans until such deviations are approved. Any approved and constructed changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans. Right-of-way/Public improvements shall include, at a minimum, the following items:
a. BLOSSOM HILL ROAD: The Applicant shall install sidewalk along the north side of Blossom Hill Road between Regent Drive and Union Avenue. b. FISHER AVENUE: The Applicant shall install sidewalk along the north side of Fisher Avenue between Mitchell Avenue and Roberts Road. c. DRIVEWAY APPROACH(ES): The Applicant shall install three (3) Town Standard

ITEM NO. 1.
driveway approaches as shown on the approved plans. The new driveway approaches shall be constructed per the Town Standard Drawing. d. CERRO VISTA COURT: Due to construction activities, new utility cuts along the project frontage, and the anticipated project’s truck traffic, the Applicant shall grind and provide a 2.5” overlay along the full width of Cerro Vista Court from Cerro Vista Drive to the driveway at Lot 10 frontage. Prior to overlay, any base failure repair or required dig-outs identified by the PPW Inspector shall be completed. The Town Engineer shall approve the roadway repair prior to the release of utilities, final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.
e. TWIN OAKS DRIVE: Due to construction activities, new utility cuts along the project frontage, and the anticipated project’s truck traffic, the Applicant shall grind and provide a 2.5” overlay along the full width of Cerro Vista Court from Cerro Vista Drive to the driveway at Lot 10. frontage. Prior to overlay, any base failure repair or required dig-outs identified by the PPW Inspector shall be completed. The Town Engineer shall approve the roadway repair prior to the release of utilities, final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.

71. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: The Applicant shall apply and obtain a Tree Removal Permit from the Parks and Public Works Department for the removal of existing trees on-site or in the public right-of-way prior to the issuance of a building permit or demolition building permit, whichever is issued first. Tree removals shall be consistent with the arborist report and approved entitlement plans.

72. NEIGHBORING RUNOFF: Revise the proposed grading to ensure that the proposed improvements do not divert runoff to the detriment of adjacent properties.

73. PHASED PERMITS: The Applicant may, with the approval of the Town Engineer, phase the permits to expedite the construction process. If this is done, each phase of the work will require a separate and complete set of plans to be submitted, reviewed, and approved prior to the issuance of the said permit. Overlapping of permits may occur, if approved by the Town Engineer. No work on the next phase of construction, in advance of the permitted work, may occur. No “at risk” work will be permitted. Only the below phased permitted work will be allowed:
a. Clearing-Grubbing/Rough Grading
b. Fine Grading
c. Underground Utilities
d. Site Improvements
e. Off-Site Improvements
f. Plans shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the commencement of work.

74. CONSTRUCTION PHASE PLAN SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS: The Grading Permit Plans and Public Improvement Plans (together referred to as “Improvement Plans”) shall be submitted as a set to Parks and Public Works Department along with a title report dated no older than 30 days from the date the Improvement Plans are submitted. The Improvement Plans shall be submitted at the same time as the Building Plans are submitted to the Building Department. All improvements shall be designed and

ITEM NO. 1.
constructed in accordance with Federal law, State law, Los Gatos Town Code, and the Los Gatos Standard Specifications and Details.
a. Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1 (Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are available for download from the Town’s website. The Improvement Plans shall include:
b. A cover sheet with at least the proposed development vicinity map showing nearby and adjacent major streets and landmarks, property address, APN, scope of work, project manager and property owner, a “Table of Responsibilities” summarizing ownership, access rights, and maintenance responsibilities for each facility (streets, utilities, parks, landscaping, etc.), a sheet index including a sequential numeric page number for each sheet (i.e. “Sheet 1 of 54”), the lot size, required and proposed lot setbacks by type, proposed floor areas by type for each building, average slope, proposed maximum height, and required and proposed parking count and type.
c. The Approved Conditions of Approval printed within the plan set starting on the second sheet of the plan set.
d. An Existing Site Plan showing existing topography, bearing and distance information for all rights-of-way, easements, and boundaries, any existing easements proposed to be quit-claimed, existing hardscape, existing above ground utility features, and existing structures. The Improvement Plans shall identify the vertical elevation datum, date of survey, and surveyor responsible for the data presented.
e. A Proposed Site Plan showing proposed topography, boundaries, proposed and existing to remain easements, hardscape, above ground utility features (hydrants, transformers, control cabinets, communication nodes, etc.), and structures. Include top and bottom elevations of every inflection point of each wall. Show proposed public right-of-way improvements. Distinguish proposed linework from existing linework using heavier line type for proposed. f. A Grading and Drainage Plan clearly showing existing onsite and adjacent topography using labeled contour lines, drainage direction arrows with slope value, and break lines. Proposed and existing to remain hardscape elevations must be provided in detail including slope arrows.
g. A Utility Plan showing appropriate line types and labels to identify the different types of utilities and pipe sizes. Utility boxes, hydrants, backflow preventers, water meters, sanitary sewer cleanouts, etc. shall be located on private property unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer.
h. A Photometric Lighting Plan analyzing the full-width of the adjacent right-of-way.

The plan shall show the average maintained horizontal illumination in footcandles and the average to minimum uniformity ratio. Lighting shall be in compliance with the Town’s Standard Specification section 2.38. i. A Traffic Signal Plan (as applicable) shall include a conduit schedule, conduit plan, pole locations, streetlights, intersection striping, power connection and meter locations, and as directed.

ITEM NO. 1.
j. A Landscaping Plan for the project site and the full width of the public rights-ofway adjacent to the project. The plans shall clearly identify public and private utilities and points of demarcation between the two.
k. A Composite Plan showing civil, landscape, electrical, and joint trench locations combined on one drawing to identify potential conflicts between disciplines. The Composite Plan shall include the size, location, and details of all trenches, locations of building utility service stubs and meters, and placements or arrangements of junction structures as a part of the Improvement Plan submittals for the project. Show preferred and alternative locations for all utility vaults and boxes if project has not obtained PG&E approval. A licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer shall sign the composite drawings and/or utility improvement plans. (All dry utilities shall be placed underground). A note shall be placed on the joint trench composite plans which states that the plan agrees with Town Codes and Standards and that no underground utility conflict exists. l. General Notes found in the Town of Los Gatos General Guidelines. m. A statement in the general notes indicating the need to obtain a Caltrans Oversized/Overweight Vehicles Transportation Permit if oversized or overweight vehicles are expected to be used.
n. A statement that all utility boxes in vehicular pathways shall be traffic-rated.

75. STANDARD PLAN COMPLIANCE: The project shall comply with the Town’s Standard Plans to the approval of the Town Engineer. Street improvements, all street sections, the design of all off-site storm drainage facilities shall be in accordance with most current Town Standard Specifications and Standard Plans approved by the Town Engineer. Improvements deemed necessary by the Town Engineer shall be shown on the Improvement Plans.

76. EXISTING FACILITY PROTECTION AND REPAIR: All existing public utilities shall be either protected in place, relocated, or repaired. The Applicant shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal, and all new improvements that are damaged during construction or removed because of the Applicant’s operations. This includes sidewalk, curb and gutter, streetlights, valley gutters, curb ramps, and any other existing improvements in the area that are not intended to be removed and replaced. The Applicant shall request a walk-through with the PPW construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. Said repairs shall be completed prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy of the project.

77. UNDERGROUND UTILITIES: All new services to the development shall be placed underground in accordance with the various utility regulations. Transformers and switch gear cabinets within designated Underground Districts shall be placed underground unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. Underground utility plans must be submitted to the Town and approved by the Town Engineer prior to installation.

78. UTILITY RESPONSIBILITIES: The Applicant is responsible for the maintenance of existing stormwater drainage facilities, including piped and open channel stormwater conveyances in private areas. The Applicant is responsible for all expenses necessary to connect to the various utility providers. Currently, the public storm sewer system is owned and maintained by the Town of Los Gatos, the water system in Los Gatos is owned and maintained by San José Water Company, and the sanitary sewer system in

ITEM NO. 1.

Los Gatos is owned and maintained by West Valley Sanitation District. Any alterations of the approved utilities listed must be approved by the Town prior to any construction.

79. UTILITY COMPANY COORDINATION: The Applicant shall negotiate any necessary rightof-way or easements with the various utility companies in the area, subject to the review and approval by the Town Engineer and the utility companies. Prior to the approval of the site plan for construction, the Applicant shall submit “Will Serve” letters from PG&E, San José Water, West Valley Sanitation District, West Valley Collections and Recycling, and AT&T (or the current “Carrier of Last Resort”) with a statement indicating either a list of improvements necessary to serve the project or a statement that the existing network is sufficient to accommodate the project. Coordination of the stormwater conveyance system will be addressed during the Grading Permit review.

80. PREPARATION OF ELECTRICAL PLANS: All street lighting and traffic signal electrical plans shall be prepared by a California registered professional engineer experienced in preparing these types of plans. The Applicant shall submit necessary stamped and signed Traffic Signal Plan with the Improvement Plans.

81. EXTERIOR SITE LIGHTING STANDARDS: The Applicant shall submit a photometric plan for on-site lighting showing lighting levels in compliance with the Town Standard Specifications section 2.38. The plan shall show the minimum maintained horizontal illumination in foot-candles and the uniformity ratio for all areas. This lighting standard is applicable to all parking lots, driveways, circulation areas, aisles, passageways, recesses, and accessible grounds contiguous to all buildings. Private, interior courtyards not accessible to the public are not required to meet this standard. The lighting system shall be so designed as to limit light spill beyond property lines and to shield the light source from view from off site. The photometric plan shall be approved by the Town Engineer and shall be addressed on the construction plans submitted for the first building permit. Any subsequent building permits that include any site lighting shall also meet these requirements.

82. STORM DRAINAGE STUDY: The Applicant shall submit a Storm Drainage Study for the proposed development stormwater conveyance system evaluating pre- and postdevelopment peak discharge rates for the theoretical 2-year, 10-year, and 100-year (50- percent, 10-percent, and 1-percent annual chance) storm events including supporting hydraulic calculations for proposed pipe network. The study must address sizing and design details for the stormwater treatment systems proposed with the development.

The study shall include an evaluation of the project site drainage including topography, natural drainage patterns, and existing man-made diversions (structures, raised pads, fences, etc.). If the study indicates that the theoretical water surface elevation or hydraulic grade line of the proposed development during a 10 percent annual chance storm event is above ground level at any point, the Applicant shall construct and dedicate to the Town new downstream storm drainage facilities necessary to achieve a connection point water depth no more than 80 percent full during the projected 10 percent annual chance storm event. The study must evaluate the 1 percent annual chance storm event base flood elevation. The finish floor elevations of all structures shall be constructed to be reasonable safe from flooding per Town Code Section

29.90.080(1)(c.) which is typically done by constructing finished floors at 1-foot above

ITEM NO. 1.
base flood elevation. The Applicant shall submit the study for review and approval by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit.

83. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall develop a Storm Water Management Plan (“SWMP”) that complies with the California Water Board regulations and delineates site design measures, source control measures, low-impact-development (LID) treatment measures, hydromodification management measures, and construction site controls as appropriate. The Plan must indicate erosion protection measures for the inlet structures (e.g., pipe outlets, pump dissipator pipes, and/or bubblers). For the Bay Area Hydrologic Modification (“BAHM”) analysis, the Applicant must provide pump operations and intended routing during various runoff conditions (i.e., treatment runoff vs. Hydrologic Modification controls) and the rationale for the pump size selected relative to the treatment flow rate. The Applicant shall update the BAHM analysis to conform to project conditions to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer and include a summary of the changes made to the BAHM analysis since the entitlement plan review for review by the C3 consultant. The Applicant must select and indicate bioretention area plants capable of withstanding and surviving the higher design ponding conditions.

If pumps are proposed, the Applicant must:
a. Provide pump discharge rates that receiving bioretention areas are capable of treating, to avoid consistently overwhelming the bioretention areas. b. The Applicant must include an alarm system that will notify the owner or operator of a pump failure.
c. If off-site improvements modify the quantities of regulated and unregulated offsite impervious area, the Applicant must update Section 2, item “d” and Section 8 of the C.3 Data Form to reflect those changes.

84. DEVELOPER STORM WATER QUALITY RESPONSIBILITY: The Applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors including subcontractors are aware of all stormwater quality measures and implement such measures. The Applicant shall perform all construction activities in accordance with approved Improvement Plans, Los Gatos Town Code Chapter 12 – Grading, Erosion and Sediment Control, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit. Failure to comply with these rules and regulations will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or a project stop order.

85. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drains (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate “NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay” NPDES required language using methods approved by the Town Engineer on all storm inlets surrounding and within the project parcel. Furthermore, storm drains shall be designed to serve exclusively stormwater. Dual-purpose storm drains that switch to sanitary sewer are not permitted in the Town of Los Gatos. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property.

86. OFF-SITE DRAINAGE: The Applicant shall not alter any existing drainage patterns without an approved Grading Permit.

87. CLEAN, INSPECT, AND REPAIR STORM LINE: If the project will connect to the public storm drainage system, the Applicant is required to evaluate the conditions of the

ITEM NO. 1.
existing storm lines along the project frontage by videotaping and providing the result to the Town Engineer. The Applicant shall clean and inspect (via remote TV camera) the storm line from the manhole upstream to the manhole downstream of the project area.

The video inspection shall be done by a professional video inspection company and be completed prior to building permit issuance. The video of the inspection shall be reviewed with PPW and any cracked, broken, or otherwise compromised integrity is found, the areas of the line along the project frontage shall be repaired by the Applicant at the applicant’s expense. The Applicant shall include the required repairs on the Improvement Plans submitted. All necessary repairs to the storm line shall be completed and approved prior to the project connecting to the storm drainage system.

88. GRADING AND DRAINAGE WINTER MORATORIUM: All grading activity shall comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit and Chapter 12 of the Town Code. There shall be no earthwork disturbance or grading activities between October 15th and April 15th of each year unless approved by the Town Engineer. In order to be considered for approval, the Applicant must submit a Winterization Erosion Control Plan certified by a California certified QSD to the Town Engineer for review and approval. If grading is allowed during the rainy season, a maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on the exposed area. The submission of a certified plan does not guarantee approval. Any approved and executed plan must be kept on-site while the project is in construction.

89. SWPPP AND EROSION CONTROL: The Applicant shall prepare and submit a comprehensive stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) inclusive of interim and final erosion control plans to the Town Engineer for review and approval. The interim erosion control plan(s) shall include measures carried out during construction before final landscaping is installed. Multiple phases of interim erosion control plans may be necessary depending on the complexity of the project. Interim erosion control best management practices may include silt fences, fiber rolls, erosion control blankets, Town approved seeding mixtures, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. The Applicant shall ensure a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) or Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) monitors erosion and sediment control as required by the Construction General Permit. The Applicant must take measures to ensure continuous compliance with the Construction General Permit, and shall install, maintain, and modify the erosion control measures as needed to continuously protect downstream water quality. In the event an emergency modification is deemed necessary, the Applicant is to implement necessary measures to protect downstream waterways immediately and then submit the changes made within 24-hours to the Town Engineer for review and approval. The Applicant shall provide the Town Engineer the assigned Notice of Intent (NOI) permit number received after filing a Notice of Intent under the Construction Stormwater General Permit. The erosion control plans and SWPPP shall comply with applicable measures contained in the most current Santa Clara County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Regional Permit (MRP). All test submitted to the regional board must also be submitted to the Town Engineer. Any fees or penalties assessed against the Town in response to the Applicant’s failure to comply with the Permit must be paid by the Applicant. The Applicant must permit Town staff onsite to conduct periodic NPDES inspections throughout the recognized storm

ITEM NO. 1.
season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations.

90. SITE TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Fencing, landscaping, and permanent structures shall not visually obstruct line of sight between three-feet and 7.5-feet in height if located within the driveway view area, traffic view area, or corner sight triangle. The driveway and intersection site triangles are represented on Town Standard Drawing ST-231. The traffic view area and corner sight triangle are shown on Town Standard Drawing ST-232. This includes all above ground obstructions including utility structures, for example electric transformers. The various clearance lines shall be shown on the site plan to demonstrate compliance.

91. GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW: Prior to building permit issuance, the Applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer shall submit a design level geotechnical report. The report will require a peer review by the Town’s geological and geotechnical consultant. A deposit and fee for the peer review will be required per the Town’s current fee schedule, unless there are any remaining deposit funds from the entitlement phase. The Town will route the design level geotechnical report to the Town’s peer review consultant once the report is submitted and deposit and fee are available. Once approved, the geotechnical engineer shall review the grading and drainage plan and proposed pavement and foundation design to verify that the design is in accordance with their recommendations. The Applicant’s Geotechnical Engineer’s approval shall be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing and stamping the plans. All grading operations and soil compaction activities shall be per the approved project’s design level geotechnical report. The Applicant shall add this condition to the general notes on the grading plan.

92. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER OBSERVATION: All grading activities shall be conducted under the observation of, and tested by, a licensed geotechnical engineer. A report shall be filed with the Town of Los Gatos for each phase of construction stating that all grading activities were performed in conformance with the requirements of the project’s design level geotechnical report. The Applicant shall submit a Final Geotechnical Construction Observation and Testing Summary in an “as-built” letter/report prepared and submitted to the Town prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall add this condition to the general notes on the grading plan.

93. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: The Applicant shall submit to the Town Engineer a letter stamped and signed by the Engineer in Charge stating that: 1) all requirements of Chapter 29, Article 9 of the Town Code have been satisfied; 2) all other required state and federal permits have been obtained; 3) the site is reasonably safe—a state where hazards and conditions leading to harm are controlled, and a person can expect an environment to be free from dangers that a reasonable person would anticipate—from flooding; and 4) the proposed development does not adversely affect the carrying capacity of areas where base flood elevations have been determined but a floodway has not been designated. For purposes of this article, "adversely affects" means that the cumulative effect of the proposed development when combined with all other existing and anticipated development will increase the water surface elevation of the base flood more than one (1) foot at any point. If the site is filled above the base flood elevation,

ITEM NO. 1.
the lowest pad and floor elevations shall be certified by a California registered professional engineer or land surveyor and provided to the Town Engineer.

94. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: After the issuance of any Grading or Encroachment permit and before the commencement of any on or off-site work, the Applicant shall request a pre-construction meeting with the PPW Inspector to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site maintenance, and other construction matters. At that meeting, the Applicant shall submit a letter acknowledging that:
a. They have read and understand these project Conditions of Approval; b. They will require that all project sub-contractors read and understand these project Conditions of Approval; and
c. They ensure a copy of these project Conditions of Approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.

95. FLOOR DRAINS: All floor drains shall be plumbed to connect to the sanitary sewer system only. Site design must facilitate drainage away from building floor drains.

96. GARBAGE/RECYCLE STORAGE AND SERVICE: The Applicant shall provide adequate area for the purposes of storing garbage, composting and recycling collection containers for scheduled servicing by the Town’s solid waste collection provider. The collection containers shall not be placed in the right-of-way except during the period of time necessary to allow removal of the waste. brought to the service area on the day of service and returned to the storage enclosure by the property owner that same day. The containers are not to be in public view or in the public right-of-way prior to or beyond the scheduled service times. A letter from West Valley Collection and Recycling confirming serviceability and site accessibility shall be provided to the Town Engineer for approval prior to the approval of an occupancy permit.

97. OVERHEAD UTILITY CLEARANCE: For projects that have overhead utility lines on-site that travel over new buildings, the Applicant shall obtain a letter from the utility company indicating that there is adequate overhead clearance from the utility to the proposed building. The letter shall be submitted with the first set of improvement plans submitted. The plans shall show the existing utility pole, any necessary proposed pole protection (including overhead clearance warning identification), and shall be confirmed satisfactory with the utility company. The letter shall be to the approval of the Town Engineer.

98. SITE LANDSCAPING COORDINATION: The Applicant shall coordinate the overall site landscaping and the stormwater treatment area landscaping. Stormwater treatment areas should be identified on the site first, and then site landscaping to make sure the correct plant material is identified for each area. Some site landscaping plant material may not be suitable in stormwater treatment areas due to the nature of the facility.

Sanitary sewer facilities cannot be aligned through stormwater treatment facilities.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL MAP OR PARCEL MAP, OR IF ANOTHER DEADLINE IS SPECIFIED IN A CONDITION, AT THAT TIME.

99. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, it shall be the sole responsibility of the project to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or permissions necessary to perform any work on neighboring

ITEM NO. 1.
private property herein proposed. Proof of agreement/approval is required prior to the issuance of any Permit.
100. SUBDIVISION (FINAL) MAP: The Applicant shall have a subdivision map, prepared by a person authorized to practice land surveying in California, delineating all parcels created or deleted and all changes in lot lines in conformance with the Los Gatos Town Code and the Subdivision Map Act. Existing buildings shall be demolished prior to the recordation of the map if they will conflict with any newly created lot line. The Town Council must approve all Final Maps. The Town Council meeting will be scheduled after the Final Map, Public Improvement Plans, Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement, Landscape Maintenance Agreement, Subdivision Improvement Agreement (if applicable) and constructed improvements (onsite and offsite) are approved by the Town Engineer. The Final Subdivision Map shall be approved by PPW and recorded by the County Recorder’s Office prior to first building permit review of any market rate lots.

In lieu of the Town Clerk’s Office coordinating the recordation of the Final Map(s) with the County, the Applicant may submit a map guarantee by the Applicant’s title company for the release of the signed Final Map to the title company for recordation. Prior to the Town’s release of the Final Map, the Town Engineer may require the Applicant to submit to the Town an electronic copy of the map in the AutoCAD Version being used by the Town at the time of recordation. It is the Applicant's responsibility to check with their title company and the County Recorder’s Office to determine the time necessary to have the map recorded after Town approval.
101. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT (“SIA”) – If any required subdivision or public improvements is not completed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer before the final map is recorded or filed, the subdivider shall, prior to the approval by the Town Council of the final map and if permitted by Town Engineer, enter as a contractor into an agreement with the Town per Town Code Section 24.40.020, Gov. Code Section 66462(a), and shall arrange to provide Payment and Performance bonds each for 100 percent of the cost of subdivision and public infrastructure improvements to be constructed. These improvements shall include, but not be limited to, roadway construction, sidewalk, curb and gutter, storm lines, street lights, utilities and signal equipment. Town Standard insurance shall be provided per the terms of the agreement.

The agreement will be forwarded to the Town Council for approval with project Final Map. The SIA shall be approved by the Town Council prior to Final Map approval. 102. MONUMENTS: The applicant shall arrange for the engineer to have all monuments set per recorded map. A certificate letter by the Surveyor or Engineer stating the monuments are set per plan shall be provided to the Town Engineer prior to occupancy. 103. IMPROVEMENTS AND CONDITIONS: Pursuant to Gov. Code § 66499.30 No person shall sell, lease, or finance any parcel or parcels of real property or commence construction of any building for sale, lease or financing thereon, except for model homes, or allow occupancy thereof, for which a final map is required by this division or local ordinance, until the final map thereof in full compliance with this division and any local ordinance has been filed for record by the recorder of the county in which any portion of the subdivision is located
104. COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS (CC&R): The Applicant shall prepare and submit project Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R) for the project. The

ITEM NO. 1.

CC&Rs shall be submitted with the project map for review and approval of the Town Engineer, the Town Attorney, and the Planning Manager. The CC&Rs shall include relevant project Conditions of Approval and shall include language that restricts the Homeowner’s Association from making changes to the CC&Rs without first obtaining approval from the Town. References to the Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement obligations shall be incorporated. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed and approved prior to the Town Council approval of the Final map. 105. PLAN DEFICIENCIES: Prior to final map approval, Applicant shall remedy existing plan inconsistencies and deficiencies remaining in entitlement plans. 106. C.3. REVIEW: Owner/Applicant shall complete C.3. Stormwater Review with Town Stormwater Consultant. Outstanding comments must be addressed prior to final map approval.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO RELEASE OF UTILITIES, FINAL

INSPECTION, OR ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST, OR IF ANOTHER DEADLINE IS SPECIFIED IN A CONDITION, AT THAT TIME. 107. ELEVATION CERTIFICATE: An elevation certificate per FEMA requirements must be completed by a Land Surveyor or Civil Engineer. The elevation certificate shall be submitted and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of the first building certificate of occupancy.
108. RECORD DRAWINGS: The Applicant shall submit a scanned PDF set of stamped record drawings and construction specifications for all off-site improvements to the Department of Parks and Public Works. All underground facilities shall be shown on the record drawings as constructed in the field. The Applicant shall also provide the Town with an electronic copy of the record drawings in the AutoCAD Version being used by the Town at the time of completion of the work. The Applicant shall also submit an AutoCAD drawing file of all consultants composite basemap linework showing all public improvements and utility layouts. This condition shall be met prior to the release of utilities, final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.
109. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed during construction. Improvements such as, but not limited to curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, streetlights, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired or replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the PPW Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the PPW Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Applicant shall request a walkthrough with the PPW Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
110. STORMWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The Applicant shall execute and record a Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement to

ITEM NO. 1.
ensure perpetual maintenance of the regulated project’s treatment facilities. The agreement shall outline the operation and maintenance (O&M) plan for the permanent storm water treatment facilities. The Town-Standard Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement will be provided by PPW upon request. The agreement shall be executed prior to occupancy of the first building and include the following:
a. The property owner shall operate and maintain all on-site stormwater treatment facilities in good condition and promptly repair/replace any malfunctioning components.
b. The property owner shall inspect the stormwater treatment facilities at least twice per year and submit an inspection report to PPW at [email protected] no later than October 1st for the Fall report, and no later than March 15th of the following year for the Winter report.

Written records shall be kept of all inspections and shall include, at minimum, the following information:
i. Site address;
ii. Date and time of inspection;
iii. Name of the person conducting the inspection;
iv. List of stormwater facilities inspected;
v. Condition of each stormwater facility inspected;
vi. Description of any needed maintenance or repairs; and vii. As applicable, the need for site re-inspection.
c. The property owner shall not make any design changes to the system with the Town’s approval.
d. The property owner(s) shall develop a maintenance and replacement schedule for the stormwater treatment facilities that describes maintenance frequency and responsibility. This maintenance schedule shall be included with the approved Stormwater Treatment Facilities Maintenance Agreement. e. The property owner(s) shall reimburse the Town for the cost of site inspections required under the Municipal Regional Permit.
f. The property owner(s) shall authorize Town Staff to perform maintenance and/or repair work and to recover the costs from the property owner in the event that maintenance or repair is neglected, or the stormwater management facility becomes a danger to public health or safety.
111. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES INSPECTION: Prior to final inspection, the Applicant must facilitate the testing of all stormwater facilities by a certified QSP or QSD to confirm the facilities are meeting the minimum design infiltration rate. All tests shall be made at on 20 foot x 20 foot grid pattern over the surface of the completed stormwater facility unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. All soil and infiltration properties for all stormwater facilities shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer. Percolation tests (using Double Ring Infiltrometer Testing) at horizontal and vertical (at the depth of the stormwater facility) shall be conducted for each stormwater facility. A 50 percent safety factor shall be applied to the calculated percolation test and shall be used as the basis for design (the design percolation rate). The geotechnical report shall include a section designated for stormwater design, including percolation results and design parameters. Sequence of construction for all stormwater

ITEM NO. 1.
facilities(bioswales, detention/ retention basins, drain rock, etc.) shall be done toward final phases of project to prevent silting of the stormwater treatment facilities.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES DURING THE

CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THE PROJECT, OR IF ANOTHER DEADLINE IS SPECIFIED IN A

CONDITION, AT THAT TIME
112. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SETUP: All storage and office trailers will be kept off the public right-of-way.
113. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION NOTICE: The contractor shall notify the PPW Inspector at least ten (10) working days prior to the start of any construction work. At that time, the Contractor shall provide an initial project construction schedule and a 24-hour emergency telephone number list.
114. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE: The contractor shall submit the project schedule in a static PDF 11”x17” format and Microsoft Project, or an approved equal. The Contractor shall identify the scheduled critical path for the installation of improvements to the approval of the Town Engineer. The schedule shall be updated monthly and submitted to the PPW Inspector in the same formats as the original. 115. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HANDOUT: The Contractor shall provide to the Town Engineer an approved construction information handout for the purpose of responding to questions the Town receives regarding the project construction. 116. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SUPERVISION: The Contractor shall always provide a qualified supervisor on the job site during construction.
117. PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION: All work shown on the Improvement Plans shall be inspected to the approval of the Town Engineer. Uninspected work shall be removed as deemed appropriate by the Town Engineer.
118. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION HOURS: Construction activities related to the issuance of any PPW permit shall comply with Town Code Section 16.20.035 which restricts construction to the weekday between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.

No work shall be done on Sundays or on Town Holidays unless otherwise approved by the Town Engineer. Please note that no work shall be allowed to take place within the Town right-of-way after 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. In addition, no work being done under Encroachment Permit may be performed on the weekend unless prior approvals have been granted by the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer may apply additional construction period restrictions, as necessary, to accommodate standard commute traffic along arterial roadways and along school commute routes. Onsite project signage must state the project construction hours. The permitted construction hours may be modified if the Town Engineer finds that the following criteria is met:
a. Permitting extended hours of construction will decrease the total time needed to complete the project without an unreasonable impact to the neighborhood. b. Permitting extended hours of construction is required to accommodate a construction requirement such as a large concrete pour or major road closure.

Such a need would be presented by the project's design engineer and require approval of the Town Engineer.

ITEM NO. 1.
c. An emergency situation exists where the construction work is necessary to correct an unsafe or dangerous condition resulting in obvious and eminent peril to public health and safety. If such a condition exists, the Town may waive any of the remaining requirements outlined below.
d. The exemption will not conflict with any other condition of approval required by the Town to mitigate significant environmental impacts. e. The contractor or property owner will notify residential and commercial occupants of adjacent properties of the modified construction work hours. This notification must be provided three days prior to the start of the extended construction activity.
f. The approved hours of construction activity will be posted at the construction site in a place and manner that can be easily viewed by any interested member of the public.
g. The Town Engineer may revoke the extended work hours at any time if the contractor or owner of the property fails to abide by the conditions of extended work hours or if it is determined that the peace, comfort, and tranquility of the occupants of adjacent residential or commercial properties are impaired because of the location and nature of the construction.
h. The waiver application must be submitted to the PPW Inspector ten (10) working days prior to the requested date of waiver.
119. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES: All construction activities shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinances, the project specific temporary erosion control plan, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
120. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION EXCAVATION: The following provisions to control traffic congestion, noise, and dust shall be followed during site excavation, grading, and construction:
a. All construction vehicles should be properly maintained and equipped with exhaust mufflers that meet State standards.
b. Travel speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour. c. Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. d. Water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to ensure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project.
e. Watering on public streets and wash down of dirt and debris into storm drain systems is prohibited. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the PPW Inspector, or at least once a day.

ITEM NO. 1.

Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. Recycled water shall be used for construction watering to manage dust control where possible, as determined by the Town Engineer. Where recycled water is not available potable water shall be used. All potable construction water from fire hydrants shall be coordinated with the San José Water Company.
f. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Construction Inspector.
g. Construction grading activity shall be discontinued in wind conditions in excess of 25 miles per hour, or that in the opinion of the PPW Inspector cause excessive neighborhood dust problems.
h. Site dirt shall not be tracked into the public right-of-way and shall be cleaned immediately if tracked into the public right-of-way. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris shall not be washed into the Town’s storm drains. i. Construction activities shall be scheduled so that paving and foundation placement begin immediately upon completion of grading operation. j. All aggregate materials transported to and from the site shall be covered in accordance with Section 23114 of the California Vehicle Code during transit to and from the site.
k. Prior to issuance of any permit, the Applicant shall submit any applicable pedestrian or traffic detour plans to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer for any lane or sidewalk closures. The temporary traffic control plan shall be prepared by a licensed professional engineer with experience in preparing such plans and in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and standard construction practices. The Traffic Control Plan shall be approved prior to the commencement of any work within the public right-of-way. l. During construction, the Applicant shall make accessible any or all public and private utilities within the area impacted by construction, as directed by the Town Engineer.
m. The minimum soils sampling and testing frequency shall conform to Chapter 8 of the Caltrans Construction Manual. The Applicant shall require the soils engineer submit to daily testing and sampling reports to the Town Engineer. 121. MATERIAL HAULING ROUTE AND PERMIT: For material delivery vehicles equal to, or larger than two-axle, six-tire single unit truck size as defined by FHWA Standards, the Applicant shall submit a truck hauling route that conforms to Town of Los Gatos Standards for approval. Note that the Town requires a Haul Permit be issued for any hauling activities. The Applicant shall require contractors to prohibit trucks from using “compression release engine brakes” on residential streets. A letter from the Applicant confirming the intention to use the designated haul route shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to the issuance of any Town permits. All material hauling activities including but not limited to, adherence to the approved route, hours of operation, staging of materials, dust control and street maintenance

ITEM NO. 1.
shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Town Engineer. The Applicant must provide an approved method of cleaning tires and trimming loads on site. All material hauling activities shall be done in accordance with applicable Town ordinances and conditions of approval.
122. PROJECT CLOSE-OUT: Prior to requesting a Final Inspection, the Applicant shall submit to the Town Engineer a letter indicating that all project conditions have been met, and all improvements are complete. All work must be completed to the satisfaction of the Planning Director and Town Engineer prior to the first occupancy. All public improvements, including the complete installation of all improvements relative to streets, fencing, storm drainage, underground utilities, etc., shall be completed and attested to by the Town Engineer before approval of occupancy of any unit. Where facilities of other agencies are involved, including those for water and sanitary sewer services, such installation shall be verified as having been completed and accepted by those agencies. In addition, the Applicant shall submit an itemized final quantities list of all public improvements constructed on-site and within the public right-of-way. The final quantities list shall be prepared by the project engineer and be to the approval of the Town Engineer. The final quantities list shall be broken out into on-site and off-site improvements based on the format provided by the Town. Until such time as all required improvements are fully completed and accepted by Town, the Applicant shall be responsible for the care, maintenance, and any damage to such improvements. Town shall not, nor shall any officer or employee thereof, be liable or responsible for any accident, loss or damage, regardless of cause, happening or occurring to the work or improvements required for this project prior to the completion and acceptance of the work or Improvements. All such risks shall be the responsibility of and are hereby assumed by the Applicant.
123. DOWNTOWN HOLIDAY CONSTRUCTION MORATORIUM: Due to concerns for business impacts during the holiday season (defined as starting the Monday of Thanksgiving week through January 1), there shall be no construction activities in the Downtown area within the right-of-way which would create lane closures, eliminate parking, create pedestrian detours, or other activities that may create a major disturbance as determined by the Town Engineer.
124. CONSTRUCTION WORKER PARKING: The Applicant shall provide a Construction Parking Plan that minimizes the effect of construction worker parking in the neighborhood and shall include an estimate of the number of workers that will be present on the site during the various phases of construction and indicate where sufficient off-street parking will be utilized and identify any locations for off-site material deliveries. Said plan shall be approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of Town permits and shall be complied with at all times during construction. Failure to enforce the parking plan may result in suspension of the Town permits. No vehicle having a manufacturer's rated gross vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior approval from the Town Engineer (§15.40.070).

ITEM NO. 1.
125. SITE WATER DISCHARGE: In accordance with the Town Code, Prohibition of Illegal Discharges (Los Gatos Town Code Section 22.30.015), the Town Engineer may approve in coordination West Valley Sanitation District the discharge of uncontaminated pumped ground waters to the sanitary sewer only when such source is deemed unacceptable by State and Federal authorities for discharge to surface waters of the United States, whether pretreated or untreated, and for which no reasonable alternative method of disposal is available. Following the verification of the applicable local, state and/or federal approvals, a Discharge Plan will be approved and monitored by the Town Engineer.
126. ACCESS EASEMENT: Owner/Applicant is responsible for securing easements necessary for access to Lot 10 and/or utility connection prior to building permit review. 127. SUBDIVISION STREET NAMES: Applicant to obtain Town Council approval for any proposed street name not present on Town approved street names list.

THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH AT ALL TIMES THAT THE USE

PERMITTED BY THIS ENTITLEMENT OCCUPIES THE PREMISES
128. POST CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP): Post construction storm water pollution prevention requirements shall include:
a. The Applicant shall be charged the cost of abatement for issues associated with, but not limited to, inspection of the private stormwater facilities, emergency maintenance needed to protect public health or watercourses, and facility replacement or repair if the treatment facility is no longer able to meet performance standards or has deteriorated. Any abatement activity performed on the Applicant’s property by Town staff will be charged to the Applicant at the Town’s adopted fully-loaded hourly rates.
b. Maintenance of the storm drain inlets “No Dumping – Drains to Bay” plaques to alert the public to the destination of storm water and to prevent direct discharge of pollutants into the storm drain. Template ordering information is available at www.flowstobay.org.
c. All process equipment, oils, fuels, solvents, coolants, fertilizers, pesticides, and similar chemical products, as well as petroleum based wastes, tallow, and grease planned for storage outdoors shall be stored in covered containers at all times. d. All public outdoor spaces and trails shall include installation and upkeep of dog waste stations.
e. Garbage and recycling receptacles and bins shall be designed and maintained with permanent covers to prevent exposure of trash to rain. Trash enclosure drains shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system. f. It is the responsibility of the property owner(s)/homeowners association to implement a plan for street sweeping of paved private roads and cleaning of all storm drain inlets.

ITEM NO. 1.

TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:

APPLICABLE TO ALL LOTS
129. Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access, water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.
130. NOTE: The subject property is located within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) of the Local Responsibility Area (LRA). Pursuant to California Public Resources Code (PRC) 4290, the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection is required to “…adopt regulations implementing minimum fire safety standards related to defensible space” applicable to “the perimeters and access to all residential, commercial, and industrial building construction.” In 2018, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed SB 901 (Dodd), which expanded the applicability of the regulations promulgated under PRC 4290 to land in the Local Responsibility Area (LRA) Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. All comments below that result from PRC 4290 are identified by **.

Where a conflict exists between local and 4290 requirements, the more stringent requirement shall apply. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.08.
131. SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS REPORT: For tentative or parcel maps approved in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ), the approving body is required to make and submit two findings to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (Board) within 30 days of map approval. CCR, Title 14, Sec. 1266.02. Provide copies of the two finds reports made to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 132. **WIDTH: (As Noted on Sheet 7.0) (a) All roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum of two ten (10) foot traffic lanes, not including shoulder and striping. These traffic lanes shall provide for two-way traffic flow to support emergency vehicle and civilian egress, unless other standards are provided in this article or additional requirements are mandated by local jurisdictions or local subdivision requirements.

Vertical clearances shall conform to the requirements in California Vehicle Code section 35250. (b) All one-way roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum of one twelve (12) foot traffic lane, not including shoulders. The local jurisdiction may approve oneway roads. (1) All one-way roads shall, at both ends, connect to a road with two traffic lanes providing for travel in different directions, and shall provide access to an area currently zoned for no more than ten (10) residential units. (2) In no case shall a oneway road exceed 2,640 feet in length. A turnout shall be placed and constructed at approximately the midpoint of each one-way road. (c) All driveways shall be constructed to provide a minimum of one (1) ten (10) foot traffic lane, fourteen (14) feet unobstructed horizontal clearance, and unobstructed vertical clearance of thirteen feet, six inches (13' 6”). California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2 Articles 1-5, § 1273.01.

ITEM NO. 1.
133. **ROAD SURFACES: (As Noted on Sheet 7.0) (a) Roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds and provide an aggregate base. (b) Driveways and road and driveway structures shall be designed and maintained to support at least 40,000 pounds. (c) Project proponent shall provide engineering specifications to support design, if requested by the local authority having jurisdiction. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.02.
134. **GATE ENTRANCES: (a) Gate entrances shall be at least two (2) feet wider than the width of the traffic lane(s) serving that gate and a minimum width of fourteen (14) feet unobstructed horizontal clearance and unobstructed vertical clearance of thirteen feet, six inches (13' 6”). (b) All gates providing access from a road to a driveway shall be located at least thirty (30) feet from the roadway and shall open to allow a vehicle to stop without obstructing traffic on that road. (c) Where a one-way road with a single traffic lane provides access to a gated entrance, a forty (40) foot turning radius shall be used. (d) Security gates shall not be installed without approval. Where security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency operation. Approval shall be by the local authority having jurisdiction. The security gates and the emergency operation shall be maintained operational at all times. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.09. Gate on EAE shall meet the requirement.
135. FIRE HYDRANT SYSTEMS REQUIRED: (As Noted on Sheet 7.0) Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, onsite fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the fire code official. Exception: For Group R3 and Group U occupancies, equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1, 903.3.1.2 or 903.3.1.3, the distance requirement shall be not more than 600 feet. [CFC, Section 507.5.1] 136. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) ROADWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED: (As noted on sheet

7.0) Dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with an approved area for turning around fire apparatus. Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 50 feet outside and 30 feet inside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be 5%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. [CFC Section 503.2.5].
137. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS ROADWAY REQUIRED: (As noted on sheet 7.0):

Provide an access roadway with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside and 30 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.
138. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED: (As noted on sheet 7.0) An access driveway shall be provided having an all-weather surface of either asphalt, concrete or other engineered surface capable of supporting 75,000 pounds and approved by a civil engineer. It shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet,

ITEM NO. 1.
vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum turning radius of 40 feet outside, and maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1.
139. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
140. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters.

Numbers shall be a minimum of 6 inches high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1. 141. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
142. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located within the designated WildlandUrban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. 143. EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS GATE REQUIREMENTS: Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation.

Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed. Gate on EAE shall meet the requirement.
144. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other

ITEM NO. 1.
such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6] APPLICABLE TO LOT 1
145. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
146. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 1) is 500 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 2
147. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
148. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.

ITEM NO. 1.
149. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 2) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 3
150. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
151. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
152. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 3) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 4
153. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.

ITEM NO. 1.
154. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
155. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 4) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 5
156. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
157. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
158. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 5) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 6
159. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the

ITEM NO. 1.
midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
160. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
161. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 6) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 7
162. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
163. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED: An access driveway shall be provided having an all-weather surface of either asphalt, concrete or other engineered surface capable of supporting 75,000 pounds and approved by a civil engineer. It shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum turning radius of 20 feet inside and 40 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. The angle of approach to a driveway shall be designed and constructed with a maximum 5% slope for a minimum of 20ft. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. During building permit, provide a stamped civil engineer letter to justify the traction of the driveway to support 75,000 lbs.

ITEM NO. 1.
164. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
165. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 7) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 8
166. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
167. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
168. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 7) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 9
169. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be

ITEM NO. 1.
provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
170. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED: An access driveway shall be provided having an all-weather surface of either asphalt, concrete or other engineered surface capable of supporting 75,000 pounds and approved by a civil engineer. It shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 12 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum turning radius of 20 feet inside and 40 feet outside, and a maximum slope of 15%. The angle of approach to a driveway shall be designed and constructed with a maximum 5% slope for a minimum of 20ft. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. During building permit, provide a stamped civil engineer letter to justify the traction of the driveway to support 75,000 lbs.
171. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
172. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 9) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 10
173. **TURNAROUND (LOT 10 Only): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway.

Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(e) Each dead-end road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A.

Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05. 174. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED: (As noted on sheet A1.1) An approved fire apparatus turnaround is required for all dead-end access roads and driveways in excess of 150 feet. [Ref: CFC 503.2.5]. All turnarounds shall have a

ITEM NO. 1.
maximum slope of 5% in any direction. Placement of any architectural feature within a turnaround is not permitted. All turnarounds shall be provided an approved metal, all weather sign or other approved notices or markings that shall include the words "NO PARKING – FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND". Turnarounds located on parcels shall be provided with a sign at the entrance to the parcel that shall include the words "FIRE DEPARTMENT TURNAROUND ON SITE". Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1.
175. **WIDTH: (Approved PRC 4290 request of exception shown on Sheet 7.3) (a) All roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum of two ten (10) foot traffic lanes, not including shoulder and striping. These traffic lanes shall provide for two-way traffic flow to support emergency vehicle and civilian egress, unless other standards are provided in this article or additional requirements are mandated by local jurisdictions or local subdivision requirements. Vertical clearances shall conform to the requirements in California Vehicle Code section 35250. (b) All one-way roads shall be constructed to provide a minimum of one twelve (12) foot traffic lane, not including shoulders. The local jurisdiction may approve one-way roads. (1) All one-way roads shall, at both ends, connect to a road with two traffic lanes providing for travel in different directions, and shall provide access to an area currently zoned for no more than ten (10) residential units. (2) In no case shall a one-way road exceed 2,640 feet in length. A turnout shall be placed and constructed at approximately the midpoint of each one-way road. (c) All driveways shall be constructed to provide a minimum of one (1) ten (10) foot traffic lane, fourteen (14) feet unobstructed horizontal clearance, and unobstructed vertical clearance of thirteen feet, six inches (13' 6”). California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter Articles 1-5, § 1273.01. 176. MODIFIED FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 10 Only): (Per Approved PRC 4290 request of exception shown on sheet 7.3) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations. 177. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE)ACCESS ROADWAY REQUIRED: (Approved PRC 4290 request of exception shown on sheet 7.3) Provide an access roadway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 50 feet outside and 30 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet A-1. CFC Sec. 503.
178. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 10) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3] Fire flow appears not to meet requirement for VB construction. Per applicant to mitigate fire flow requirement, VA construction will be proposed for the entire structure. During building permit phase, show on coversheet that VA construction type will be used as part of this planning approval condition.

ITEM NO. 1.

APPLICABLE TO LOT 11
179. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
180. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
181. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 11) is 1125 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
APPLICABLE TO LOT 12
182. ** TURNAROUND (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) (a) Turnarounds are required on driveways and dead-end roads. (b) The minimum turning radius for a turnaround shall be forty (40) feet, not including parking, in accordance with the figures in 14 CCR §§ 1273.05(e) and 1273.05(f). If a hammerhead/T is used instead, the top of the “T” shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet in length.(c) Driveways exceeding 150 feet in length, but less than 800 feet in length, shall provide a turnout near the midpoint of the driveway. Where the driveway exceeds 800 feet, turnouts shall be provided no more than 400 feet apart. (d) A turnaround shall be provided on driveways over 300 feet in length and shall be within fifty (50) feet of the building.(d) Each deadend road shall have a turnaround constructed at its terminus. Where parcels are zoned five (5) acres or larger, turnarounds shall be provided at a maximum of 1,320 foot intervals.(e) Figure A. Turnarounds on roads with two ten-foot traffic lanes. California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 1.5, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2, Articles 1-5, § 1273.05.
183. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED (Lot 1 to Lot 9, Lot 11 and 12): (As noted on sheet 7.0) Approved automatic sprinkler systems in new and existing buildings and structures shall be provided in the locations described in this Section or in Sections 903.2.1 through 903.2.12 whichever is the more restrictive and Sections 903.2.14 through 903.2.21. For

ITEM NO. 1.
the purposes of this section, firewalls and fire barriers used to separate building areas shall be constructed in accordance with the California Building Code and shall be without openings or penetrations.
184. REQUIRED FIRE FLOW: The minimum required fireflow for this project (Lot 12) is 500 Gallons Per Minute (GPM) at 20 psi residual pressure. This fireflow assumes installation of automatic fire sprinklers per CFC [903.3.1.3]
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2026\06-11-2026 SPECIAL\Item X - 178 Twin Oaks Drive\Exhibit 41 - Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059.docx

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Joe Mannina
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2025 11:51 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: 178 Twin Oaks Comments From Surrey Farms Resident [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Erin,
I live in the Surrey Farms neighborhood where the 178 Twin Oaks project proposal is located.

As part of this new development, I would like to propose consideration for a new path to connect our Surrey Farms neighborhood to the paved trail surrounding the Kennedy Court neighborhood via a connection on both ends of Brook Acres Drive.

Walking my dog on Kennedy Road has become very dangerous over the past couple of years and a new path would provide many benefits for both neighborhoods including safety.

Thanks for your consideration.

Joseph and Julie Mannina
Los Gatos, CA 95032
EXHIBIT 43

ITEM NO. 1.

From:

Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 4:08 PM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>; James Watson <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: New Ponds Proposed for Los Gatos at 178 Twin Oaks Drive [EXTERNAL SENDER]
Erin and James,
The purpose of this note is to update you about my concerns regarding the subject ponds.

First, I thank you for clarifying the Town's process which at present does not practice coordination with the Santa Clara County Vector Control. This response only heightened my concerns. It led me to seek the advice of Dr. Nayer Rahiri, District Manager, Santa Clara County Mosquito and Vector Control District. Please see my letter to her and her response below.

I want to call your special attention to the second paragraph of her letter:
"Vector control can provide technical recommendations during the planning and design phase of construction projects to help prevent conditions that may support mosquito breeding, such as the creation of ponds or areas of standing water. We do not have enforcement authority, and our involvement must be initiated by the permitting agency or the city. If the City or project planners do not reach out to us for review, we are unable to require changes or impose conditions." Given the extraordinary complexity of the subject development and its reliance on ponds with standing water to control runoff, I strongly recommend that the Town's Planning Commission immediately make a formal request to Dr. Rahiri, for review and advice regarding the design and management of the proposed ponds.

ITEM NO. 1.

This review should include not only the physical design and operation of the ponds, but also the proposed private ownership and management structure, as well as the need for easements to access the ponds by Vector Control. My neighbors and I are very concerned about the practicality of what has been proposed so far.

Please confirm whether the Town will make this request to Dr. Rahiri.

Sincerely Yours,
Christopher Bajorek, PhD
Los Gatos, CA 95032
From: Zahiri, Nayer <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 10:41 AM
To:

Subject: RE: New Ponds Proposed for Los Gatos at 178 Twin Oaks Drive Hello Dr. Bajorek,
Thank you for reaching out and for sharing your concerns regarding the new construction project in the City of Los Gatos and the potential for standing water that could become mosquito breeding sources in the future. We appreciate the community’s vigilance on this important public health issue.

ITEM NO. 1.

Vector control can provide technical recommendations during the planning and design phase of construction projects to help prevent conditions that may support mosquito breeding, such as the creation of ponds or areas of standing water. However, our role is advisory only. We do not have enforcement authority, and our involvement must be initiated by the permitting agency or the city. If the City or project planners do not reach out to us for review, we are unable to require changes or impose conditions.

For concerns related to stormwater management, water runoff, and environmental planning, we recommend contacting the appropriate City or County agencies that oversee project approvals and environmental health compliance. Specifically, you may wish to reach out to:
• The City of Los Gatos Planning Department
• Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health • Santa Clara County Watershed Protection Program
These agencies have the authority to review project plans, require mitigation measures, and coordinate with us as needed to address potential mosquito issues before construction is completed.

Please feel free to contact us if the City or permitting authority requests our input, or if you have additional questions about mosquito prevention and public health.

Thank you again for your concern and engagement.

Sincerely,
Nayer

ITEM NO. 1.

Nayer Zahiri, Ph.D. Entomology
District Manager
Santa Clara County Mosquito & Vector Control District
1580 Berger Dr., San Jose, CA 95112
Office: (408) 918-3317
vector.santaclaracounty.gov
From:

Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2026 9:39 AM
To: Zahiri, Nayer <[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] New Ponds Proposed for Los Gatos at 178 Twin Oaks Drive Dear Dr. Zahiri,
I live in East Los Gatos, CA. I am writing this note on behalf of the 50 homeowners in our existing development. We are concerned about mosquito infestation from a planned extension of this community.

The purpose of this note is to seek your advice regarding the proposed housing development that plans to install several ponds to manage water runoff. The main concern centers on the design of these ponds which will cause standing water, which in turn could cause mosquito breeding and the concomitant spread of West Nile Virus disease. The largest of these ponds is to be located immediately next to the Hillbrook Elementary School. I believe it will be wise to have your organization review the design of these ponds before they are built.

The proposed development is planned at 187 Twin Oaks Drive, Los Gatos. It will consist of 12 homes plus Additional Dwelling Units on a steeply sloped parcel of land. The entire

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.

ITEM NO. 1.
-removal of protected trees
-interference with the Riparian Habitat (Ross Creek)
-detrimental effect on site geology and soils
-encroachment on protected wetlands
EIR Issue:

Additionally, we believe that a development of this scope and size on a rural hillside requires a formal EIR. Pursuant to CEQA, if there is substantial evidence, including reasonable inferences, supporting a fair argument that a project may cause a significant environmental effect, an EIR is mandatory. The “fair argument” standard is intentionally low, designed to ensure environmental impacts are fully studied. (It should be noted that the MND cites a 2017 EIR that was never adopted and certified by the Town.) thanks
Sameer Bidichandani & Shabina Mirajkar
Twin Oaks Dr, Los Gatos, CA 95032

ITEM NO. 1.
-----Original Message-----
From: karri greenfield
Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2026 12:27 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: Twin Oaks proposed housing
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Ms. Walters,
I am a homeowner in the Surrey Farms neighborhood where the proposed housing on Twin Oaks is being discussed. My main concern is fire safety. I strongly encourage the town to consider a second entry and exit to the proposed property.

Thank you,
Karri Greenfield
Longmeadow Dr.

Sent from my iPhone

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: 06/11/2026
ITEM NO: 1

ADDENDUM
DATE: June 9, 2026
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 -032 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001. A Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge. Project Planner: Erin Walters.

REMARKS:

Following publication of the staff report, the applicant provided a summary of additional neighborhood outreach, which is included as Exhibit 44.

Public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 9, 2026, are included as Exhibit 45.

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
ATTACHMENT 8 Page 1856
ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and ND-24-001
DATE: June 9, 2026

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
Previously 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
Previously Received with the December 16, 2025, Addendum 2 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
Previously Received with the December 17, 2025, 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
Previously Received with the June 11, 2026, Staff Report:

32. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, December 17, 2025

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and ND-24-001
DATE: June 9, 2026

33. Applicant’s Response to December 17, 2026, Planning Commission Comments

34. Technical Note, Belgard Pavers Fire Truck Loading

35. Open Space Easements and Future Trial Easements

36. Lots 5 and 6 Vegetation Buffer

37. Raney’s Response to December 17, 2026, Planning Commission Comments

38. Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through F (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/178TwinOaksDr)

39. Recirculated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

40. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration

41. Revised Required Findings and Considerations

42. Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059

43. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2025, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2026
Received with this Addendum Report:

44. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

45. Public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 9, 2026

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

From: Jim Foley
Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2026 8:10 AM
To: Erin Walters <[email protected]>
Subject: Surrey Farms neighbor meeting
[EXTERNAL SENDER]
Hi Erin – I could not get this summery out in time for the Staff Report but perhaps it can be sent to PC as a follow up item. I met with the three neighbors adjacent to the property on the Twin Oaks/Longmeadow side (Witkin, Fordyce, Meleyco.) Our discussion seemed positive and we discussed a lot of best practices when it comes to outside agency permitting and development sensitive to the items identified in the MND. We also discussed the drainage and how the new project will capture and manage the drainage during rain events as opposed to the free flow condition of the hillside as it exists today. We also discussed the berm/swale feature planned near their property lines and will provide them further detail as for aesthetics and also specifically for Meleyco the mechanics of it to ensure we are not redirecting water towards his property. We also discussed additional screening for those neighbors and we are committed to doing that and looking into how to best accomplish that when also complying with defensible face requirements. Lastly, specifically to the Fordyces, we discussed the proximity of the conceptual placement of the home and orientation to their property. We are looking into what could potentially be done improve that condition.

We are unsure we will have this resolved by the Planning Commission hearing on 6/11, but I will report about this engagement and we are committed to following through before Town Council hearing.

Thank You,
Jim Foley
Principal/Broker-Owner
EXHIBIT 44

ITEM NO. 1.

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

ITEM NO. 1.

June 6, 2026
Town of Los Gatos Planning Commission
c/o Erin Walters, Project Planner
Community Development Department
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030
RE: Item 1 — Surrey Farms Estates, 178 Twin Oaks Drive (APN 532-16-006); Architecture & Site Applications S-24-023 through -032 and S-24-059; Vesting Tentative Map M-24-013; Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-25-001 (Recirculated IS/MND). Request to require a full Environmental Impact Report.

Dear Chair Burch and Members of the Planning Commission:

I write to urge the Commission to decline to adopt the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND-25-001) for the Surrey Farms Estates project and instead direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The administrative record now before you contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that this 12-lot hillside subdivision may have one or more significant effects on the environment. Under CEQA, that is the end of the inquiry:
an EIR is required.

The applicable standard. An MND is permissible only where project revisions ensure that clearly no significant effect will occur and there is no substantial evidence the project may have a significant effect (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(f)(1), 15070). Where substantial evidence supports a fair argument of a significant effect, an EIR is mandatory even if other evidence points the other way; the lead agency may not weigh competing evidence or resolve the conflict in the project’s favor (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68; Friends of “B” Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988; Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903). This is a low threshold and is reviewed by a court de novo, without deference to the Town.

The Recirculated IS/MND and the Responses to Comments repeatedly invert this standard and, in doing so, supply the very evidence that compels an EIR. The following points identify the principal defects.

1. The document applies the wrong legal test. Responses to Comments 5-2 and 5-4 assert that commenters “misconstrue CEQA” and that an EIR is required only where evidence shows a significant effect “even if mitigation measures are implemented,” and that “the burden is on the petitioner.” That reframing is incorrect. The fair argument standard does not permit the agency to presume its mitigation will work or to place the burden on the public. An approval resting on a misstatement of the governing standard is independently vulnerable to reversal.

2. Responsible-agency and expert comments are themselves substantial evidence. The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (a responsible agency), the Santa Clara EXHIBIT 45

ITEM NO. 1.

Valley Bird Alliance and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and a former San José environmentalreview professional all identified potentially significant impacts on the record. Agency comments and qualified expert opinion constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument (Pocket Protectors, supra). The Responses repeatedly dismiss these as “no substantial evidence” — which is precisely the improper weighing the fair argument standard forbids.

3. The project will fill a water of the State, with mitigation deferred to later permitting.

The Recirculated IS/MND concedes the project will fill roughly 122 lineal feet of the on-site ephemeral stream — a water of the State — yet Response to Comment 5-5 calls this “inconsequential.” Mitigation Measures IV-10 and IV-11 defer the actual mitigation to a future CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement and RWQCB permit. Notably, the comparable project the Town itself cites (Podva Property, Danville; SCH #2012102028) addressed the same category of jurisdictional fill through a certified EIR, not an MND.

4. The stream buffer was weakened relative to the prior Draft EIR, which itself cannot be relied upon. The 2017 Draft EIR prepared for this site (never certified by the Town) required, in Mitigation Measure 4.3-8, a setback from both the top of bank and the outer oak canopy edge. The Recirculated IS/MND discards the canopy-edge component, declares there is “no riparian habitat,” and recasts the setback as a mere “Slope Stability Protection Area” proxy measured only from the incised channel. Reducing protection below a prior environmental document — while leaning on that uncertified document’s framework — supports a fair argument and underscores that an uncertified EIR cannot substitute for current, adequate review.

5. The geotechnical record is unresolved and the mitigation is improperly deferred.

Response to Comment 5-37 acknowledges that the proposed lots would exceed the maximum allowable graded cut and fill under the Town’s Hillside Development Standards, that the landslide hazard is “low to moderate,” and that the applicant’s engineer filed only an “Interim Response” to the Town peer reviewer’s (Cotton Shires) geotechnical comments. Mitigation Measure VII-1 then declines to specify the controlling recommendations (“It is not necessary to list all recommendations”). Committing to unspecified future engineering is the classic improper deferral of mitigation (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70).

6. The wildfire and evacuation analysis is conclusory. The site was mapped as a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone at the time of application. The IS/MND’s conclusion that the project will not impair emergency evacuation rests entirely on the assertion that it makes “no substantial modifications to the existing roadway system” (Responses 5-14, 5-49). That framing never analyzes the effect of adding 12 homes and their residents and vehicles to constrained hillside egress served by a single 20-foot emergency vehicle access route to Brooke Acres Drive. A conclusory evacuation analysis in a high fire-hazard area supports a fair argument warranting an EIR.

7. The biological surveys are stale and incomplete. The special-status plant surveys relied upon date from 2012 and 2013, and the only recent botanical visit (December 2024) fell outside the blooming season and was a single date. The record acknowledges the California red-legged frog (a federally listed species) has the potential to occur, and the dismissal of Crotch’s bumble bee (a

ITEM NO. 1.

CESA candidate) is disputed by the commenting biologists. Survey adequacy and currency are squarely at issue.

8. A pattern of deferred mitigation — and a late-discovered impact — shows the analysis is not finished. Final erosion/sediment control and the SWPPP (MM X-1), the geotechnical recommendations (MM VII-1), and the stream mitigation (MM IV-10/-11) are all deferred to post-approval processes. That the riparian-fill impact surfaced only on recirculation — after the first IS/MND missed it — is itself evidence that the environmental review remains incomplete and cannot support the “clearly no significant effect” finding an MND requires.

Individually and especially in combination, these points establish a fair argument that the project may have significant effects on biological resources, water quality, geology and soils, and public safety in a fire-hazard area. CEQA does not ask whether those effects can eventually be permitted; it asks whether they may be significant. On this record, they may be.

The project’s housing-law status does not change this. The project’s posture under SB 330 and the Builder’s Remedy governs the development standards the Town may apply and the manner in which the application is processed. It does not exempt the project from CEQA, and it does not raise the threshold for requiring an EIR. The level of environmental review remains governed solely by CEQA’s fair argument standard. Where, as here, the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect, the Commission can and must require an EIR regardless of the project’s housing-law status. The two questions are separate, and the housing laws supply no basis for proceeding on a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Commission decline to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-25-001 and direct the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report for the Surrey Farms Estates project. Thank you for considering these comments and for entering this letter into the record for the June 11, 2026 hearing.

Suggested motion for the Commission
“I move that the Planning Commission decline to adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-25- 001 for the Surrey Farms Estates project at 178 Twin Oaks Drive (APN 532-16-006); find that substantial evidence in the administrative record supports a fair argument that the project may have one or more significant effects on the environment; and direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report, and to return the Architecture & Site Applications (S-24-023 through -032 and S-24-059) and Vesting Tentative Map (M-24-013) for further consideration only after the EIR has been prepared and circulated in accordance with CEQA.” Respectfully submitted,
James (Jim) Lyon
Former Los Gatos Planning Commissioner (1998–2002)
Historic Preservation Committee member (1996–2002)

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: 06/11/2026
ITEM NO: 1

DESK ITEM
DATE: June 11, 2026
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 -032 and S-24-059, Vesting Tentative Map Application M-24-013, and Mitigated Negative Declaration Application ND-25-001. A Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Have Been Prepared. Property Owner/Applicant: Larry Dodge. Project Planner: Erin Walters.

REMARKS:

Exhibit 46 includes the Erratum to the project’s Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), which serves to amply the previously included performance standards of Mitigation Measure IV-10. Recirculation of the IS/MND is not required.

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

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 2 OF 3
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and ND-24-001
DATE: June 11, 2026

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
Previously 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
Previously Received with the December 16, 2025, Addendum 2 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
Previously Received with the December 17, 2025, 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
Previously Received with the June 11, 2026, Staff Report:

32. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, December 17, 2025

33. Applicant’s Response to December 17, 2026, Planning Commission Comments

34. Technical Note, Belgard Pavers Fire Truck Loading

35. Open Space Easements and Future Trial Easements

ITEM NO. 1.

PAGE 3 OF 3
SUBJECT: 178 Twin Oaks Drive, Lots 1-12/S-24-023 to 033, S-24-059, M-24-013, and ND-24-001
DATE: June 11, 2026

36. Lots 5 and 6 Vegetation Buffer

37. Raney’s Response to December 17, 2026, Planning Commission Comments

38. Recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration with Appendices A through F (available online at https://www.losgatosca.gov/178TwinOaksDr)

39. Recirculated Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

40. Public Comments and Responses Regarding the Recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration

41. Revised Required Findings and Considerations

42. Revised Recommended Conditions of Approval – M-24-013, S-24-023 to -033 and S-24-059

43. Public comments received between 11:01 a.m., Wednesday, December 17, 2025, and 3:00 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2026
Previously Received with the June 9, 2026, Addendum Report:

44. Applicant’s Neighborhood Outreach

45. Public comments received between 3:01 p.m., Friday, June 5, 2026, and 3:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 9, 2026
Previously Received with this Desk Item:

46. Erratum to the Recirculated Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration

ITEM NO. 1.

This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank

ITEM NO. 1.

June 11, 2026
Erratum to the Surrey Farms Estates Recirculated IS/MND The following amplifications have been made to Mitigation Measure IV-10 of the Surrey Farms Estates Recirculated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (April 2026). As the revisions serve to merely amplify the previously included performance standards of Mitigation Measure IV10, recirculation of the IS/MND is not required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5).

IV-10 Prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities, the project applicant shall submit to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB) an application for Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Waste Discharge Requirements for Projects Involving Discharge of Dredged and/or Fill Material to Waters of the State.

The project proponent shall be responsible for conducting all project activities in accordance with the permit provisions outlined in the applicable SFRWQCB permit, which may include but not necessarily be limited to the following minimization and compensation measures.

Minimization. Because full avoidance is not possible, actions shall be taken to minimize impacts to the ephemeral stream (e.g., potentially waters of the State and under the jurisdiction of both RWQCB and CDFW). Measures taken during construction activities shouldshall include placing construction fencing around the ephemeral stream to be preserved to ensure that construction activities do not inadvertently impact these areas.

Compensation. The proposed project would impact some small areas of the ephemeral stream. Therefore, the project shall replace the lost habitat value resulting from this impact through the creation, restoration, and/or enhancement of habitat at one or more appropriate locations near the impacted areas at a minimum of a 1:1 replacement-to-loss ratio as well as reseeding or replanting of vegetation in temporarily disturbed areas. The final mitigation amounts will be based on actual impacts to be determined during the design phase. If impacts are lessened, then the amount of mitigation should be appropriately reduced.

It is anticipated that all compensation measures can be accommodated onsite within the existing ephemeral stream. An important consideration is to including removeremoval of the existing culvert in the upper area of the stream and creation of new incised channel segments. In consultation with and as approved by the SFRWQCB Aan on-site habitat mitigation and monitoring plan (HMMP) would need to shall be developed with the goal of creating, restoring, and/or enhancing in order to create, restore, and/or enhance the ephemeral stream with habitat functions and values greater than or equal to those existing in the impact zone. At a minimum, the HMMP shouldshall include, unless otherwise specified by the SFRWQCB:
• The location of all enhancement and/or restoration activities. The created/restored ephemeral channels shall be monitored for five years between the months of April through July during the mitigation monitoring years, and after any storm greater or equal to the 10- year rainfall event, as defined by Valley Water. The performance

ITEM NO. 1.

June 11, 2026
criterion for the stability and function of the ephemeral stream channels is that the bed and banks of the created channels shall be stable with no observed excessive erosion or deposition of sediment, or signs of instability;
• Planting and irrigation specifications;
• Site maintenance and management requirements (weeding of invasive species, providing for supplemental water, repair of water delivery systems, etc.);
• Vegetation Monitoring requirements for five years between April and July, with the goal of ensuring the created/restored channels are adequately vegetated to stabilize surface soils and to ensure harmful invasive species are not dominating these areas. The absolute cover of herbaceous vegetative cover shall reach a minimum of 70% by year 5. Highly invasive weeds (Cal-IPC 2026) and other potentially damaging plants in the channel creation areas shall be at a minimum of less than 20% in Year 5;
• Final success criteria; and
• Adaptive management procedures, which could include replanting of restoration areas following annual monitoring surveys; channel stabilization measures; etc.

Written verification of the 401 Water Quality Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements shall be provided to the Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department, prior to initiation of any ground disturbance activities.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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:

Kendra Burch, Chair
Susan Burnett
Adam Mayer
Joseph Sordi
Emily Thomas
Community Development
Director:

Joel Paulson
Town Attorney: Gabrielle Whelan
Transcribed by: Vicki L. Blandin
(619) 541-3405
ATTACHMENT 10

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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 BURCH: I will now move to the Public
Hearing portion of the meeting for Item 1. Item 1 is
continued from the December 17, 2025 hearing.

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 a vacant property zoned RC. Located at 178 Twin Oaks Drive. APN 532-16-006. Architecture and Site Applications S-24-023 and -032, and S-24-059. Vesting
Tentative Map Application M-24-013. Mitigated Negative
Declaration Application ND-25-001. A recirculated Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been
prepared. The Property Owner and Applicant is Larry Dodge, and the project planner is Erin Walters.

I do believe all Commissioners have previously
had an opportunity to go to the site. Is there anything that needs to be disclosed? Did you have an opportunity, Commissioner Mayer?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Yes, I did go to the site. I
just want to disclose that in a professional capacity I’ve worked with HMH, the landscape architect and civil engineer on the project, but I haven’t spoken to anyone there about this particular project.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you for that. Ms. Walters,
will you be presenting the report this evening?
ERIN WALTERS: Yes. Good evening, Chair and
Commissioners. Erin Walters, senior planner.

The 17.5-acre hillside site at 178 Twin Oaks
Drive is currently vacant and proposed to be subdivided into 12 single-family residential lots, which also include three below-market price units that represents 25% of the proposed homes.

The application is being processed under Senate
Bill 330 and includes requests pursuant to State Density Bonus Law and the Builder's Remedy provisions of the
Housing Accountability Act.

The Planning Commission previously did consider
this project on December 17th and continued the item to allow the Applicant and the Town Staff additional time to respond to questions that were raised by the Commissioners.

Since that hearing, the Applicant has provided written
responses addressing questions regarding pervious paving,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
drainage, privacy screening, open space easement, and trail easements.

The Applicant has submitted a revised vegetation
buffer plan, which can be found in Exhibit 36. In addition, the Applicant has also modified a proposal to provide
private open space easements and public trail easements on multiple lots, and that can be found in Exhibit 35.

However, the Applicant is still requesting an incentive under State Density Bonus Law to waive the requirement to construct and maintain the trails.

In response to questions and comments regarding
biological resources, the Town’s environmental consultant conducted an additional review of the onsite ephemeral
drainage feature. Following a field investigation after a storm event, it was determined that a portion of the
feature does extend to Lot 5.

As a result, a recirculated Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration were prepared to address the impact, and this also includes two additional mitigation measures related to biological resources: Measure 410 and Measure 411. The recirculated Mitigated Negative
Declaration was recirculated for 30 days for public review.

The environmental document concludes that all potential impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
through implementation of the mitigation measures
identified in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.

The Commission has received an Addendum and Desk
Item containing the Applicant’s public outreach, additional public comments, and clarifying language related to
Mitigation Measure 410.

Staff recommends that the Commission forward the
recommendation to Town Council to adopt the recirculated Mitigated Negative Declaration and approve the project’s application, subject to the revised findings and Conditions of Approval.

In addition to Planning Staff this evening,
Public Works Staff is here to assist with questions, and then also Angela DaRosa and Nick Pappani of Raney, the
Town’s environmental consultants, are here, as well as Rick Hopkins from Live Oak and Associates, who is the project biologist; they are here for questions.

At this time, I’m going to turn this over to Mr.

Pappani from Raney to add any additional information
regarding this recirculated entity.

NICK PAPPANI: Thank you very much. Again, Nick
Pappani, Vice President with Raney Planning & Management.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
Good evening, Chair and members of the Commission. A
pleasure to be here.

Upon receipt of public comments when the original
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration was
routed, we carefully reviewed all comments, and in response to comments and feedback we worked with our consultant, Live Oak Associates—again, Rick Hopkins is here, Principal of Live Oak—to conduct additional onsite investigation, and that was during a very heavy rain event, and there was
identification of an additional segment of the ephemeral stream that extended into Lot 5, as Ms. Walters mentioned.

As a result of that, when a new but avoidable
impact was identified, the recirculation is required, and so we worked with Live Oak closely to identify mitigation measures to offset that impact, and we can discuss that in more detail as may be needed tonight, but approximately 122 lineal feet of that channel would be impacted by Lot 5
development, so we’ve developed a mitigation measure to offset that, basically creation and restoration of the
onsite channel elsewhere on the project site to fully
mitigate that impact.

So, at this point the document includes
substantial evidence that all potential impacts would be

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
mitigated fully to a less than significant impact, and so an MND is an appropriate document in that case.

I’ll just kind of leave it there, and we’re happy
to answer any further questions as we move forward.

CHAIR BURCH: All right, thank you. Are there
questions of Staff? Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, thank you. Just a quick
follow-up. I’m going to have more questions down the road.

I’d like to know a little more detail about the ephemeral drainage. We did get an erratum, and it addresses, I think, the compensation component to IV-410, which is a pretty important mitigation measure. It looks like almost a
substantial rewrite of that, or at least a lot of text
added, so could you provide a little more background on why this happened just in the last 24 hours or so, it sounds like?
NICK PAPPANI: Thank you, Commissioner. We
decided, in response to public comment, to add some
additional language to the performance standards that were included in that mitigation measure. You’ll notice that it’s mainly restricted to those bullet points where we
decided to work, again, in concert with Live Oak to provide some additional performance language in terms of success criteria for the revegetation along the channel.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
Essentially, we’re trying to leave some
flexibility open in the measure though, recognizing that it’s ultimately up to negotiation with the regional board in terms of the final mitigation package, so we don’t want to box the project in too much to strict criteria, because we want to allow some flexibility, but we did decide to provide some additional detail in response to public
comment to show what an acceptable package should be from a biological perspective.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a quick follow-up. I
know this is a reference to Valley Water, which is another public agency we hadn’t seen before, associated with the project and with that condition anyway, that mitigation measure. Is there a little more background on how Valley Water plays into this?
NICK PAPPANI: I think the reference is to the
storm event. It’s just to provide the metric as to a tenyear storm event, as defined by Valley Water. Rick, maybe you can provide some additional info, if you’d like, but that’s just kind of tying the storm event that after a size storm of that nature to make sure that a qualified
individual goes out and inspects that channel to make sure that there is no erosion occurring, and if so, adaptive measures could be implemented.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there any other questions of
Staff? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. My
question is these mitigation measures, are they deferred until after permitting, or are they done along with the project?
NICK PAPPANI: The permits cannot be obtained
until the CEQA process is complete, so permits will not be obtained until after this process, so that’s why we try to have some level of flexibility. Not deferring, but having some flexibility in these measures to recognize that at the end of this, if the project does get approved, that the Applicant will have to obtain permits from the agencies, and at that point the fine details of the mitigation will be developed.

In CEQA, you have to make sure that you have
performance standards in a mitigation measure. You don’t have to have every detail worked out, especially when you have to get a permit from an agency, because the agency is going to have some level of input on that process, so it’s acceptable to allow performance-based mitigation, making sure that we specify here’s how that channel area needs to be restored elsewhere onsite to offset the impact, but the

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
fine details, those can be worked out with the agency down the line, so it’s kind of a fine balance. Yes, you’re not supposed to defer in CEQA, but you don’t have to figure out every single detail when you’re working with agencies to kind of determine the final package.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: My readings, actually,
that mitigation to be determined at a future date is
impermissible, deferral of mitigation in terms of CEQA, so I was just wanting to know your view on that, because
that’s the reading.

NICK PAPPANI: I would offer that we haven’t
deferred mitigation. When it comes to the biological
mitigation, for example, with respect to the creek, we have a requirement that the amount of channel that’s being
impacted has to be compensated at a one-to-one ratio, so that’s the performance standard basis. That’s something that will have to be met, that the equivalent amount of channel onsite that’s being impacted will have to be
restored elsewhere on the site, so it’s not deferred. We set it forth very clearly that the equivalent amount of impacted channel has to be created and restored on the
project site.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you for that.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Mayer.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER MAYER: Following up on my fellow
Commissioner’s question just now, what does that mean in practice? Let’s say a project is constructed here. Does that mean culverts? What does that look like physically? NICK PAPPANI: Thank you, Commissioner. I’ll
start out, and if we want to get deeper into it, certainly Rick can assist. But what we’ve identified is there are a couple of ways to approach it in concert, again, with Live Oak.

The first suggestion is to remove the existing
culvert. We want to naturalize that channel as much as
possible. There’s an existing culvert that’s about 15-20’ long, I think, a little bit upslope in the ephemeral
stream. Remove that culvert, restore that portion of the channel, and then also—which Live Oak has been involved in in other projects—the onsite ephemeral feature. It has some in-size portions where there is actually a little bit of a bed, and then it has just kind of swale areas that are more kind of just flat areas, and so creating additional incise portions of that channel, so it’s kind of a more fluid, natural channel feature. There is ample room onsite to do that and exceed the amount of area that’s being impacted by the project, which again, is that approximately 122 lineal feet. So, it’s remove an existing culvert, naturalizing the

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
channel, creating more in-size portions, and there is ample room onsite to do that.

COMMISSIONER MAYER: Great. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there any further questions of
Staff at this time? Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I do have a couple of
questions just about the area having to do with some of the plantings and everything near Lots 5 and 6, so I’m not
exactly sure who on Staff, or maybe this is something that the landscape architect should answer in a little bit. If that’s the case, that’s really fine, I can ask when we have the Applicant team up.

It just is about the appropriateness of some of
the plants that are being planned to plant there, so I was hoping that the environmental consultants would be able to confirm that or not. Is that an appropriate question to ask of them?
ERIN WALTERS: The proposed vegetation that’s
being planted on the individual lots? The question is, is that appropriate to plant onsite or close to the ephemeral feature?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Close to the ephemeral
features, yes.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I would defer to the Applicant
first, the landscape architect
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And then follow-up?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: …and then you follow up that.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Perfect. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: All right, any further questions of
Staff at this time? Seeing none, I will now open the public portion of the hearing, and I will call the Applicant to speak. Jim Foley.

JIM FOLEY: Good evening, Planning Commission and
Staff. Happy to be back here. This was continued, as you heard, from our hearing in December.

There were a number of questions that came out of
that hearing from the Planning Commission, and those are found in the report. I’m sure you’ll have additional
questions or want feedback about those, but the consultant team has answered that, I think, pretty clearly.

We also heard from several of the neighbors; many
of them are here tonight. We were able to meet with a few of them, specifically the ones on Twin Oaks that are
immediately adjacent to that property line, and discuss a few of the things that we had heard in the last meeting.

That didn’t occur until just a couple of weeks ago, and then we got some really, I guess, mortifying feedback from

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
them yesterday, and I think a lot of the requests that they have as follow-ups are going to be achievable, so hopefully we can work with them to satisfy that.

I know some of the items that had come up prior
we sort of took a stab at along the property line as far as drainage is concerned and things like that, so I think
we’re happy to provide that as shown in what we have, or if there are other ways to design what we do along that
property line, we’re open to working with them on that.

Request for additional screening, we’re happy to do all these things subject to what we can do with defensible
space and to your question about appropriate species and things like that.

So, I think that there’s a little bit of work in
progress there. We have some time before hopefully this goes to Town Council next for approval. Other than that, we’re here with the team. We have a couple of people
online. We have our architect, our consulting arborist, our landscape architect as well. We can answer any follow-ups you have from the last hearing or what you found in the Staff Report.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions
of the Applicant? I do. I did see the letter where you
reference speaking to three of the neighbors. I do realize

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
you probably kind of hurried to get that in to verify that you had had those conversations, and I was wondering if you would expand a bit on those conversations of what screening means, of what you talk about regarding the draining, so on our part, as this moves forward, we fully understand what those things mean and what tentative agreements you’ve
made.

JIM FOLEY: Sure. We don’t have any agreement
yet. I think that from the last hearing one of the things that we heard was a lot of concerns about drainage and site drainage. We did go into it a little bit with HMH, the
engineer here, about the overall plan for the site and the drainage, and I think some of the stuff got lost through that conversation, so we wanted to clarify that. That has been found in some of the comment responses that have come back to you about how that design works.

Then, on top of that, just to give assurances to
those neighbors who have lived there much longer and
understand how that hillside can flow or not flow and had complaints in the past about mudslides into the pool or whatnot, we worked with HMH to try to come up with like a belt and suspenders approach of what can we do along the property line.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
So, that was something that we proposed and we
put back in our Exhibit, along with some of the other
questions from the Planning Commission regarding the open spaces easements that we hadn’t necessarily planned for before, regarding some of the trail reservation that we hadn’t planned for before, as a suggestion to address
those.

I don’t think we got specific feedback from the
neighbors about we like this or we don’t like this. There were some questions about it. Where does it go? How does it handle the drainage? Our original design, we think, is
adequate to handle the drainage of the hillside, but again, this was something extra we wanted to provide just to be doubly sure. We’re happy to continue that conversation. Is it appropriate to have it? Does it then compete with the screening that we’d like to offer them? I don't know, but we can work through that.

As far as screening, the request was let’s get
some taller trees there along the property line to screen some of the views of what’s going to be developed on the hillside. We’re happy to pursue that, and we think it’s a very reasonable request, we just don’t know what we can accommodate. There’s a list of questions that we just got,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
and just generally speaking, we haven’t even had a chance to reengage with the neighbors on those specific items.

But let’s say there are ten items, eight of them
are a certainty, two of them we might have to look into a little bit more as far as making accommodations and working with them. But beyond that, I wish I had more specifics to share, but we just haven’t had enough time to do that.

CHAIR BURCH: The ten questions came from the
neighbors direct to your team then?
JIM FOLEY: Yes.

CHAIR BURCH: They’re not part of our packet, so
I assume.

JIM FOLEY: No.

CHAIR BURCH: All right. Are there any other
questions of the Applicant? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I have a question.

Somewhere I read, did the hardscape increase since it came before us in December? It seems like I read somewhere that it was quite an increase.

JIM FOLEY: That’s a specific question for our
civil engineer, and I think they put details in there as to what the discrepancy was about how it was originally
designed, what was represented in certain versions of our submittal, and then ultimately there was an edit that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
showed a larger number of impervious surfaces. If you want to get technical about it, I’ll have to bring up HMH to describe to you what exactly happened there and the cadence of in what submittals that occurred, but in any event, the entire design of the drainage, the treatment, and the
stormwater and all that has all been engineered and
compliant with what we have designed.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions of the
Applicant at this time?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, I had a question. With
regard to the trails, did you… I know that the current
proposal includes the easement along, you know, that area, and but obviously not including the construction and/or maintenance of the trail, so the… In your Letter of
Justification, you just are claiming that the… Sorry, let me find the specific. Essentially, I don’t want to misquote it, but basically the project is already so expensive that any additional cost is just too much. Did you happen to look at all into how much it would cost to add the trail? JIM FOLEY: I don’t have like a rough order of
magnitude or dollar figure associated with it. We’ve been through an exhaustive process. The soft cost budget for this over the years, and the time that it’s taken, it’s

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
just well beyond what was originally budgeted, so it’s
literally at a breaking point, and under the State laws we’re at that point where it just is what it is.

I mean, we did our best. We came here in the last
hearing to take all the feedback we can, but in that
hearing it was we are not going to do this, we just can’t, and now we’re here, okay, we have been able to spend a lot of dollars with HMH on designing easements. There are even more dollars that have to be spent to finalize and
formalize the easements, record the easements. I mean,
consulting fees in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, if that helps you.

Then also on top of that, the trail, which
luckily aligns with some of that, so some of that can be helpful to, hey, we’re going to prepare for this.

As far as grading exercises, or whatever would be
done in an ongoing maintenance program, each individual lot here, there is no common area association created in the HOA. The CC&Rs are specifically for some of the ongoing maintenance and drainage requirements they apply to each specific property owner, so there is not an entity there that could have an ongoing maintenance, assess each
property owner for the trail. I don't know what I’ve just kind of said off the top of my head in the last five

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
minutes, but are we in the millions of dollars yet to do that. It’s just literally impossible to accommodate the installation and maintenance of the trail.

But we thought let’s at least put our best foot
forward to prepare for it in case Midpeninsula Open Space or a private donor was able to come in and put that in
place later, or another project somehow that needed
something, that we could at least take one more step than we’re able to do just on the project on its own.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you. I know
that’s it’s been a long project process, but for us, part of our job is to make sure for any of the waivers that if we required it, it would render the project infeasible
essentially, so I appreciate the information, and I
appreciate the step of including the easement part, because that does a lot. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there any further questions of
the Applicant at this time? Seeing none, we’ll move onto other speakers, and I’m sure we will have plenty of
questions for you at the end.

JIM FOLEY: Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. I’m now going to call
forward Cindy Clark.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
CINDY CLARK: Thank you, Commissioners, for your
time tonight. I know this has been a great deal of work and you’ve put a lot of enthusiasm in it, and I really
appreciate it, and I appreciate this time to speak as well.

My name is Cindy Clark. I’m a Los Gatos resident,
and I live about a mile-and-a-half away from the proposed project. Tonight I’d like to make three points.

Just going back to how this all started, you’re
quite aware of the California legislature, they passed
bills to alleviate the State’s severe affordability crisis and provide homes for working and middle-class families, and yet this 17-acre development is going to provide only three token below-market homes, and nine giant homes for the very wealthy who will probably be purchasing these as second or third houses for investment opportunities.

Number two, the loss of these 17 acres of open
space and the removal of 225 established trees will cause destruction of food sources and homes for native animals, including songbirds, owls, hawks, and pollinators that the residents of Los Gatos enjoy. It will cause increased risk of runoff and flooding, and risk of damage to the ephemeral stream and its inhabitants. Neighbors and Town residents deserve an EIR to determine and address the full impact of these damages before (inaudible).

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
Number three, I really appreciate your
Commissioner’s request for clarification on whether open space easements and/or trails can be implemented on the proposed project, however, I don’t think this is a very good solution. I’m an open space outdoor education docent with Midpeninsula Open Space, so I’ve spent a lot of time in open space. Open space usually has native trees and a place for animals to roam, and this is like two edges on the property, and I couldn’t tell if the edges actually continued off so there was a trail that would connect to areas, or just like it went one way and it stopped. It
looks like it stops.

And then, finally, there is no money for trails,
so I just think that it was a rather weak solution for all the loss that the community is going to experience. Thank you very much.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Thank you. Next, I have John Witkin.

JOHN WITKIN: Thank you, Commissioners. I think
it should be the duty of the Planning Commission to protect its citizens from zealous over-building and subsequent
safety concerns.

There is a developer gold rush to build houses
for multi-millionaires, and we are disregarding the safety

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
components of building on a sensitive hillside with an
earthquake/landslide zone. Also, we have a high fire zone, and a watershed stream running through the development at its highest building density.

We need the State mandated Environmental Impact
Report to ensure the issues are dealt with properly. There was an EIR done previously. Why can’t we just slow down and update and certify this plan? These issues should not be resolved during construction and be subject to mitigation by tractor. These red flag safety issues need to be fully understood and taken into account before the shovels hit the dirt.

Please reconsider a short pause and require a
certified EIR before approval of this entitlement. Think of the current neighbors, landslide and fire issues, with a riparian corridor, and the ephemeral stream potential for catastrophes.

Thank you for listening. I’ve been really lucky
to live on this property for seven years. I was born and raised there and had a chance to move back in ten years. We love our hillside, we love our neighbors, we love our
neighborhood. Thank you very much.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions?
Commissioner Burnett.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, thank you. Have you
spoken with…
JOHN WITKIN: We had an hour last week with Mr.

Foley.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Have any of your issues
been resolved?
JOHN WITKIN: I just think there are some issues
with dealing with some of these things that haven’t been resolved. I mean, it was, I think, eight years ago they did an 850-page environmental report, but it didn’t really… It just needs to be certified and gone through, in my opinion.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Thank you,
CHAIR BURCH: Can I ask, during the time that you
did meet with the Applicant, were there any specific
concerns that perhaps you didn’t mention tonight—I know you mentioned the landslides, fire safety—that you potentially did discuss with the Applicant that you would like us to be aware of?
JOHN WITKIN: No, we had a nice conversation with
Mr. Foley. He listened.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. All right, Craig
Fordyce.

CRAIG FORDYCE: Hello. We have lived at 191
Longmeadow Drive since 1999 and raised our five children

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
there. Our home is at the end of the cul de sac,
immediately downhill from the project site. Lot 5, which appears to include a home constructed on top of the
ephemeral stream, is located directly behind our home. Our home was one of the last four constructed on Longmeadow.

A review of the submissions to the Town Council
from the 1950s and 1970s offer evidence that both the rural hillside was to remain in exchange for density given at the time, and that the Surrey Farms neighborhood would stop at the end of the cul de sac specifically to halt a
development before it reached Ross Creek. Since 1975, this land has been held in the Resource Conservation space.

This development will radically affect the
landscape, the environment, and the biological resources in the neighborhood. Because of the reliance on a Mitigated Negative Declaration instead of conducting a formal EIR, we believe we’re not even aware of the potential impacts this development will have, because much of the mitigation is speculative, future-oriented, and to be determined. We have no security that our health and safety will not be
affected.

The recirculated MND identifies a newly
recognized significant impact associated with the project’s intrusion into a jurisdictional ephemeral stream,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
particularly in the area of proposed Lot 5. The
recirculated MND also includes an increase in the project’s residential square footage from 62,000 feet to more than 97,000 feet. This is a substantial change in the scale and intensity of the proposed development, and raises serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the environmental review conducted under CEQA.

Technical analyses are only reliable if they are
based upon an accurate and stable project description. It should be noted that the MND relies in part on an
uncertified 2017 EIR, which was analyzed in a project that was much smaller than the current proposed project. This is not addressed in the Staff Report.

A full EIR presents the opportunity for study and
evaluation that the MND admittedly did not provide, one of which would be alternatives to the project that could
protect both the biological resources of the rural hillside and the neighborhood below. For example, an EIR might have evaluated a project without Lot 5, which seems to be at least one logical alternative. The Applicant is relying on State housing laws to build this project.

Housing law does not reduce or waive CEQA review.

Compliance with CEQA is mandatory and independent of zoning or housing authorization. The standard for conducting an

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
EIR is intentionally low. 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 EIR instead. We know that there will be significant environmental impacts. They have been identified by the neighbors, Santa Clara Valley Alliance, Sierra Club, and the Water Quality Board. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Please don’t move. Are
there any questions for the speaker? I have one. Go ahead, Commissioner Thomas. Then I’ll go.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: You go.

CHAIR BURCH: I’m going to go back to the letter
that we got from Mr. Foley today that appears to reference a conversation concerning the proximity of the home to your property. Could you please share with us that conversation, what you took away from it, what your understanding was at the end of it, and what steps there may be?
JOHN WITKIN: Well, all of our conversation was
just a conversation. Mr. Foley was kind to come over to our house, we all met, and we talked about the project, what was changed, and maybe some mitigation things.

For one, the home on Lot 5 is very close to our
house, and we didn’t know if it could be pushed off the ephemeral stream, and he was going to looking into that,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
and I think it’s going to be… I don't know if that’s doable or not, or we just say hey, Lot 5 is off the table and
we’re going to do eight homes, but we talked about that.

We talked about doing a couple of rows of redwood
trees, not against the property line, but a little bit
farther inland. And then if you look at the plan on those Lots 5 and 6, you’ll see that initially you had a lot of trees that were planted, and then the new plan, and I don't know if it’s defensible space or not, but it had less trees and it had some shrubs put in there, and so one of our
concerns—and I think I can speak for my neighbors—is that we’re going to be looking into this huge development that is raised above us, that is going to be even raised higher when they build the homes, and it’s just going to have a pretty big screening issue for all of us, so we just didn’t know how to mitigate it all.

We did talk about water mitigation, and they are
offering a culvert at the bottom as like a belt and
suspenders option, and if that works, that’s great. We
don’t know if it works. We think maybe an EIR could help determine that.

We talked about, there were about ten things, off
the top of my head. We did talk about the size
differential, which was brought up today, about the two

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
different… Well, about the mistake that was made that made the edit, but we still don’t know the resolution of that.

It wasn’t like we were argumentative or anything.

It was a friendly conversation, just talking about like how do we do this, if we do it.

CHAIR BURCH: And based on that conversation, if
this moves forward today, what is your understanding of next steps between you and the Applicant?
JOHN WITKIN: Jim was going to talk to his team,
and then they were going to digest it, and that was from our meeting. Then Jill, my wife, subsequently we said okay, well, what are some of the things that he asked us to send to him, and we did send it to him recently—we’ve been
traveling—and so, we forwarded that along, and he says, “We’ll consider it,” but there was no hard answer; it was just more of a conversation.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay, thank you. Commissioner
Thomas. That was yours? Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I did want to follow-up on
one thing you just said. You mentioned a culvert.

JOHN WITKIN: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: And I’m a little curious to
know what the culvert would be for. Is it to address
potential flood issues?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
JOHN WITKIN: Yes, I believe. What I understand
is they developed a plan that they think mitigates the
water runoff, I guess. So, we weren’t so sure about that, because we’ve had a lot of water runoff without any
building up there, or any streets and roads and houses that couldn’t absorb water. He showed us a plan that shows a culvert like on the, I think it’s on the property line.

This kind of feeds down towards the catch basin.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: That’s okay; we don’t have
to get into it too much. I think I will have some follow-up questions for the civil engineer about it, because my
understanding was that the storm drain would come down the hill, effectively be defused by the storm drain
improvements and not be intended to… We’re dealing with a net decrease, which I’ll get into a little bit more later, but thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Are there any further questions?
Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I have a question.

Did it come up at all about the CC&Rs or the homeowners’ responsibilities to maintain the ponds or the catch basins? Did you discuss that at all?
JOHN WITKIN: Yes, we discussed our concerns
about that, meaning like who is going to manage this? If

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
there is a problem, who is responsible? How do you go after them? Is there like a board or an HOA? How is the HOA
funded? Does it have enough money in an HOA to offset any potential risks? We talked about all those concerns.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: And that if you had a pond
on your…
JOHN WITKIN: That’s on Lot 6, the pond, but
we’ve had water intrusion from the hill.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Any further questions? Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I know that there’s a lot
of concerns, but I just don’t want to make any assumptions, so I would say that probably the water drainage and runoff issue and potential flooding, is that pretty much your top concern, and then the second is the screening and privacy? JOHN WITKIN: Well, I think it’s a whole bucket
that holds all that, including the ephemeral stream and keeping that the way it is currently, and noise mitigation, light mitigation, just all the effects that you would have from such a development.

Also, we did talk about how does the development
occur, and I believe the way it’s going to occur is they’ll put the infrastructure in place, and then they’ll build

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
houses over time, and so we are concerned about a “ghost town” and if it does get built or doesn’t get built all the way, and then they can’t build the homes, and now we’re looking at a ghost town, which is even probably worse than a development.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: All right, any further questions?
No. Thank you very much. Lee Quintana.

LEE QUINTANA: Good evening. First, I have to say
that I’m speaking as an individual resident and not as a member of the Historic Preservation Committee. I’m going to try to talk really fast, which is not my mode, because I have a lot to say.

The first thing I want to say is that I recommend
that you do not adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and that you forward the project to the Town Council
without a recommendation, since it’s impossible to approve a project if you don’t have the environmental done.

I want to talk about the CC&Rs and the individual
property responsibilities. I want to talk about hydrology, specifically aboveground, underground, and the importance of looking at it as a complete system, and not putting
things off for further study later, particularly in
response to other agencies that issue permits. If they

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
issue permits and you’ve approved the project, you actually limit their ability to impose conditions.

This project is all about water: aboveground
water, belowground water, runoff, and NPDES, and it’s all connected. You have an existing state, you have a proposed project, the proposed project creates impacts, which are then mitigated, but if you’re not looking at everything at the same time and there is an interconnectedness between aboveground hydrology and belowground hydrology, then you can’t possibly do a good job of assessing the impacts of the entire project. I think that’s one of the downfalls of this Negative Declaration.

The other thing I want to talk about is the CC&Rs
and the responsibility of the individual homeowners to
monitor and report on the various things that are required as mitigation. This project as a whole is the subdivision, and the subdivision creates the impacts and requires the mitigation. If you just put it on the individual property owners after the subdivision, you are not treating all
equally, and you’re putting a greater burden on some and not on others.

In addition to that, you’re creating what I would
call not good governance, because you’re going to have to get all these individual reports on each property rather

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
than one report that comes to the Town that they can
consider as a whole.

I don’t have time to say anything else, so I
guess I’ll just see if you have any questions.

CHAIR BURCH: Any questions for the speaker? I
have a question. You were talking about the CC&Rs and the responsibility being on the individuals versus like an HOA or something. In your experience, do you feel if this
becomes less an individual responsibility and more of a governing body, does that create a better situation?
LEE QUINTANA: I think in my experience in San
Jose, there are several instances where it was put on
individual properties rather than on the whole, and what happened was that it didn’t get done, because it was on each individual property owner, and some of this stuff is technical, they don’t know how to do that, and it didn’t work; we had problems if it was on that.

And we also had problems if we approved a project
before we had the permits from Fish and Game or the Water Board, because it could change the project, and sometimes since they had approval already, the Water Board and the Fish and Game couldn’t get the requirements that they
wanted and there was a compromise made, because the project was already approved and it limited them, because they’re

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
permit issuing, and once you’ve approved the project,
they’re almost obliged to issue a permit and get as best mitigation as they can.

CHAIR BURCH: In an instance like that where,
let’s say, the other jurisdiction was able to review prior to a permit, what’s an example in this of something you think they would be able to do to benefit that they
wouldn’t be able to do if we had already approved?
LEE QUINTANA: Well, for one thing, I’ve heard
controversy over whether the culvert should be taken out or the culvert shouldn’t be taken out. From what I read, the Water Control Board wants the culvert taken out, wants it out of the Waters of the State, and so that’s one thing, and that affects other things. Especially in the hillsides where the hydrology is more complicated, you need to know ahead of time as best you can what all the impacts on the hydrology are, both aboveground and belowground. By that, I mean what mitigation is going to occur belowground and if those mitigations are going to create other impacts, which then need to be addressed, and to do that you have to
coordinate it altogether, not piecemeal.

CHAIR BURCH: Understood. Thank you. Are there
any other questions for the speaker? No. Thank you very much. Jill Fordyce.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
JILL FORDYCE: Hi. Thank you so much for being
here tonight. Because there are so many issues of public interest, the environment and safety, regarding this
project, I personally have given very little time to
addressing our own issues of us abutting the project, so I’m going to do that a little bit tonight.

This neighborhood is built on top of our home and
the homes of our two adjacent neighbors. Literally on top, on a hillside above us, looking down into our homes and yards. All the water, dust, debris, noise, lights,
pollution, both during construction and afterward, will flow downhill into our homes.

Lot 5 is the closest, directly behind us, and
proposes the largest home, a 40’ structure atop a retaining wall. There is currently no screening in place between Lot 5 and our home. We will go from looking out at a rural
hillside to looking at an enormous structure with all of its lights, noise, and cars.

In the Staff Report, Applicant response to the
request to address our privacy concerns to tree placement and buffering with native species is as follows: “HMH can add shrubs and proposed trees to create a stronger
vegetative buffer in the area discussed.” Staff’s note is that there is minimal screening between the neighboring

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
rear properties and Lot 5. Indeed, there does not appear to be any between our home and the development as a whole.

Shrubs are not a buffer; there needs to be more.

We have proposed to Mr. Foley rows of redwood
trees, an additional area of open space or easements, or reorientation or elimination of Lot 5, and we hope that at a minimum these measures will be taken to ensure that both the existing neighborhood and the proposed new neighborhood are protected.

We’ve talked a lot about the ephemeral stream,
and I really appreciate Ms. Quintana’s comments about
looking at this project holistically. When we start
modifying one part, what happens to the next part
aboveground and belowground? This is a newly discovered thing in February of this year, and I don’t believe the study has been adequate.

One of the mitigation measures is to submit an
application to the Water Quality Control Board and obtain written verification of certification before ground
disturbance begins. How can the Town approve the project if there is a primary issue that has not been resolved? The Water Quality Control Board itself commented that the
recirculated MND does not quantify the project’s impacts on Waters of the State or demonstrate that it’s feasible to

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
mitigate the project impacts to a less than significant level. In other words, the board acknowledged jurisdiction and questioned whether the CEQA document actually proves that the mitigation will work. So, what happens if these permits are granted?
They spoke earlier about replacing things and
adding different parts to the channel and part of it is taken away, and I think this also ignores the fact that we are dealing with a natural, rural environment that has
never been disturbed. It’s the same thing with the trees.

We’ve submitted evidence and reports before that say once you take away this historic oak forest, ancient oak forest, replacing the trees, the habitat will never be the same.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? Okay, thank you. Next is William Meleyco.

WILLIAM MELEYCO: My name is William Meleyco.

I’ve lived at 189 Longmeadow Drive for 42 years. The
developer’s drainage system flows directly into my back yard. I want to raise two connected problems that will
require a full Environmental Impact Report.

Number one, the paved and roof surface of this
project grew by 56% between the original filing and updated version, from 62,000 to 97,000 square feet. No one has
explained why. Every technical study submitted, the

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
drainage model, the soil stability report, and the air
quality analysis, was calculated using the smaller,
original number. This Commission is being asked to approve a project based on engineering studies of a much smaller project.

The environmental baseline itself is still
incomplete. The stream on the lot directly behind our homes was missed entirely by the original surveys, discovered only when a biologist visited during an actual storm 14 months into the review. If a whole stream is missed, the Commission should ask what else did a dry season survey fail to find?
The developers say there is no stream, but their
own environmental consultant wrote in June 2026, Exhibit 37, that the water feature being filled is, “presumed to be the Water of the State.” Presumed, not confirmed. Two State agencies have independent authority here: the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which raised
concerns about this property in 2015; and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Under California law, the ephemeral stream is protected Waters of the State. The
draft conditions that put those agency reviews after
tonight’s vote is backwards. If either agency requires a redesign, this Commission will have approved something that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
could no longer be built. Those reviews must come before, not after, your approval.

Also, please note that the air quality study and
the noise study both admit that the project exceeds legal limits, but was run as if nothing could be done to fix it.

I’m asking for three things. Require a full
Environmental Impact Report; require that these two
agencies complete their reviews before, not after, your approval; and require a full explanation of the increase in the surface area with updated studies to match. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Don’t leave yet. Are
there any questions of the speaker? I do. For
clarification, you mentioned the stream that was more
recently found. Can you clarify when there were people
onsite that…
WILLIAM MELEYCO: No, I can’t. It just came from
the reports.

CHAIR BURCH: Just came from the reports. Okay.

My next question, I’m going to kind of go back. I know you have had some conversations with the Applicant, and some of those were about drainage and how they’re going to be
trying to redirect water away from your property.

WILLIAM MELEYCO: There was very little
conversation about drainage. They simply proposed this

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
culvert along the property line between our property and theirs, suggesting that well, things will be taken care of in the future. During that meeting, there were no promises, there was we’ll look into it, we’ll do what we can.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Any other questions?
Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can you just repeat your
second ask again?
WILLIAM MELEYCO: My second ask?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: From your list of three.

WILLIAM MELEYCO: Number two. That the two state
agencies do their reviews before you guys approve this.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions? No. Thank you
very much. Next I have is Cathy Frazier.

CATHY FRAZIER: Hi, thank you for having the
meeting. My concern remains the same as it always was, that this seems to be a very high-density development on a
substandard road in a high fire danger zone, and that’s my biggest concern and continues to be. I’ve lived in Surrey Farms, but not right next to the development, for about 30 years.

I also wanted to just make a comment on something
that the developer had said at a prior meeting. He said

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
these huge, two-story homes fit right in with the
neighborhood. Only Twin Oaks has two-story homes. All the rest of Surrey Farms is limited to one-story homes, so
these really are kind of overwhelming. That’s all I have to say. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? No. Thank you very much. The last speaker card I have, unless somebody is holding onto one, is Dave Greenfield.

DAVE GREENFIELD: Hi, thank you, Planning
Commission. I’m Dave; I live on 141 Longmeadow Drive.

As the builder mentioned, this has been going on
for a lot of years, and we’ve been presenting a lot of the same issues for a lot of years. I totally support the EIR comments. I don’t need to go into them in more depth; I think my neighbors very well articulated them.

As one of the original requesters of the trail, I
do appreciate that efforts are being made here. I think they’re a little bit inadequate, but thank you for a start here.

And I also want to support the fire safety
concerns in terms of limited amount of traffic all funneled eventually down Kennedy and in a very constrained manner, which seems to be a concern.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
An issue that’s been brought up for years and
years is the impact on Longmeadow and a few houses on Twin Oaks, and of this building, of all the trucks going in, all the noise, all the traffic, all the safety concerns, all going down one road. Having 11 homes and one home off a different street doesn’t really equate an additional
mitigation on other neighbors. It seems like everything is on Longmeadow, and 95,000 feet of hardscape and trucks
going up Longmeadow scares me. I mean, it’s months to years of construction traffic coming in and amplifying points that have been brought up in the past, but they don’t seem to have made any difference, and I wanted to bring these up again. I know you’ve heard them before, but the impact on a few blocks of Longmeadow and Twin Oaks seems really, really severe. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Thank you. Are there any questions
for the speaker? All right, thank you very much. I do not have any more speaker cards, unless somebody at the last minute is going to want to speak. If not, the Applicant now can come back up to the podium and give any final
statements, address anything that you just heard, or
provide any additional information.

JIM FOLEY: Sure. Thanks for that. I appreciate a
lot of these comments. There are not a lot of new comments.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
We’ve reviewed a lot of this information in written form submitted over time. I think just the notion of the
environmental document; all I’ll say is we stand behind our consultants. Actually, the Town is the lead agency who then has hired Raney, who has done a very good job of analyzing what the correct documents are, what the correct technical studies are, amended them, and responded to everything
thoroughly. I think there is a lot of opinion that we hear, and that’s fair, because it’s not everybody’s everyday
business to engage in these types of activities, so our approach is to help respond as much as we can.

I know it was a little short timeframe, but at
least the three specific neighbors we had a chance to
discuss with are right there against the property line, and our intention is to continue to work with them on the
questions that you have asked them. Like we said earlier, we haven’t had a lot of time, and I think if you have faith in us, and hopefully they do too, that we want to be good neighbors with this, best management practices for
construction, a lot of those things over time. I know it may seem scary, but that’s our intention as a thoughtful developer.

The technical questions with regard to the
impervious surface, with regard to the drainage, we have

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
HMH here. I’m sure you have, Chair, some of those concerns, and hopefully those questions get answered for the members of the public that are raising them as well.

I think the Dodge family is a generational
family, they’re well intended with this project, and they have been for a long time. There may be some debate on what the issue was, but we have conflicting evidence that Bob Dodge originally did intend for this to be the final phase of Surrey Farms, and that’s been stated in prior letters that we’ve submitted, so we just want to help see that
through and finish it off in a responsible and elegant way.

We’re here for more questions. Like I said
before, we have our whole team here available to you.

CHAIR BURCH: Great. Are there questions of the
Applicant? Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: You might have covered this
last time, but I wanted to at least ask what’s the
construction build-out plan starting from square one? Are you staying on as the owner, builder, contractor, or is this property going to be sold to others? Can you share some of the details?
JIM FOLEY: From an entitlement development
perspective, multiple exits are always on the table. Right now, the intention is to entitle, plan, permit, build,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
deliver, and sell. That’s a long process, as you know.

There’s a lot more that goes into this. There are all the agency permits that we’ve talked a lot about tonight. There are all the improvement drawings and permits that need to be obtained, and that needs to get started. There is plenty of work to do that is probably going to take the better part of two years before you’ll see a shovel in the ground.

Maybe the improvements start a little bit early, but then we have to plan for and permit each individual home, so it’s a longer rollout, which hopefully is less impactful to the neighborhood and everything else, but a subdivision of this nature definitely takes some time, and that’s the plan for now, to continue down that path and stay the course and deliver it.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Have you thought through any
details? Like is there going to be a model complex and
where it would be located, and any phasing?
JIM FOLEY: Model?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, a model complex. Would
there be model homes?
JIM FOLEY: No, I don’t think so. The character
of these homes is kind of full, custom home design. We’ve got a cohesive planning and architecture plan for all of them, but it wouldn’t be… Maybe what you’re thinking of is

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
more like if we had a 30-40 home subdivision with a model.

I don’t think in this setting the model works. I think we have three home types, and then we have the affordable home types, so maybe just be more conceptual from that.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: So, there wouldn’t be any
sales operation onsite?
JIM FOLEY: That’s not intended, no.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay. Twelve lots, pretty
simple to come up with a phasing plan, or at least a draft of the phasing plan. You know which ones you’re going to build first, or start at the top and work down?
JIM FOLEY: We haven’t quite got to that detail
yet, but I know in the conditions we have to deliver the affordables, so I think that makes sense, and if you just look at the way that it’s laid out, I think that coming from the bottom and continuing on is probably the likely direction. The construction logistics and all that, again, haven’t really been vetted yet until we get into that
phase. I don't know if I have a good answer on exactly how that sequence is going to go.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, and forgive me,
because this is a little hazy. Is this a publicly dedicated street, and if not, is it in a private road maintenance agreement?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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: (Inaudible).

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay. So, there would be a
private road maintenance agreement at the very least, it sounds like, between all…
JIM FOLEY: Yes, on every lot. Private road goes
over the lot.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay. So, the guy at the
end, is he the one that travels? Let’s say, Lot 11. I know one of the lots comes off Cerro Vista, not sure of this one, but the ones…
JIM FOLEY: I know which areas…
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Is everyone equally on the
hook?
JIM FOLEY: Yes.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I guess what I’m getting at
is have you guys thought through the details, not only this private road maintenance agreement, but how it might fan out to cover other features, the storm facilities, which are going to be on individual lots?
JIM FOLEY: Yes, all of that is in the CC&Rs
draft. Instead of an association managing that, each home is bound by the recorded CC&Rs on their lot, which is a code enforceable obligation.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Right.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
JIM FOLEY: And then the same with maintenance of
the road and participation. I mean, it’s going to be
between neighbors. They all own one segment of the road.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thanks.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: How does that impact the
affordable units?
JIM FOLEY: That’s a good question.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Is that maybe a question
for Staff? Does that impact the cost, or like the longterm? I don't know.

JIM FOLEY: I know that Los Gatos, it has house
keys or whatever, that manages the affordable program. I don't know if they manage that part of it.

ERIN WALTERS: The way the lots are shown and
presented is that each of the affordable units own to the center of the street in front of their home. Lot 1, I think it’s Lot 1, or the first one as you approach, owns a longer stretch of land that goes all the way out to Twin Oaks.

Those would all be part of the agreement for the affordable unit; they’d be responsible for that.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: How is that financially
factored into the affordability, or the cost, because

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
that’s more of a maintenance issue than just your typical land?
DIRECTOR PAULSON: I’m happy to jump in. This is
not typical from a BMP perspective. This is exactly one of the reasons why we don’t do BMPs in the hillsides
typically, so we will have to work through those issues. I know there is not going to be an HOA, so I don't know if there will be dues. In other typical projects, the BMPs pay the HOAs just like every other unit, so they manage those common areas. So, we’ll have to work through logistics on this on the back end of what that means, from whether it’s road maintenance or onsite maintenance.

CHAIR BURCH: I’m going to ask a follow-up
question about that then. Would you be willing, as part of this discussion, in lieu of having Lot 1 be responsible for hundreds of feet of that road, to move some of that
responsibility to like Lot 2 and Lot 3? I think when you’re talking about people who are already struggling, that level of maintenance is going to be really difficult, and what will happen is the maintenance will be deferred to the
point that the road will be unmanageable.

JIM FOLEY: I don't know. I can’t answer or
commit without understanding what it means. I was headed where Mr. Paulson was headed too, which is either a BMP or

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
a BMR is still subject to HOA dues. Do they get subsidized through the program? I can’t answer that, so in the same regard would the program also subsidize a maintenance
assessment five years down the road? If it’s yes, then does that question… I know what you’re getting at, but does it matter? Is it since they’re going to have to do that whole segment anyway no matter who is in there, because they’re all BMRs, does it not impact any individual owner? I don't know the answer to that.

CHAIR BURCH: No, but if you look at the others,
the Lot 11 and Lot 12 have an equal street frontage and an equal footage on the road. It would make sense to me that Lot 1 would have an equal footage of the road, and then the balance be distributed.

JIM FOLEY: I just don’t know that if it’s
possible that none of them are going to end up paying for that anyway.

CHAIR BURCH: No, I’m not saying they shouldn’t,
I’m saying if Lot 11 and Lot 12 are paying for what looks like maybe 25’-30’ if I’m just scaling of street
maintenance that’s in front of their property, in my
opinion Lot 1 should probably have the same, not what
appears to be hundreds, and not just for that. We both know that maintaining roads is not cheap. That will not be done,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
so if we were to try to put some language in that limited Lot 1 to be equal in responsibility to the other BMR
properties.

JIM FOLEY: Yes, if you’re talking about creating
a condition or something, I don’t think that bothers us. I mean; I guess we’d have to see after the fact. I just don’t know. Those house keys say that no matter what it is,
they’re just going to subsidize all of that 20, 20, and 60, so then it doesn’t matter to the individual lot. I just don’t know. Or is it like you say? Is it pro rata to each one and it’s actually coming out of the bankroll of each owner? I have no idea. I mean, we’re happy to do whatever is fair.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I actually have a follow-up
about that road area, because the material being used is going to be permeable, correct? Is it for the entire road, all the way from Twin Oaks, or just the part that is more this portion closer to the ephemeral?
JIM FOLEY: I’d direct this to HMH to get the
specific details, if you want them to come now.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, thank you.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Rafael Hernandez, HMH. The
pervious pavement would go basically up to Lot 3.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, would go from Lot 3 to
the cul de sac?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: No, from Lot 3 down to Twin
Oaks.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: That’s the only part that’s
the permeable?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Along the private road, yes.

CHAIR BURCH: To clarify, that is where you’re
talking about the permeable concrete going from Lot 3 all the way up to Lot 6 and Lot 7; it’s the standard concrete material?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Correct.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, sorry, that’s not
what I remember from last… Did that change from the
previous?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: No. We had permeable pavers on
the private driveways. We did eliminate some of those from the last time.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. Which ones were
swapped out, and what material are they now?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: I believe we had permeable
pavers on Lot 9, Lot 8, and Lot 7, and we swapped that out for just standard concrete.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay. And can you explain
the reason for that change?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Yes, just efficiency of
stormwater. There were some concerns about the grade of the driveway leading up to those homes, and after revisiting our stormwater approach and calculations, we saw
opportunities to simplify the design by just proposing
standard concrete and leaving pervious pavement where it was required.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Can you also walk us
through for the road material, the reason and the choice of the permeable versus impervious?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Sure. Basically, from Twin
Oaks Drive…
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Sorry, I’m actually going
to interrupt you. Is it possible to have the site plan up while we’re talking about this?
CHAIR BURCH: It’s the overall site plan 2.0?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: If we can go to Sheet 5.0, we
have the hatching for the permeable pavement shown, and actually I apologize, it’s from Lot 2, not Lot 3.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: I for sure will not pull up
the plans, because there are 45 different attachments, but

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
I’m trying to find a different attachment that might give us what we’re looking for.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Thank you.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Mr. Paulson, I have that
available and can share it.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And if you want to point,
you can remove the microphone, and it’s also easier
probably over there if you want to do it. No pressure, but if it’s easier for you to talk about it that way.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: I think the hatch is selfexplanatory. If we can just go to Sheet 5.0, it’s pretty obvious. There you go, that one. So, if we can zoom into the bottom left corner there of the site, you can see the different hatching for the roadway. That would be the
portion that is being proposed as pervious concrete or
pavement.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, and so then can you
talk about the decision and the management of the water in those two different areas?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Yes. Along the private drive
there is a high point at one point. I think it’s somewhere around Lot 4, there’s a high point there where north of Lot 4 everything drains to the cul de sac, and south of Lot 4 it drains down the hill. So, what we were trying to

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
establish within that bottom portion of the roadway is how can we present a stormwater solution that is considered self-treating where we didn’t have to propose bioretention areas or some other stormwater treatment measure that could be a little bit difficult to build just because of the lack of the storm drain infrastructure that’s located at the bottom of the hillside?
We felt that pervious pavement for that portion
of the road can be considered an acceptable way of
mitigating stormwater treatment, and everything beyond that point would be collected through traditional standard
inlets directed to an underground storm drain system to a bioretention area and treated as such.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: And then the part that runs
down from Lot 4, where is that water going? I think last time there was some confusion about which drain.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Yes, so Lot 4, Lot 5, Lot 8,
Lot 6, and Lot 7, all that is essentially…
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: The other direction.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Oh, the other direction?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, yes, the other
direction.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: There is a bioretention area
in front of Lot 1, if we can zoom in, just south of that.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
Yes, there you go. That bioretention area is capturing
basically the runoff that’s in front of Lot 4, Lot 11, and Lot 12, and we have an inlet that is capturing the water before it goes into the pervious pavement section, directs it into a bioretention area that’s placed on Lot 1.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, and then what about
Lot 2 and Lot 3, and is any water going into Ross Creek? RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Lot 2 and Lot 3, and the same
can be said for Lot 4, Lot 5, and Lot 6, they’re going to have their own treatment facility within their front yard, so all of the runoff from the proposed driveway paving, roof water, all that will be directed to their own facility onsite, and then from there it will be directed to an
underground storm drain system.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, and then for the
underground storm drain system, where does that go to?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: There are two systems; the
site is broken up into two systems. About maybe a fourth of the overall site will be draining to Ross Creek, which is essentially an underground storm drainpipe, and the rest, the other remaining portion of the site, will drain towards the northwest corner where there is another existing inlet that is connected to essentially the same system, Ross
Creek, just farther downstream.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: I think this might be a good
time to address the question that’s come up from a couple of the speakers, and that’s the apparent increase of
impervious that went from something along the lines of
63,000 feet up to 90,000, if I have that right. Maybe you guys can take some time to clarify why the change.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Yes, I can clarify that. It
was just misrepresented early on. I think the first two submittals showed somewhere around that 60,000 square feet that was mentioned. We caught it around the third
submittal, and then from the third submittal on it’s been represented around 90,000 square feet, so it was just a miscalculation on our end.

We did coordinate with the hydrology consultant,
which is making sure that we ensure that we’re not having any impacts to the existing site and downstream of the
site, so the hydrology report that we provided does take into account the 90,000 number that allegedly was
determined as increased.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: When was the third
submittal? Was the third submittal way back before we had a hearing in December?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: I’d have to go back. I think
it was sometime around maybe October of last year.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, so maybe can I pivot
over and ask the environmental team a question? We’ve had a few speakers imply not only that that change in impervious surface and that significant increase, which sounds like it’s something along the lines of 50%, could affect a whole bunch of other things, environmental review, beyond just simply runoff. Somebody even implied that that would have something to do with things that could affect air quality and balloon into other impacts, so maybe you guys could address that, if you don’t mind.

ANGELA DaROSA: Angela DaRosa with Raney Planning
& Management. Good to see you all. Thank you. As the
Applicant’s team has noted, there was an error in their calculations, and that was related to the C-3 calculations and the hydro modification modeling that was conducted. The Town Public Works and Engineering has reviewed those
documents and that modeling and has confirmed that it meets the appropriate requirements.

As far as the other issue areas, the analysis
already assumed the correct disturbance area. It wasn’t necessarily tied to the impervious surface area provided as part of that modeling. We analyzed the five point—sorry, I

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
can’t remember exactly what it is—the five-point-something acres of the project site that would be disturbed. That includes the air quality and greenhouse gas analysis.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: So, is it safe to assume
some of those other disciplines, air quality, traffic,
we’re not evaluating the project’s environmental impact based on the square footage, for example, of impervious surface, which includes homes and paved areas, but in fact a unit count basis, and that unit count didn’t change? I don’t mean to lead you too much, but that would be my
assumption.

ANGELA DaROSA: That’s exactly right, yes. Much
of the modeling was based on the number of units as well as the overall disturbance area of the site based on acreage.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I have question, just
for learning purposes. These ponds are in front of each home, like a basin to catch the water, the runoff, and then they all connect underneath? I mean, how far down is the connection? How far down is the main line that they all connect to that would lead you out the corner of, the very edge, of this development?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: The storm drain line is going
to be about 4’-5’ deep below this basin treatment facility that we have, and it’s just interconnected with the main trunk line that’s serving the entire development.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: When you call it a
treatment facility, what do you mean? There is probably gravel in there that…
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Yes, it functions two ways in
this case, because the site is subject to hydro
modification. So, we are developing the site; it’s
currently undeveloped, as we all know. When we develop
sites, it increases runoff. That’s the concern: how are we mitigating the extra runoff that we’re going to be
introducing to the site? Because we are subject to hydro modification, the purpose of hydro modification is
essentially just ensuring that the post-condition mimics as close as possible to the existing.

So, the treatment facility’s function is two
things: storm water quality, storm water treatment, and holding the water; and then metering and releasing it at a much slower rate to mimic the existing conditions, so that way we’re not impacting the existing storm drain system that’s downstream.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: How do you monitor? Is
there a mechanism?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: The metering of it?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, the metering of it.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Simplistically, one common
practice that we do is everything will drain into a box, and instead of having that box be a 12” storm drainpipe coming out, it might be a 4” hole instead, and that just allows the water to dissipate at a slower rate. So, that’s one way that we can meter how much water leaves that
facility, by restricting the size of the outlet structure.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: That’s very interesting.

Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Any further questions? Commissioner
Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: In the recent conversations
that have happened with some of the neighbors, there is mention of a culvert. What would be the purpose of the
culvert? Where would it exist? How would it function?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: I believe we’re talking about
along the western edge, correct?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: There are concerns of existing
flooding, 14 acres of runoff coming down the hill into

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
these adjacent property owners. I don’t believe there is a well-defined edge along that property line, and what we’re really trying to help is essentially creating a berm along that edge, and then an earth swale. I wouldn’t call it a culvert, I’d call it like an earth swale with a berm along the edge, and that’s just an added protection against the property owner, so that in the event that we do need a
channel water along that boundary, it’s at least contained and conveyed north where it’s supposed to go, as opposed to continuing to the west.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: So, it wouldn’t be just
like a concrete culvert?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: It can be. It can be.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But, I mean, ideally it
would be something that has some vegetation and like gravel and things to help with…
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: Maybe not vegetation. It can
be paved, it can be concrete, and it can be different
things that are open to discussion in terms of what we
think best fits those needs.

CHAIR BURCH: I’m going to ask a follow-up
question about that, because there actually was a little detail provided and there is a material for the erosion control. One of my experiences with the material like this

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
is that it can hold onto leaves or larger pieces of matter.

This may not necessarily be for you, so I’m going to ask about maintenance in a minute, but what I would like to understand is when you put together this detail, one, how deep would you propose this be to truly capture enough
water to make sure the water is diverted and not
overflowing, and two, in your opinion do you think the
EnkaMat is the best material for helping capture matter and move it down?
RAFAEL HERNANDEZ: There are different options.

In terms of the size, we’re not into that level of detail yet. I think this was really intended to be a placeholder, a picture of what the intent is. There are sizing
calculations that we can figure out to determine how much runoff is actually going to make it to the western
boundary, and then determine the width and the depth of the swale, whether it’s concrete or some other material. There are different options. There is going to be maintenance involved regardless of what material is chosen. But yes, those types of details we really haven’t gone into, but we will go into farther down the road.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Well, can I ask a follow-up
just to that to Mr. Foley? I’m going to assume, but I would rather just ask since this is running along the back of a

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
number of the lots, is it the individual homeowner’s
responsibility then to keep dense matter out of that to maintain water flow?
JIM FOLEY: Right, so something we were
discussing. I guess we want to be clear without putting together the HOA, because there are not common areas. There is still a maintenance association of owners, and those are the ones that are going to have the annual meetings and ensure that the maintenance comes in and files a reporting with the State, and all the requirements and things like that. So, as far as administering all of that, the
discussion on whether it’s pro rata per square footage of property or it’s on somebody’s property and nobody else’s, I think there are different categories of what the
maintenance is going to be. That’s all going to have to be administered by the maintenance association.

This was a suggestion, again, to help the
neighbors feel more comfortable, like have us put our best food forward, because they may not necessarily understand or believe in what the civil engineer has designed as far as the site drainage. This is not a required aspect,
correct? This is something additional that could be
anything, and whether it’s gravel or it’s concrete or we need it at all, we’re open to working with them on what’s

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
best for them before the new owner comes in and takes over, right?
CHAIR BURCH: Yeah, no.

JIM FOLEY: There have been a lot of comments and
an ongoing conversation with working with them on
screening. Is it that we can get to the point where they are educated enough that they believe the site is going to be better off post development, and like Rafael just
explained, handle the water more efficiently, that they’re not going to have that, and we’d rather do plantings and screening through there instead? I think that’s open for conversation.

But I think you rightly asked the priorities.

What is the priority? Is it screening or drainage? Because they both seem to be aligning in the same place, we can evaluate all of that, but I just wanted to be clear on that portion of it, that we believe the initial design for the water treatment and everything that’s been vetted by C3 consultants, checked by the Town, and everything else, it works, so this is additional, and maybe it’s causing more trouble than it’s worth.

CHAIR BURCH: No, I actually probably think it
would be helpful; I just wanted to understand it better. It was just a little bit of a different material than what

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
I’ve seen used in them, so I just wanted to understand
that.

All right; do we have other questions? I’ll go to
Commissioner Thomas, and then Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have a question for Staff
about that. If this is the plan that we are forwarding as a recommendation, but know that the Applicant and the
neighbors are open to alternatives, how does that affect the approval or a forwarded recommendation?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: If the Commission is interested
in adding a Condition of Approval, then that would need to be part of the recommendation.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: But isn’t this included in
our… Aren’t we forwarding this site plan?
ATTORNEY WHELAN: I don’t see that plan reflected
in the current Conditions of Approval that are before the Commission.

CHAIR BURCH: I’m going to clarify. I took all
kinds of information and made my own plan, so they would have to be in Conditions of Approval to capture all of it.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Sorry, what was that?
CHAIR BURCH: I took information from various
pieces of information they gave us, and put it all on one plan for my simplicity, so we would either need to include

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
specific documents from their packet, or we just write a Condition of Approval that the culvert as discussed, for example.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, yes, because this
design is included in…
CHAIR BURCH: In one of these (inaudible)…
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: …in their something that we
have… Okay.

CHAIR BURCH: …but not on a drawing. It’s
included in…
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: It’s included in just a
packet, okay. Thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: Yes. Commissioner Burnett, then
Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, just a question. Did
you ever consider not building house number five, because that seems to be where all the issues are? I mean, all the runoff of the homes behind it, that impacts everything, and you would look at… I mean, you have so many other acres there, you would think someone could have come up with a little bit better configuration. I know it’s after the fact and all.

JIM FOLEY: The project has a long history, and
there have been many plans, you’ve seen a lot of them, and

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
then each of the different iterations has different
impacts. There was one with a through-road, and then there were neighbors that were upset about the lights coming down the hill. So, it’s been an iterative process over time to arrive at this plan, which we think is the best version, and I know that that has different impacts on different neighbors that we’re trying to do the best that we can.

So, if we take that away, then where else does it
go, and then what does that cause? The cause and effect of the change. I wish I had the perfect one that satisfied everybody; that’s what we’re working to get to through the iterative process, and that’s just where we are now.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Okay. I just had to ask
the question. Thanks.

CHAIR BURCH: Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: You mentioned a maintenance
association, and I guess a simple question is, is that a Condition of Approval somewhere? There are so many
conditions, I haven’t found it.

ATTORNEY WHELAN: I did not see it in my review
of the Conditions of Approval, but I’ll also defer to Parks and Public Works.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: And I think it’s possible as
well that it would be something that would be included in

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
the CC&Rs, but we’d be looking for confirmation of that. If you want something more explicit, that can be part of the direction to the Council.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just a question for the
Applicant, because a few moments ago, a few steps back, we were talking about certainly the affordables and how some of these maintenance obligations might fall pretty heavy on them, and I’m still not quite sure I understand the
logistics.

I think what’s happening here is the property
lines are going to the center of the street in sort of a pie-shaped wedge. As you work your way up the street, the different lots have their obligation to maintain their
piece. I think it comes back to the most traveled piece over the long-term, and we’re talking many years from now, would suffer more wear and tear, and that might land more heavy on somebody who is at the entrance of the
subdivision, so it might be smart to come up with a
maintenance association and then define the scope of the shared maintenance. It would seem to be that the road would fall squarely into that, and I suppose what could happen is it could be divided up on a proportionate basis in some way, shape, or form so that it doesn’t fall particularly heavy on one lot owner.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
And then it does beg the question of some of the
anxiety that the community has about the drainage
facilities that are on the private lots, and the
accountability, and the ability to fall back on a budget or an account to have those taken care of if somebody is
remiss or if for some reason somebody doesn’t pay. It just seems like that would be a logical thing to do. I guess my question is would you be open to that as a condition?
JIM FOLEY: Yes, I think that’s kind of where I
hear some of you headed, and that is whether it just
accompanies the recommendation to say this condition needs to be clarified a little bit more, make sure it’s in there.

The draft of the CC&Rs and all these documents, which are boilerplates and templates across other developments and all that, we tailored those to Surrey Farms Estates, has gone into Parks and Public Works and been reviewed up to this point where it has become a part of it, and then the conditions are those documents are in there and done, how they’re managed.

So, without flipping through the pages and
figuring that out, I think your direction is the right one, which is to say if there is a concern, just recommend that that goes in there, that’s a change that gets made prior to the approval or prior to the issuance of the Building

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
Permit or whatever the condition you’re going to put on there is. Again, without page flipping on the exact
logistics as to how it’s laid out, I think it’s more
conceptual at this point as to what you want to see happen from a fairness standpoint, or the extent it’s a belowmarket owner, I don't know.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, I think before we
conclude, we’ll tighten up that as a recommended condition.

CHAIR BURCH: Any other questions to the
Applicant? Commissioner Thomas.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: My questions are about the
plantings. I do have some questions about some of the soil saturation and everything, and some of the choices of
landscaping near the current wetland area, because the
intent of them is to be screening trees, so I guess is the landscape architect available to answer questions? They’re on Zoom?
JIM FOLEY: Yes, Shawn Taylor.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: My question is that I think
there are Blue Oaks and Coast Live Oaks that are planned for that northwest corner of the property to be planted as landscape trees. What is the potential for those species to struggle in that location if that soil is wet a lot of the year?

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
SHAWN TAYLOR: Good evening, everyone. Thanks for
having me. Shawn Taylor from HMH Landscape; I’m the
landscape architect on the project.

Any time we have plantings near any of the
waterways, water areas, on the site, the riparian areas, we are hydroseeding with a native slope stabilizing hydroseed.

I should say, first of all, that we’re staying off and away per the setback, which looks like over 12’ away. Then we go into a native hydroseed to stabilize slopes, and then we go into a shrub planting of mostly native, so Ceonothus,
Toyon, Coffeeberry, and Manzanita, before we get into tree planting. And yes, there are quite a few native species of trees in our plant palette, and some that are nonnative, so adaptive species.

I don’t think we have wet soils where we’re
proposing oak trees, but if that is the case when we’re out there, we can adjust that to a different species on our plant palette. But an oak tree, of course, would not
survive with wet feet.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: This is one of the
questions I wanted to ask and talk about with the
environmental consultants, but there are some oak trees in that… Sorry, I’m just trying slide over and zoom out, I think to confirm some oak trees in that corner that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
potentially could have a substantial amount of wet soil, I think, in what is typically the dry season. So, which
option from the list that you have do you feel would be best to switch out?
SHAWN TAYLOR: Are you talking strictly our
proposed trees, nothing existing?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

SHAWN TAYLOR: I think the first swap we would
make if we’re finding out we’re too close to the water and we have that sort of condition could be our Platanus
Acerifolia Columbia. Typically, its native habitat would be near waterways and river edges. It’s the first go-to I
would pull from our plant palette for that swap.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, perfect. Thank you
for answering that. I mean, there is technically an
existing wetland in that very corner. How close to an
ephemeral wetland at the very bottom, noting that this is where the water goes basically on this hillside? How close to that would you feel comfortable planting an oak?
SHAWN TAYLOR: Honestly, just scaling off our
plans right now as our latest update for that corner, I’m trying to keep the majority of our trees out of Zone 3
related to CAL FIRE, Urban Wildfire Interface, so we’re balancing a lot of different areas for the best locations.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
Right now, it looks like we’re well over 30’ from where that typical water edge was demarcated, and then again, I do have other shrubs and hydroseed and all that leading up into that area as well, so short answer, roughly 30-some feet.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I’m sorry, you’re saying
30’ feet from which water feature?
SHAWN TAYLOR: I thought we were talking about
the one in the northwest corner of the site.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes.

SHAWN TAYLOR: So, the back end of Lots 6 and 5?
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Yes, the back corner of Lot
6 and Lot 5. Okay, thank you.

SHAWN TAYLOR: My pleasure.

CHAIR BURCH: Do we have any further questions
for the Applicant? Commissioner Burnett.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Another question here. Do
you have a plan to obtain written confirmation from the Water Board and the CDFW regarding the jurisdictional
status of the ephemeral creek on the project site, a step that the Water Board has been requesting?
JIM FOLEY: We’ve had engagement with them and
provided them information. I think that engagement through their questions and establishing that has largely gone

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
through Raney and Live Oak Associates, if they want to
speak to any of that. I mean, we have to get their permit, along with the other agencies, before surveying anything out there, so they have a permit process that we have to adhere to.

But as far as taking jurisdiction over the swale,
or whatever it was, I know there’s been a lot of
conversation about that, but I don’t think I’m the right one to answer.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes, I think that’s one of
the biggest issues, actually.

RICK HOPKINS: (Inaudible)?
COMMISSIONER BURNETT: Yes.

RICK HOPKINS: Yes, there is some
misunderstanding about how the agencies interact in this process. Some of it may be historic time. Back in the
1990s, the courts ruled that to get a streambed alteration agreement was an action under CEQA, and so at that time in the late-1990s they required that all projects, in order to get a streambed alteration agreement, and/or the Regional Board, it’s a project and it requires that CEQA be approved prior to them ever engaging and preparing a permit, so
there is a misunderstanding about the timing.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
You do not go to the Regional Board for a permit
until you have an NOD. You have to provide in your
application evidence of the environmental filing fee and the NOD. If you look at the application, it says, “What form of CEQA have you done? CatEx, MND, EIR.” So, it’s very explicit that they won’t even talk to you for a permit
until you have that in place.

What they do as a responding agency, they can and
do respond to MNDs and CEQA requests. Corps rarely does.

CFW about 50% of the time. Regional Board a little more than the other two agencies. CFW did not respond to this EIR; the Regional Board did. So, what we’ve done is we’ve built mitigations based on experience and what’s typically done for an ephemeral stream, and there is also some
misunderstanding that it’s an ephemeral stream.

This ephemeral stream was identified back in
2010-2012, and in 2016 the Corps came out and verified the delineation for the whole site, and at that time they
disclaimed the ephemeral stream and they claimed the little section of Ross Creek and the wetland in the northwest
corner. That was what was under the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction at that time. In fact, they don’t take
jurisdiction of ephemeral streams, because it’s not
connected to a navigable water.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
So, what is misunderstood is that in the ten
years since they verified the delineation, some incised sections creeped down the hill. Some water flowed down the hill and created some incised sections, so that is a 57’ gap from where the Corps ended their jurisdiction to a 24’ incised section, and then there is 21’ or so to a 10’
section.

So, over ten years, what happens with ephemeral
streams, if we rank streams from water, if you will, an ephemeral stream is the lowest. It doesn’t support any
wetland vegetation or riparian vegetation. In other words, riparian is water loving plants. Hydrophytes are plants that evolve in wetland systems.

You asked a great question. Are upland trees
going to be too close to a wetland? That’s a very good
question, because you don’t want them too close. Thirty feet is probably a good distance, because even though the roots will get there, they do like water, but they don’t like their feet wet all the time.

So, what you have is this stream. It’s basically
the whole thing, that water follows the path of least
resistance. Ephemeral streams have water in them during and shortly after rainfall events, and then they’re dry, so they’re dry much of the year. It’s not the appropriate

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
conditions to create seasonal wetlands, freshwater
wetlands, or riparian habitat, because there’s not enough water to support that kind of vegetation. The vegetation that is in that ephemeral stream is the exact vegetation that is on the hillside; it’s upland.

So, what happened over time, as water does, it
will erode further sections, and it did; over a ten-year period of time, it eroded some sections. Not much, very small when you consider that it only grew about 16%, so I think those are the things. I don't know if I’ve answered your question.

COMMISSIONER BURNETT: I think you have, and
actually, it’s probably why the Town at that time actually suggested to have a full EIR report on that whole area at that time.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I have some follow-up
questions about the ephemeral stream. I’m happy to ask them now, or wait until we close public comment and get to our discussion.

DIRECTOR PAULSON: Yes, get through all the
comments with the Applicant.

CHAIR BURCH: Yes, these are not to the
Applicant.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
COMMISSIONER THOMAS: We can always reopen if
it’s a specific change or ask or question that needs to be clarified.

CHAIR BURCH: Okay. Are there further questions
of the Applicant? I had one. I was just going back through my notes in December, and there was one thing that I
remember came up about Lot 8’s proximity to the ephemeral stream, and for some reason, the way this drawing is, there is like a protection distance around it, but only in some areas, and one of the notes that we had noted is that it appears at the corner and Lot 8 actually impedes on that.

We don’t have updated drawings, but in the conversation we had, it was yes we will shift Lot 8, I think it’s like 10’ over, but to ensure that Lot 8 does not impede in that. Was that done?
JIM FOLEY: My understanding of that was that in
that section where it’s there, the buffer disappears
because there is a break in the ephemeral swale. That’s what I thought the interpretation was. Then we went out and we staked it, so everybody could go look at it, and that was kind of our result.

CHAIR BURCH: I guess I thought that that changed
based on what has recently been discovered with the stream, and so I can ask the consultants later.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
JIM FOLEY: That’s a different area.

CHAIR BURCH: I’ll ask. Are there any other
questions for the Applicant? (Inaudible)was this.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: I guess the only question
was the buffer changed in other spaces from 10’ to 15’, so is that impacting any of the lots or developments in a way? JIM FOLEY: I haven’t seen that conflict on the
plans.

CHAIR BURCH: I think we’ll have to ask.

COMMISSIONER THOMAS: Okay, thank you.

CHAIR BURCH: If there are no further questions
of the Applicant at this time, I’m going to close the
public portion of this item. I’m also going to say we’re going to take a quick break, because I think the next round is probably going to go on for a little bit, so we’re going to take a 10 to 15-minute break.
(INTERMISSION)
CHAIR BURCH: All right, I will now reopen the
Planning Commission meeting and invite my fellow
commissioners to ask any questions of Staff or our
consultants. Commissioner Sordi.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Thank you. I did want to
take some time to ask some questions about biology; I know we’ve touched on it a little bit. Would it be possible to

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
put up page 80 in the packet; it’s called Revised Figure 1 of the Onsite Ephemeral Stream. Can you guys find that? SEAN MULLIN: Give me one second and I’ll put it.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Yes, I think that’s it. No,
it’s not. And then I guess maybe we can try to zoom into that northern 121’ section. Perfect. Thank you so much.

I guess this is probably what we could
characterize as a big change that happened last time. I think the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, and then the associated Buy Report, certainly didn’t show this. I think what maybe you guys found when you did your field visit in February was much wetter conditions, and maybe it kind of highlighted this a little bit better.

But the thing that I wanted to just focus on, and
we talked about a little bit already, it appears to me what we’re looking at is an intermittent stream that flows
underneath Lot 5, is that correct?
RICK HOPKINS: I’m sorry, can you say that again,
please?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: If I look at the legend
right, I think that the darker blue was heavier flow, and then the light blue was intermittent flow, and maybe I
don’t have that quite right, but I guess my question is are we really just… I don’t think that we saw this last time,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
and what we’re seeing here, is an intermittent stream that flows under Lot 5 and also crosses the road.

RICK HOPKINS: Yes, I think the terminology is
incorrect. It’s an ephemeral stream in that it carries
water infrequently, and once it quits raining for a few days there is no longer water. Intermittent streams carry water for much of the year, and dry up in the dryer
portions of the year, such as Ross Creek. That’s an
intermittent stream.

So, ephemeral is something that carries water,
because water flows and it finds the path of least
resistance, which are these swales, and these kinds of
incisions that occur are not atypical of ephemeral streams.

In fact, we’ve worked on ephemeral streams that are much wider and deeper than this, but they still only carry
water. In other words, intermittent means several months a year it has water.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, so an ephemeral stream
still carries water during heavy flow.

RICK HOPKINS: Correct.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: It was certainly confirmed
by my second field visit when I went out there, and I
actually went out there right around the December timeframe after a particularly heavy storm. I walked all over that

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
area and I would barely get around that area without my foot sinking all the way down to the knee almost, and it wasn’t just in a channel, it was like spread all over.

One of my colleagues was using the term
“wetland,” and I just wanted to zero in on this a little bit more, and I wanted to focus on two things. I hopefully don’t have this wrong, but you have an ephemeral stream, and it appears as though that could be what we consider to be Waters Of The State that fall into the regional ward jurisdiction, right?
RICK HOPKINS: Correct.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: And that’s how we know
effectively that we’ve got something that is a potentially significant impact if not mitigated to reduce it to a level of insignificance; we have obviously an issue on the site.

I’ve been through this before, so I’ll just
disclose that, as a consultant to a builder/developer, and it was about six years ago. I did go through the Regional Board and get a Section 401, so I remember there being some sort of delineation process associated with that, and I guess my question is, what I’m getting at here is given the fact that this area gets so inundated, my understanding is it is not impossible for an area like this to still have wetland characteristics and support wetland vegetation. I

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
think the area that we’ve acknowledged in the IS/MND that needs to be mitigated is certainly the stream area, the very focused area, but is it possible after further study that we would be talking about isolated wetlands that would fan out and cover a bigger area?
RICK HOPKINS: The first thing is this is not a
wetland. A wetland is defined by hydrophytic soils,
hydrophytes and hydrology. This does not have hydrophytic soils or hydrology. I mean, it has hydrology, but it
doesn’t have hydrophytic soils or hydrophytes, so it’s
lacking two of the three criteria that classify it as a wetland.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Did you use grab samples?
RICK HOPKINS: It is an ephemeral stream, which
we see these fairly common in California.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Can I ask a follow-up
question? In the course of the project I worked on we
certainly had to make an application to fill a very small area of wetland, and in the course of doing that
application with the Regional Board they actually went out and assigned Staff to take grab samples. They actually went out with like a digger and they pulled grab samples in
order to take them back to a lab and test them themselves,

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
and so I’m under the impression that even if you have an area that is…
RICK HOPKINS: I’m sorry, they pulled what?
COMMISSIONER SORDI: Grab samples of soil below
the surface. I guess what I’m getting at is my
understanding is that even if something dries out, it can stay moist enough during enough time over the course of the year that it can support wetland vegetation, and I guess that’s my question: Is it possible that this area could grow? Part of the reason I ask that is I’m wondering
whether it’s possible we lose a lot on this project and it just changes the project.

RICK HOPKINS: No, it can’t. In ten years, it’s
grown, as I said, 24’ of incisions, which are a few inches wide, in one case 14’ wide, 10’ long, and that’s ten years of time it took to do that.

Again, we dug a pit. You don’t send soil samples
in anywhere. You dig a pit, you have a color chart, and you look to see if there are redocks there. In other words, soils form conditions that have been wet and moist for long periods of time, and you can see that. As I said, you dig this pit, which we did, and you determine that these are not hydric soils.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
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
In fact, the Regional Board lacks the capacity to
do delineations. They rely on the Corps’ delineations; the Corps comes out and verifies. So, even when we know we
don’t have the Corps taking jurisdiction, we’ll submit the jurisdictional delineation to the Corps, because they
officially designate… They’ll look at it and say, “It’s an ephemeral stream, it not a Water of the U.S.” Then the
Regional Board now has a delineation which delineates that.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Okay, I just have a followup. So, you said that you dug a pit and you evaluated the soils on this site on one occasion, more than one occasion? When did this happen?
RICK HOPKINS: Pardon me? I didn’t hear; I’m
sorry.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Just to clarify my question,
and I wasn’t aware of this because I don’t think there is evidence of it in your report, but I could have missed it, you actually dug a pit on this site and evaluated the soils for these characteristics that support wetland?
RICK HOPKINS: Correct. As part of the
delineation that Jeff Gurule and our staff did in February; as he always does, he digs a pit, looks at the soils. There wasn’t a single hydrophyte anywhere in the channel; he
looked at that.

ITEM NO. 1.

LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION 6/11/2026
Item #1, 178 Twin Oaks Drive
88 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: Can I ask you if, just
politely asking, if this is the case, how come there is no survey, or there is no evidence of this in the report? We have this broad-brush overview biological report from Live Oak that really seems to be flying at a pretty high level, and I don’t see any lab reports, I don’t see testing, I don’t see anything like that.

RICK HOPKINS: The map you’re looking at is from
our February survey. In fact, we marked it, flagged it; HMH surveyed that end, so that’s a surveyed end. Every segment Jeff marked. We then went out, I don't know, a month later with the Town Staff and we relooked at everything. The
Applicant was with us, the Town was with us, and we
relooked at everything at that point.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: But you’re talking about the
flow of the stream.

RICK HOPKINS: Yes, everything you see here was
flagged and surveyed by HMH.

COMMISSIONER SORDI: Right, but where are the
results of the soil test? And maybe it’s unconventional, but I’m just used to like, say, for example, the
geotechnical engineer, you get a big log in the back that’s an appendix that goes into detail about all their borings, right?